1 I'm wondering who, if anyone, has a problem with a radiation search. There's no reasonable excuse to keep a box full of it in your closet or the in your trunk of your car. That AP article is total bullshit.

2 Bluto, For the last month you are seeing more and more straw grasping. I just think a big, "So what? And the problem with this is..." Agenda is right. And they wonder why their circulation and credibility is falling so low. Merry Christmas BTW.

3 Agent Smith says, Gogglebox do-goodies telling everyone that radiation is bad for them.. pernicious nonsense! Everyone should get 100 Chest X-rays a year, and they ought to have'em too! Agent Brown says to disregard Agent Smith in his "Chernobyl Moment."

4 Actually, there is legal precedent for the position of requiring a warrant for such 'searches.' Specifically, the courts have held that a warrant was required for using heat detectors to locate homes with large grow-light marijuana 'farms' inside them, and the narcotics officers were on public property monitoring what could be 'seen' from there - infrared rays. But since they can't really be 'seen' (at least by humans) the homeowners had a reasonable expectation of privacy, so a warrant was needed. Whether the same 'logic' applies to the radiation detectors will hinge on what technology was being used and the wave/particle duality of matter - was it detecting particles in the public space or waves emanating from the private space.

5 Glenmore . ..Are you saying that homeowners/mosques have a reasonable expectation of privacy to possess nuclear material that may produce emanating waves so long as the evidence is eminating soley from their private space? What God forsaken planet are you from?

6 Hey Glenmore, Cannabis Sativa can't be used for mass murder, it's a whole different animal than freaking nuclear material. Are you stupid, or a democrat, or something?

7 IM, Stupid and Democrat-aren't these terms synonomous?

8 This particular aspect was not really that secret if you knew the types of equipment used, how it used, and patterns of search. It was actually a kinda open un-spoken secret. The media is not stupid - they knew the generalities for several years. This is just an attempt at BDS piling on in light of the "so-called" NSA bruhaha. The media just feels comfortable at the moment to hype this. The air-recon aspect was scaled back significantly nearly 2 yrs ago. Ground units - I don't know - fixed stations took a couple of years to implement and coordinate. I was involved in this in an extremely minor associated way in late '01 early '02. It was actually a lil' amusing - early generation rushed equipment in the hands of untrained NYPD and Mil personnel. A shitload of false positives in the beginning. The initial equipment was both too generalized and too sensitive. We made a lot of hospital personnel & X-Ray techicians on their way home late for supper. This is a non-issue like the NSA thing. For it to work the Media and BDS affictees must totally dis-associate these actions from 9/11 and the war against AQ - its not per se tied in with IRAQ!!! Can't be done - this ain't going nowhere.

9 Oh - Merry Christmas to all

10 Lincoln said it best: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

11 The scope of warrantless searches is something that has always fascinated me. For the record, the case that Glenmore mentioned was written by (drumroll please)... Scalia. And, yes, he was right on that decision. As far as it's applicability to this, well, that's tough to say. There are a lot of similarities but given the nature of the items being searched for, it could be decided the other way. The loophole, of course, is that the government is free to conduct these searches (as the Court has deemed them to be), it simply can't use the evidence that they gather at bar; and it is subject to civil liability. The question that should (and in, my opinion, must be) answered is whether the agents have some reason to be doing this. If they do have a reason, one must ask why they aren't bothered to get warrants. Probably just my general distrust of government working here. And Merry Christmas and Happy New Year all.

12 The case that Glenmore brings up involves criminality not war. Holding nuclear material to fuel a bomb (dirty or otherwise) is not crimanality but an act of war. Last I recall the Federal government had a lot more leeway when it comes to acts of war than it does with growing ganja. Also, Glenmore I can not possibly believe the constitutionality of the program hinges on if its workings were based on particle or waves. Merry Christmas to all!

13 KG, The reason might have something to do with all the radical Muslims in the DC area. Over 80% of mosques were found to have hate literature in them, and probably many more have taught the ism of jihad. The MSM refuses to confront the Muslim leaders on this issue, so one would assume that they are sympathetic to the Islamist cause. Perhaps it is the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but this tactic has not worked well in past years(re: the Afghan War between Islam and the Russians) for the US or its perfunctionary allies in Europe. I predict the media will have to pay a big price for attempting to undermine our troops and aligning themselves with radical Islam. And so will the liberals and Democrats who seek to topple a President and cause the US to lose a war. We will not forgive and forget what the media has done this time. There is a tally sheet all over the internet for everyone to see.

14 Make it simple - those who disagree - what would you have done? Who would you have done it to? All this in the aftermath of 9/11 - kinda funny actually. Of all the reasons why 3000 people died on 9/11 given, this one I find left unsaid ... 3000 people died because the perpetrators didn't have access at the time to a nuclear device or similar WMD - otherwise it would have been 300000 - and I would have been one of them. And that 300000 figure is minimum - GARANTEED - they (AQ)wouldn't think twice about it!

15 Now, now, hondo. It's much better for 300,000 to die than for a single Islamist terrorist to suffer the potential to have a purported civil right violated. Besides, if 300,000 had died on 9/11 Bushitlerburton probably would have been impeached. Damn their eyes, those 297,000 had a duty to die to rid of us of the evil RepubliNazis.

16 Without names and faces your probably right - as long as its abstract (like their arguments and anger). I just find it a bit annoying on a personal level since - there by the grace of God (& AQ's lack of the proper tools) I, and a good portion of my family and friends, would have been well inside the potential blast radius.

17 Agent Brown enjoys warrantless searches for any sign that any of you are waking up from your slumber. Once Agent Smith tapped the thoughtstream from your Human Leader. It was a cowboy motif with him cast as some ranch worker in Mid-20th Century Wyoming. The grotesqueries he viewed nearly caused a program crash and podburst.

18 Justamom and Improbulus: I am not defending the Islamofacists, but merely pointing out the arguments their allies in the NY Times and some US courts may use. Know your enemies, and anticipate their actions.

19 Kamsa hamnida, Agent Smith.

20 joe, dispite my inherent distrust of government, I assumed that there was a legit reason for them to conduct the searches. Thanks for the pointer. Marcus, you raise an interesting point. I don't know the area as well as I'd like to, but my understanding is that under International Law (yeah, a nasty word in conservative circles, I know), non-state actors can't be parties to a war. I could be wrong on this point, and if anyone knows the answer, feel free to correct me. But if that's the case, then there is a question as to whether this can be treated as an act of war. That's the technical point. On a practical level, I think most would agree that this is at least the equivalent to a state of war. But as Prof Bainbridge pointed out the other day, there is a question as to what the definition of normalcy is now. My point is simply this, though, if there was sufficient evidence to suspect something at one of these locations, they should have been able to get a warrant. My concern is abuse of power - today it's someone else, tomorrow it's you, the day after that it's me. hondo, I don't disagree with you, in principle. But the question is, are we willing to sacrafice the rule of law to win the war on terror? And immediately following 9/11, this does not seem extraordinary. But at this stage of the game, it's a tougher question, for me at least. But you're right, this is most likely a non-story and at some point, joe is right, all the crap that the MSM and the Democrats have been slinging is going to come back at them.

21 Agent Smith says Karma Chameleon.

22 KG said: "Probably just my general distrust of government working here." So you're willing to let your distrust of government, which is normally a healthy attitude, overrule any efforts at preventing a possible nuclear attack on America? Look, I hate the government with every fibre of my being, because in its current form, it is probably more corrupt and incompetent than every before, and I would love to see just about every sonofabitch in it taken out and hanged for treason or shot for dereliction, but unfortunately, we don't have that convenience at this time, so we must allow our collection of civil service morons and FBI and CIA idiot lifers, as well as the military, (who are most definitely not included with the rest of the government as far as my sentiments are concerned, and who are the finest men and women our country produces), to attempt to do their jobs, no matter how badly they don't want to. After islam has been put down, then we can turn to the traitors in our midst and purge them from the body of the nation like the cancer they are.

23 KG You argue in the abstract - which is fine in moot and criminal situations. But this is real - not moot or a criminal investigation. Reference non-state actors - International Law is constantly evolving and adjusting to changing organizational realities. The Idea of nation states themselves is realtively new going back simply a matter of centuries. I believe (but don't have the info in front of me) the non-state actor aspect origninated during the European colonization period as a tool to de-legitimize indigenous opposition - and reduce conflicts (in the eyes of their domestic populations) to civil actions - which in turn evolved into the term - police actions. Your technically right - but it will continue to evolve - the debate between nations (plural) motivated by their own interests and relationships between each other rather than on the non-state actor. Reference sufficent evidence for a warrant - to you this is a criminal proceeding - much closer associated with a gas station robbery than an actual war scenario. That is a big mistake with incredbile disasterous consequences - its not moot - you know what i'm talking about. By purely legal definition in a criminal proceeding - there IS NO significant evidence (agreed). But this is not a mundane vague fishing expedition. It was very very specific - and for what you know. An abstract hypothetical - a bomb threat (nuclear) in the city of NY - location not specified (that would be point of detonation - with a nuke it doesn't matter) - how would you conduct the search? Would every structure require a warrant prior - can you get a blanket warrant for the city - positive readings would require detail follow-up - there are no Tricorders - you can not pinpoint to a ten digit grid coordinate (trust me on this one) - and if people refused to comply or delay (just on principle - I know some who would do just that) - what? I can go on ... Point left out of discussion is the obvious but unspoken problem summed up as - use it or lose it. Does it really matter to a suicide bomber(s) - they are the trigger/detonator - where exactly point of detonation occurs? When I did the security detail in NY after 9/11, my boys were all fired up that they just might intercept a car or truck bomb - and enthusiastic about "doing their job - protecting people". I was quietly terrified that that might possibly happen. I knew if we did - we would be the point of detonation. On the rare occasion of a truly suspicious stop - I let the guys do the search while I got as close to the driver as possible (stayin' friendly - talking - smiling) - at an angle - with only one hand showing - the other on my pistol - out of sight. I knew if anything actually happened - I would have less than a second to put a bullet in his head - and pray he was the detonator - or worse - just some nervous guy and I fucked up. KG - it isn't moot and it isn't abstract.

24 sorry - left out not ... as in .... not just some nervous guy and I fucked up. Fuck ups happen (like shit). Its nice to be able to sit back in comfort and judge others fuck ups - not nice being there.

25 hondo: you're absolutely right - it makes a big difference when you've been in situations where the threat is personal and immediate rather than hypothetical. I once spent an hour and a half clearing some special bulletin/watch list baggage. I kept wondering if I'd have time to perceive the flash.

26 Ok, the question that no one seems to be answering, is why couldn't the government agents take the twenty minutes necessary to get the warrants? That's not preventing "any efforts" to stop an attack. It's one extra step. Trust me, the DA and police officers know which judges to go to in order to get warrants. hondo, your hypothetical, where there is a legit n-bomb threat is one where I'd have no problem with warrantless searches. Nor would the bulk of case law. But random searches like this, at this point in time, smells of a fishing expidition. My concern about warrants also goes to what happens after an attack has been stopped. Let's assume that the perpetraters survived. How do we prosecute if the evidence is excluded at trial, be it a civilian or military court? The bastards walking because of a failure to get a warrant is a legit scenario. I fully understand that it's not a moot question. If it was a moot question, there would be nothing to argue about. And as far as when the threat is personal, I don't fault the individuals on the ground for acting in a way that they see as necessary to protect themselves and others - even the courts have made exceptions for officers acting in good faith. What I am worried about is the policy set from above because, as I said, today it's a bad guy, tomorrow it's you, the day after it's me. And car searches, especially where there is a checkpoint (which it sounds like that's what you were involved with), are treated very different from homes, offices, and places of worship - law enforcement (for a variety of reasons) have a lot more leeway in those searches. Oh, and as far as international law goes, yes, it's evolving - just as every area of the law is - but we have to deal with it as it exists today. I'm actually surprised that there hasn't been a movement by any of the western states (whether in good faith or not [looking at France]) to get a new multi-lateral treaty regarding terrorism and piracy in the modern world. I don't think there's that much of a disagreement between us on this. I'm not saying that the searches should stop, wholesale. I simply believe that, in most circumstances (always allowing an exception for the most extraordinary of cases), the government would be better serving the American people by getting warrants. Reasonable minds can still disagree on that point, yes?

27 KG - (BTW - remember what this issue was about?) ... always allowing an exception for the most extraodinary cases. After that line, I realized this argument was pointless. You clearly do not consider the potential for a nuclear device or dirty bomb variant smuggled into a high density American urban population center to reach that threshold of "extraodinary". You think its not "plausible? Can't imagine anyone wanting and willing to try? ... OK I can only hope that if (God forbid) it does happen - you are Ground Zero - I've already been there. PS - It's not actually fishing expedition - its more like a trawling operation (ha = same thing) Oh - I gave you the answer in 5 simple words (USE IT OR LOSE IT) - it is a real term - it is actually used (the primary rationale for all this actually). your too smart not to understand what it means ... you just have different priorites.

28 here's the distinction, hondo - where there is credible intel or evidence of a n-bomb threat, then I say go for it. But if there is none, and the government is conducting searches for no rational reason, then I say it is wrong. That's where I draw the line. Despite my inherent distrust of government that I mentioned earlier, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to law enforcement on this one. And I never suggested that it's not plausible or that there wasn't anyone out there willing to do this. I am by no means that niave. Go check my blog archieves, I've talked a great deal about killing these bastards before they kill us.

29 KG So, was it - is it .. credible? This "issue" is real, specific, and ongoing - why the abstract arguments? Nor is this a true and exclusive Law Enforcement issue ... Being hypothetically absurb - if an asteriod was about to impact upon your town - would you 1) dial 911 & 2) attempt to get a Restrainting or Cease And Disiss Order from the courts.

30 Honestly, hondo, I don't know if it was credible, but I'm willing to assume that it was, which is why I'm also willing to give the gov a pass. But whether it is credible or not depends entirely on the facts of the particular case, that is why I'm taking it up to what you call the abstract level. Just saying that there was (or is, or might be) this program doesn't do much. Perhaps it's the lawyer in me, but I need more facts - when we are talking about an abstract program, all my training sends me to arguing in the abstract. Which, by the way, is where the story was. As far as it being not entirely a law enforcement issue, I agree, the problem is that despite all the talk, the government still treats it like a law enforcement action (they're using the FBI instead of the military). That's the tricky part about the whole war on terror - government officials keep saying that it's not a law enforcement activity, yet they keep send law enforcement agencies to do law enforcement activities and call it part of the war on terror. And to answer your hypothetical, the answer is to get the hell out of town and take as many people with me as I could. But that is an act of God rather than an act of man. Again, I'm thinking that there really isn't that much difference in our positions. My chief concern is that it's difficult to take power away from government once it has assumed the power, even in dire times (see for example, the New Deal). I simply want to make sure we recognize as many of the pitfalls as possible when we give the government powers that they didn't necessarily have before.

31 Same here - classic example Rico Act. But your abstract arguments ... just tooooo much! "Angels dancing on the head of a pin"! .. and with each new line - you add more angels! I have to stay focused on whats real and tangible - my and mine's ultimate civil liberty is at stake - life.

32 When a man takes a swing at me I put him down. I don't call a lawyer to get a restraining order.

33 I live near a nuclear plant, and there's a sniffing monitor in my yard. It sets off an alarm if it detects the slightest bit of radiation. Should I report this violation of my rights to the NYT so they can reinforce USNews' story? Why are reporters so stupid and lazy? Just asking.

34 Two points: 1. Do we want these laws in place if and when someone like Hillary wins the presidency ? This is a good argument for a permanent renewal cycle on the Patriot Act. 2. Next to Canada, New York was the most deserving North Americna target for the 9/11 attack. New York trains , feeds, promotes and shelters a very large number agents and groups trying to undermine the US anti Islamic war. The New York based MSM, ACLU, Columbia university, Gay Barney, Shimmy Shummer and Mayor Bloomberg are but a few examples among 1000's.

35 The distinction is clear. At war or not. These terrorists attacks are clearly an act of war. Monitoring, walking, listening, smelling, detecting, or even using glasses (or a telescope) from public property are ways to get probable cause of a crime. This destinction is only applicable to lawyers during a pre-trial hearing. Those involved with leaking Top Secret information to the public, and tipping off our enemies should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and shamed by the public.

36 Lost in the shouting: No invasion of privacy actually occurred. A radiation detector is good for only one thing, detecting radiation. It is blind to all else. Ergo, if the FBI or DOE aimed one at your house every hour of every day for a month, unless you actually had a radiation source, they would see nothing more than if they had aimed a toaster, umbrella, or tennis shoe at your house. It is physically impossible for a radiation detector to be an intrusion, unless you are actually emitting radiation. This is absolutely different from using a listening device, camera, or even a dog that would detect a wide variety of things, mostly innocent, a handful serious.

37 Point 1: We're looking at distinctions between reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Thereby lurks the issue of bypassing the FISA Court, IF that law applies. Point 2: The KYLO Decision (marijuana grow in Oregon) dealt with infra-red picking up emanations of heat that in some cases, actually showed the general outline of what was "lit up" on the inside of a house. Radiations detectors do no such thing. Point 3: In view of the last sentence in Point 2, there is no expectation of privacy from the equipment being used by agents who are any place that is open to the public. Ergo, no violation of anyone's rights and another MSM/Dem attempt to embarrass Bush for political gain in spite of creating more threats to our National Security in the process.