Today's selection comes from the US Constitution.  Specifically the 4th Amendment: 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

When it was first revealed in 2005 that the Bush Administration was listening to American citizen's phone calls without a warrant I was outraged.  The reason the 4th Amendment was written was because the Founding Fathers witnessed first hand the abuse of authority when it came to warrantless British government action in the colonies.  It was indiscriminate and it was wide spread.  The British rarely gave justifications as to why they were ransacking your house, and the times they did those reasons would be legally flimsy at best. 

The thing that is most maddening to me about this whole situation is how the US government handles these types of situations.  If they believe that someone is committing an illegal offense, whether it be terrorism or shoplifting, go to a judge and get a warrant.  All of these problems would immediately go away.  Instead they focus all their time coming up with elaborate justifications after the fact as to why they were acting without a warrant.  Of course getting a warrant requires probable cause, something the government apparently has trouble getting.  I have not heard of one prosecution based on any information they received while wiretapping people's calls.  So then the bigger questions arise.  Why are they listening to American's conversations and how many times have they done it.  My gut tells me the numbers are not on the small side.  Police State anyone?