Tony Shipley is furthering plans to weaken the 4th Amendment. 

The article is posted at http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9014228

My comment is posted there and below;

"..being here to destroy and kill us would not qualify under that rule."
So, we get to the heart of the matter. Who decides that someone is here to kill and destroy us, and what criteria are they using? Is that criteria based on solid, investigating and facts, or is it based on the fact that at someone wears a headscarf, or because they have a swarthy complexion and "sound funny"? Or maybe they just pray a different way, or maybe not at all. Maybe their name has been at the bottom of submitted comments that Mr. Shipley (or Mr. Provost, for that matter) doesn't agree with. Some that comment here have claimed that Dems side with terrorists, without fact or proof on their side. Would that make all Dems subject to be included in "reasonable clause" because someone made a spurious claim? Rhetoric alone is not sufficient, and when such claims are made they should be made with proveable facts.

“I pulled the legislation because immediately after I started talking about this, the federal director of Homeland Security started defining terrorists as returning American veterans who were pro-life, anti-tax and they described me." Unless Mr. Shipley is actively working with some of these extreme right wing militia groups, the Director was not describing him.

The director of Homeland Security did not claim that veterans were terrorists, as Mr. Shipley ever so slyly implies. A Feb. 23 draft memo from FBI domestic counterterrorism leaders, obtained by The Wall Street Journal, cited an "increase in recruitment, threatening communications and weapons procurement by white supremacy extremist and militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups.". The article goes on to state Michael Ward, FBI deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said in an interview ... that the portion of the operation focusing on the military related only to veterans who draw the attention of Defense Department officials for joining white-supremacist or other extremist groups."

"We're not doing an investigation into the military, we're not looking at former military members," he said. "It would have to be something they were concerned about, or someone they're concerned is involved" with extremist groups.
and further "The separate DHS assessment, leaked ..after being sent to law-enforcement agencies, said the "willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today."

It's a far jump for Mr. Shipley to make the claim that he was being defined as a terrorist, and particularly ironic that if he feels that way, then why would he want to loosen standards for legal searches from "probable" to "reasonable"? Does that mean he feels that it would be "reasonable" to believe he might be involved in terrorist activities, as he feels he is being described this way.

It's always a slippery slope when attacks against the 4th Amendment would cause it to be further weakened. It is bad enough that Americans were subjected to all phone calls, and all internet traffic being not only monitored, but archived, starting before 9/11, and civilians rights do not need to be further eroded.

After all, if they'll do it to "them", they can certainly do it to you.