The subject's citizenship is irrelevant as is the location of the information and what it is contained within. A warrant is needed with very few exceptions.

The FBI *can* do whatever they want to get whatever information they want. Any halfway competent judge should throw it all out along with any evidence that they find based upon anything found in this manner. By making these statements, they're pretty much ensuring that they can't get a conviction in this case which leads me to believe that they have him on something else. More importantly, I think that there is a pattern here like the with Kim DotCom case in that they are more interested in destroying the infrastructure and scaring people than getting a conviction in these particular cases. A little bit of "See how bad we can mess your life up even if we don't take you to court!"

The constitution does not grant rights.

But that isn't how the constitution functions mechanically. It doesn't apply to people. It applies to the government's behavior.

Every person has the same rights no matter who they are, where they are, what country they belong to, etc. The constitution restricts how our government may infringe upon those rights. Those restrictions are universal except in the few cases where an exception is carved out.

So when trying to figure out how it is applied, you simply look at it without considering who the subject is. Then you see if there are any exceptions that would apply in that case to allow the government to behave differently. If not, then there is no difference and you act accordingly. If there is an exception, then you can move in that direction. It is fairly simple stuff.

Maybe you need to read the entire thing? The constitution originally left voting rights up to the states to sort out individually. It was the 14th amendment adopted in 1868 that universally set the male, 21, born or naturalized citizens standard. Technically, that doesn't stop the states from still doing what they want though. They could allow non-citizens to vote if they really wanted to. It is a right and there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits it.

The full list of protections from Wikipedia:

These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:

Birth - "All persons born or naturalized" "are citizens" of the United States and the U.S. state where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868)
"Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" - (15th Amendment, 1870)
"On account of sex" - (19th Amendment, 1920)
In Washington, D.C., presidential elections (23rd Amendment, 1961)
(For federal elections) "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" - (24th Amendment, 1964)
(For state elections) Taxes - (14th Amendment; Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966))
"Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (26th Amendment, 1971).
Requirement that a person reside in a jurisdiction for an extended period of time (14th Amendment; Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972))[3][4][4]

...when this was called espionage and it was conducted by the CIA. If the FBI needed something from outside of our borders, it asked the local police for it because that is how law enforcement is supposed to work...within the rule of law.

So what you're basically saying is that they didn't submit to the rule of law as it existed because they didn't agree with it. There was no "American justice system" as a distinct entity because America was a part of the British Empire. They ended up making their own justice system...with blackjack and hookers.

I get what you think you are trying to say, but the truth is that Snowden does not get a fair trial. If he's lucky, he'd be shot "trying to escape" and if not, he'd be shoved into a dark hole for the rest of his life where he might be let out for a few minutes to allow for the appearance of a trial. Why should he submit himself to a lifetime (however short it may be) of torture just to make a bunch of bloodthirsty sheep happy?

Hmmm...Good point...but if they can make it smart enough to detect animals on the road and warn drivers, then they could design them to only light up the sections of roadway that are in use, which would presumably make them even more energy efficient. Side effects of this methodology would be that it would alert cross traffic that vehicles were coming and it could dovetail into smart intersections, autonomous cars and traffic flow, but that is jumping a few steps further ahead into that general direction than this product is currently positioned at.

When did this become Soviet Union?

Pack of hot dogs + Mac and Cheese = roughly $2 to feed four people.

Chicken Breast + Frozen veggies = at least $10 for four people.

Things like milk, eggs, butter, fruits and fresh meat are not cheap. And this doesn't even get into the argument about availability/convenience of grocery stores and transportation.

2 liters of Coke products are on sale here for 99 cents just about every week. I'm sure that Pepsi is on sale the off weeks and the store brands are 88 cents for a 2 liter. Milk isn't going to be cheaper than that any time soon.

It made $49mil theatrically worldwide on a $15mil budget. Profits were probably hurt by the distribution issues, releasing an independent during summer blockbuster season, negative response from vets, and (later) the lawsuit against the film. File sharing did not really impact the theatrical release. It only made $145k on its opening weekend which is before file sharing would even be able to kick in. Catching Fire opened to $161mil this past weekend and file sharing hasn't gone away, so obviously that wasn't the problem.

They sold over $30mil in DVDs in the US in the first 8 months (a DVD that was very light on features by the way.) I'm sure that the DVD sales were negatively impacted by the filesharing lawsuits (I bought it on DVD and promptly got rid of it without even watching the movie as soon as the news broke.) Even people I know who aren't in touch with such topics were aware that people were getting sued for "watching" the Hurt Locker. The lawsuits killed any and all potential that the movie had to resurrect itself on DVD and destroyed the momentum that it had gained during the awards season.

First, terrorism is not war. It is crime. War is something that occurs between nations. Terrorism has only been treated as an act of war since 9/11 because doing so allows the government to do things that they couldn't otherwise do and it helps to keep the sheep scared enough to not look too closely. If this didn't happen and we treated it like crime (as it should be and always had been in the past) then we would probably be safer than we are now and still have the rights that have been taken away from us for this illusion of security.

Second, unless my reading comprehension has gone to crap, the 4th amendment doesn't say anything about foreigners. Nor does it apply differently to citizens and non-citizens. This is because just like with all of the Bill of Rights, it is not granting rights to anybody, but limiting how the government may infringe upon those rights. Rights being something inherent in being human and not something that can be granted to you, your citizenship does not play a factor into whether or not you have them. And since the articles in the Bill of Rights do not specify citizenship, the government is equally restricted no matter who the person is (not that it stops them).

As for the immediate question...it does matter how the evidence was collected whether the man is guilty of what he is accused of or not. Those protections are there for a reason and everybody benefits from them even if it means that a bad guy gets away once in a while. The alternative is for the system to be tilted even further in the direction where innocent people get accused and convicted of things they did not do. It already happens too often.

I saved a lot of money by switching back to Sprint from Verizon and Verizon cost me a lot more when I initially switched away from Sprint even with a corporate discount.

Coverage...it all depends upon where you are. My personal phone is Sprint and my Blackberry is Verizon. I travel a lot and in my purely anecdotal experience the Sprint phone has had slightly better coverage with fewer dropped call issues. I can't say which is better for data because I don't use my Blackberry for many data tasks and frankly, 3G is fast enough for most tasks that you perform on a phone anyway.

That isn't even the immediate problem. Those are simply potential problems that will occur when the system is inevitably misused.

The immediate and very real problem is the Steve Jackson Games problem. Since they are using the overly broad data that they collect to look for connections that may or may not exist, everyone is in danger of being violated in the name of fighting terrorism just because someone they have had contact with has had contact with someone that is on a list.

How is trashing people's rights an example of human decency?