vacy free from unreasonable state intrusion" and to "official lawlessness in flagrant abuse of that right, reserved to all persons as a specific guarantee against that very same unlawful conduct."

Note that phrase, "unlawful conduct." What did the Court mean? What could it have meant but that police officers, district attorneys, police chiefs, judges and any others who took part in and condoned such behavior were acting illegally? What could this mean then but that whoever acted so was just as unlawful, just as criminal, as those upon whom they were presuming to pass judgment?

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ARRESTED?

Does this all mean that every homosexual who has ever been convicted upon unlawfully gained evidence is entitled to redress? It would surely seem so. For the Court went on to say, "We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court."

Does this not then raise a nice moral problem for those who have been convicted of homosexual "offenses" by such illegal (actually criminal) methods in answering the question on job applications or elsewhere, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" For on the one hand the records of some court may so state, yet if such conviction were obtained by methods found to be unlawful by the highest court in the land, where then was the validity of the conviction? Did the conviction ever in fact "occur," for obviously a legal action which is unlawful could have had no legal status, could it? Maybe you can figure that one out. It's too deep for us.

THE LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE

Washington the past year was the scene of many a violent controversy over the liberties of the people, many officials seeming to take the position that the people have few or none. Senator Keating (NY) for instance on wire tapping stated that 'any claim that all wire tapping be barred is untenable."

Why doesn't someone tap the Senator's phones to see how tenable he finds this? But then we must remember that a good many of these people see themselves in pretty exalted roles, hardly on the same level just plain citizens occupy. Is this what the Supreme Court meant by saying that "Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the character of its own existence"?

Already, so a House Government Information subcommittee reported, 33 out of 37 major federal agencies are listening in on each other or on someone, and an AP dispatch said one senator's "huge book-lined office, incidentally, is the sort that could be a happy hunting ground for anyone intending to plant a listening or 'bugging' device."

So, good senators, Big Brother may already be watching you. But what happens if Big Brother gets to watching Big Brother? Wouldn't you have everybody watching everybody and listening to everybody before long, and not doing much else because after all there are a lot of things to watch and listen to these days?

ON SECURITY FIRINGS, THE FBI, ETC.

On one hand Defense Secretary McNamara reportedly has been unable to fire a Defense Department employee reputedly believed to be tied in with defectors Mitchell and

11