Just as it comes to light that a secret ruling by the FISA court has, basically, claimed that the NSA wiretapping program (Terrorist Surveillance Program) is illegal (this, apparently occurred months ago), we have Gonzales making mention of other secret surveillance programs in testimony before Congress. We now have a letter from the Director of National Intelligence attempting to defend Gonzales's assertions by acknowledging the existence of other secret surveillance programs authorized by the same Executive Order used to establish the TSP.

Now, the Administration is clamoring to get Congress to pass legislation to authorize the wire tapping that they originally claimed they didn't need congressional authorization to engage in. Moreover, part of the legislation requested would grant more control of the program to Gonzales.

How do you believe these new revelations will affect Gonzales's future as Attorney General?

What are the ramifications of acknowledging the existence of more secret surveillance programs?

How do you believe these new relegations will affect Gonzales's future as Attorney General?
Hopefully not at all. The dems have thousands of pages on the “firings” and finding NOTHING are now trying to get a special prosecutor to spend millions to see if they can get him for the ol fall back – perjury.

Little wonder the approval rating of the Congress is so low.


What are the ramifications of acknowledging the existence of more secret surveillance programs?
The problem the way I understand it is the use of cell phones in foreign countries. Pakistan went from 3 million in 2004 to 50 million today and the FISA law is outdated forcing the intel folks into getting a warrant even if they are tapping two people overseas IF their cell provider is in the US.

Clearly now the terrorists know where another weak spot is and will be using it against us unless the Congress acts before going on vacation.

I used to try to wrap my head around statements like this one. Now I just laugh. Fear is impenetrable to logic.

How do you believe these new relegations will affect Gonzales's future as Attorney General?
It won't affect Gonzales at all. He'll keep doing whatever he wants to do because his boss tells him he can. Bush's approval is all that matters.

What are the ramifications of acknowledging the existence of more secret surveillance programs?
Oh I suppose we'll have more hearings and Gonzales's "I don't recall" will set a record that will last until the next president to come along and strives to save us from our own reason.

Gonzales has lied to Congress. Repeatedly. If Congress wants to do anything meaningful it should impeach him.

It won't. The President has no incentive to force Gonzales to resign and Gonzales has no incentive to take matters into his own hands and resign himself. This is the one positive about being the least popular President in modern history, things cannot get substantially worse, so 'riding out' the wave of unpopularity is possible. As Lesly said, the only meaningful act Congress can take is impeachment; it is clear that Gonzales lied under oath at the very least one time, that's enough for perjury and subsequent impeachment.

None. The Administration has not been honest or forthcoming about anything of importance; it only stands to reason that they will continue to be neither about this one.

CP

How do you believe these new revelations will affect Gonzales's future as Attorney General?

Well, unless congress collectively grows a pair, not a thing- the guy is obviously already a liar and a criminal- and the leader of a beaurocracy determined to form itself into a gestapo-like secret police that answers to no one but the "supreme commander"- until we start throwing politicians in jail and start hanging them for treason- we get more of the same.

What are the ramifications of acknowledging the existence of more secret surveillance programs?

Uh, none. It is obviousy NOT a program to catch "terrorists"- but rather, to arrest and hold political prisoners. G Edgar Hoover "enemies" lists and such.

Let's get real here- it is not the firings themselves that are illegal on the face of it- it is the fact that they were fired for not going after GWs "enemies list"- the attorneys were doing thier job, going after wrongdoing- dem or repub- it is that GW and Rove wanted to force attorneys to STOP going after repubs and ONLY go after political enemies- and if he gets oversite-free wiretapping, he might get some dirt on some political enemies.

It seems to me that there will always be a weak spot so long as we protect civil liberties. There will always be someone willing to abuse that. So, should we abandon all our civil liberties because terrorists might abuse them to their advantage?

How do you believe these new revelations will affect Gonzales's future as Attorney General?

Probably not a whole lot other than it might quiet for a bit the shrill calls for his impeachment from people like Feingold over his testimony before the Judiciary committee. Turns out Gonzales was right, there was (are) more than one program. Won't quiet Fiengold for long though, he'll find something else to screech about before long.



What are the ramifications of acknowledging the existence of more secret surveillance programs?

It's never a good idea to let the enemy know what you're doing, particularly when it involves something that you're doing to them. In this case revealing that we have the technology to track and monitor calls made between terrorists, regardless of where they are in the world might cause them to seek alternative forms of communications and that wouldn't be a good thing at all.

FISA is out-dated given the way things work today, and it needs to be corrected to match what's happening. Based on the article cited and some of the statements that have been made by people who know what's going on at least one of the problems with FISA (and perhaps with this ruling) is that it doesn't take into consideration the fact that a phone call can be made from Pakistan to Indonesia and end up being routed through the United States at some point. Now Feingold and some of the more shrill voices on the left will tell you that's a "domestic call" and monitoring it violates FISA. Now, how in the world a call made by a terrorist in Pakistan to one in Indonesia constitutes a "domestic call" is beyond me, but because of the current technology opponents of the TSP have found a loophole in FISA and are exploiting it.

All of these claims of "political enemies" being targeted by Bush from the usual Bush-haters here are great for rhetorical rants and venting, but I have yet to hear of ONE single solitary case where this has happened. Not ONE. My better half is going to call me from her cell to mine in about 15 mins and give me a shopping list. Now, do I fear that the NSA is going to monitor that call and find out that we're having beer can chicken tonight? No, not really. Would I be upset if I found out they did monitor me and find out my "secret ingredient" to beer can chicken? You bet I would because we'd be better served by them monitoring what people who wish to do harm to this country are up to instead. Hopefully, that's what they're doing.


Aquilla

Of course not but does being STUPID really help. If we want to listen to 2 terrorists talking in Europe or the ME and their call goes through a computer in the US should we have to get a FISA warrant? The law is technically outdated and needs to be changed NOW – before we lose Americans and we read about how we could have stopped it if we had just listened in.

Ted- point of fact you keep missing here. You are allowed an emergency wire tap- the secret judge will give you a retroactive search warrant under FISA guidelines, you just have to apply for it within 72 hours after the tap.

What is so unreasonable about that rule? What they really want is NO OVERSITE- NOT the warrant itself. They have all the time in the world- because they already get to apply for it after the fact.

As yogi Berra would say, "Deja Vu all over again". We've had this debate before here. It might not be a bad idea though to re-visit that debate. The problem I think we'll have with this go-around will be the same one we had before. NOBODY here knows the details of the TSP and why there is an apparent problem with the current FISA law. There apparently is though as has been confirmed by members of congress on both sides of the aisle who have been briefed on the details of the NSA programs. There also may be a problem with crafting legislation updating FISA that doesn't give away the classified details of the programs themselves. That would be counter-productive.


Aquilla

No sir the point is they don’t need oversight to tap foreign calls outside the US. The fact that the call goes through the a computer in the US should be irrelevant since the people speaking are outside the US on both sides of the conversation. And the FISA court is overloaded and this useless waste of time and money is not warranted – by definition.

Thanks for referencing that thread. I participated in it. You're still wrong. Others will make up their own minds.


The FISC's responsibilities were not a waste of time and money when it was created to stop an abusive executive in the 70s, and is not a waste of time and money today. There is more to our civil rights than a bridge collapsing on your head.

And, once again- you would be wrong- there is also this problem with "domestic spying"- perhaps you heard something on this subject?

So, if you are so against checks and balances Ted- how about heading over to a place that doesn't have any check on power- North Korea seems to operate without those pesky courts and a supreme commander that answers to no one but military heads?

Because what you are saying and American freedom are 180* out of order here.

There is absolutely 0 logical argument over expediency and speed and having to submit paperwork AFTER the tap for a RETROACTIVE order.

Aquilla- as lesley said- you were wrong then, you are wrong now- you also can make 0 logical arguments over "classified warrants applied retroactively" NOT being fast enough to stop someone or get the evidence.

"National security" has always been the Tyrants boogeyman- and GW is using it again.

No, I wasn't wrong then and I'm not wrong now. There is a problem with FISA the way the law is currently written. Both sides acknowledge that. They can't tell us exactly what is wrong without divulging classified information, but there is something wrong that needs to be fixed. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the only Senator California has with even half a brain knows there's a problem with FISA in its current form and indeed introduced legislation last September to correct that problem. Here is the link to her website that discusses the bill she proposed. From that website......



So, there is obviously something wrong with the current FISA law that needs to be corrected and corrected now.


Aquilla

So who watches the watchers Aquiilla? Who is to say this ISN'T being abused? You assume that I trust Fienstien any more than any other politicians? I am not the one with the wierd hero-worship of politicians with the "right" letter behind thier name- power corrupts, obviously- and the main tenet behind our goverment is transparency and accountability- FISA as it stands, has neither. It is no different than "enemy of the state" powers under the Czars and then dicatator's of Russia,
none whatsoever.

What is going to stop abuses in this case Aquilla?

What abuses? Name ONE. Cite a source. Who has been wrongly convicted because of the TSP programs?

You don't trust the politicians, you don't trust the judges, you don't trust anyone. Ok, then all I could suggest is that you put on your tin-foil hat and stand on the sidelines screaming "a pox on you all!" at the top of your lungs. It certainly doesn't do much to advance the debate, but hey, if it makes you feel better, go for it. Meanwhile, those of us who aren't quite that paranoid can debate the actual issues at hand.

I understand the need for secrecy in certain programs dealing most especially with ones involving national security. I've spent the better part of my professional life working on highly classified defense programs where a breech of security could end up costing some people their lives. We weren't denying anyone their civil liberties or their rights by not disclosing everything that was going on, that wasn't the purpose at all. The purpose was to protect the people of this nation from those who would do us harm. Complete disclosure and "transparency" for such programs would defeat their purpose.

With respect to this debate, I brought up Senator Feinstein's name because it's really a non-partisan issue as it should be. Now, I'm hardly a big fan of hers, never voted for her in my life, but she does have access to a hell of a lot more information about what's going on than anyone here does with respect to FISA. Based on her legislative actions, she seems to believe that there are problems with the current law that are hampering our efforts to protect this country against terrorist attacks. I don't know what those problems are, you don't know what those problems are, nobody here knows what those problems are. She apparently does and she wants to fix them along with members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. So, either we allow that process to go forward and fix the problems, or we just put on our tin hats and yell "a pox to them all!".


Aquilla

Wait a minute Aquilla- I am not against secrecy per se'- it is total lack of oversite of one branch of the goverment with unbridled power that I have a problem with.

You still have not been able to adress why in the world a retroactive warrant is not a reasonable check against this power?

BTW- I read the article on Fienstien's allowing of this revision to pass- it has a 6 month renewal period- it was railroaded through because of a threat of veto without the ability to over ride it.

The revision today is nothing more than a stop gap until it can be properly debated.

I personally think it needs to be scrapped entirely, and completely fixed so that we can still wiretap the bad guys, and stop peeking into opposition's bedrooms.

Fienstein's allowing this to go through is obviously expediancy until she can muster the forces neccesary to over-ride the veto. Pretty clear on that one really.

I have no doubt as to the NEED for instant eavesdropping- I have MAJOR doubts as to why the executive branch feels it should have to answer to nobody.

No, I haven't addressed that problem because I don't know what the problem is. I don't know what or how the programs in question operate. Nobody here does and if they did, they sure as hell wouldn't talk about it. I do know in the previous thread where we debated the FISA stuff I posted a link in one of my posts that indicated that in the vast majority of cases a FISA warrant was sought. Several thousands of cases if I recall correctly. But, there were a few isolated cases apparently where applying for a warrant was a problem somehow. I didn't know what the circumstances were then and I don't know now. All I know is that the members of congress who are aware of the programs seem to think there is a need to modify FISA to accommodate the changes in technology. There may be some differences over the language of the bill and that's why Feinstein wants to pass a temporary measure until that language can be worked out. Charlie Shumer once told then Congressman Sonny Bono in a hearing that "we're writing law here, not making pizza". Well, they aren't making pizza with the FISA legislation either and it's made even more complex by the fact that they can't openly debate the details of the programs in question, nor can they craft language that would compromise those programs. I can understand why it has taken so long to come up with something and it has nothing to do with partisan politics. I think it's just a very complicated and sensitive issue.

I do know that the basic concept of the NSA programs has been broadly embraced by the majority of members of Congress from both parties who have been briefed on them and their results.


Aquilla

Aquilla- no one here, like the congressmen and women, believes that the idea of wiretapping and intelligence gathering is NECCESARY- no one here has said otherwise- but the main, number one reason, where the debate even lies- is with oversite.

It is completely un-American and anti-Freedom and pro-gestapo for there to be NO oversite and NO checks and balances in ANY program.

Someone has to be there with the "kill switch" to make sure scumbags like G Edgar Hoover don't assemble an "enemies list" and start using that to blackmail poeple to get what they want- which, as you may know, has already happened in this country. So why give it another shot at life?

Fienstien wanted a 10 day retroactive warrant deal to be spelled out- GW threatened the veto if they did it, and, being the spineless politicians they all are, they conceded, and get to revisit it in another 6 months.

Aquilla- there is NO instance, on this planet, where a judge shouldn't be presented with a request to a search warrant RETROACTIVELY- that means, they already did it, and got the evidence they needed so quickly. A secret judge with top level security clearances are already in place. The one thing that keeps this country free is checks and balances on power- more than anything else in this country. It is the single most important concept to keep us from degenerating to a dictatorship.

Anyone that says that completely oversite free carte blanche to spy is neccesary to our safety is just plain lying.

There has been oversite though all along. The so-called "Gang of Eight" from Congress has been regularly briefed by the White House on all of these programs. Jane Harman, formerly ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee and thus one of those eight references those briefings in a letter to Bush. Link here. Her disagreement with the President in this letter was that the entire committees weren't being fully briefed on all the details because the President believes these programs are "covert". She believes otherwise. But, these programs aren't being conducted in a vacuum and they never have been.





In the vast majority of the cases, there has been a warrant requested and issued by the FISA court. In the handful of instances where there hasn't, something must have precluded that from happening. I don't what that "something" is/was. But, obviously there was a reason for it. We discussed this extensively in the previous thread on the subject and kind of went in circles around it because we didn't know any of the details of the programs. Congress knows, at least certain members, but they can't talk about it either.

I don't want to give the Executive carte blanche either and I don't think that's happening. Congress is aware of what's going on and those who are really in the loop like Ms. Harman was have been generally pretty supportive of it. I doubt seriously that such support would be forthcoming if the President was using these programs to make a political enemies list.

Edited to add a hypothetical for CR and others here..........

The NSA picks up a communication from Pakistan to Indonesia between two known terrorists. That communication discloses a mature terrorist plot to blow up the British Embassy in Australia, but because of the current communication technology, that communication is routed through the continental United States. So, the NSA goes to the DOJ and requests a retroactive warrant for the intercept they already made. The DOJ submits a request for a warrant to the FISA Court and it is denied for some reason. What do we do now? Do we notify the governments of Australia and the UK and give them information that our courts have ruled illegally obtained under FISA? Or do we pretend we never heard anything and let the plot go through? What do we do?

Edited to add an "extra credit" variation...

Let's say instead of Australia the embassy in Washington DC is going to be attacked and the communication came into a sleeper cell here in the US. If the retroactive warrant is denied for whatever reason, what do we do then? Can we not arrest the members of the terrorist cell using information obtained improperly based on the FIAS court ruling? Can we act in any way at all on that information?


Aquilla

If the warrants were denied for "some reason" - it must be a damn good one- I will land on the side of the judges on this one. Besides, if it is that big of an emergency- there would already be an arrest and custody as well. You can't bomb anything sitting in a jail cell.

Oh, now cops don't arrest poeple and hold them for up to 72 hours before charging them in the "dream world spy vs spy" scenario you envision?

Regular beat cops arrest folks all the time for "probable cause" and let them go after 72 hours, if there is no evidence or charges filed.

That is one of the safety valves- regular beat cops can stop a crime dead, just by arresting them, taking them for "questioning"

You say that your imaginary G man couldn't do that?

Cops and goverment agents HATE checks and balances, complain about it all the time. Too damn bad- it is the price of living in a free society.

Secret police with unlimited powers are straight up totalitarian goverment tools - NOT the product of a free society.

I would rather lose DC than lose the constitution.

DC being blow up would be tragic- losing our freedom for the whole nation is a lot worse.

Funny thing is- GW has given OBL his victory- the knee jerk reaction to curb civil liberties through terror and begin the decsent into an oppressive religious right driven regime plays right into the terrorist hands.

I repeat again- there is NO scenario where a retroactive warrant and an emergency arrest can not accmplish the same thing- except with real oversite.

I'd agree with the above, for the most part, but protections do not extend to international calls, nor was that the intent. It was always about the rights of US citizens. FISA was passed precisely because abuses of Executive Authority were a threat, but international surveillance is not protected by the Bill of Rights...so if an intercepted calls overseas now qualify as "domestic surveillance", that is something that should change.

Mrs P- the reason that this law is/was created is precisely why I want further oversite-


I work with alot of LEOs- and they are dedicated poeple, and very sure of themselves when they think they are on the trail of the "bad guy"- it is the checks and balances that keeps them from overstepping thier bounds.

Like I said- there is absolutely 0 scenarios that a retroactive oversite, meaning 10 days and then review, and the ability to lock up a suspect for a limited amount of time, that needs a total lack of oversite like GW wants.

I can imagine several scenarios where it can be abused, and abused easily, with no recourse for the victim.

I don't believe for one second that the only time warrantless wiretaps would be used would be foriegn calls. Some oversite would ensure that it doesn't happen. With the threat of a judge reading them the riot act for thier behaviors- it is a very good check in the executive powers.

FISA does not even regulate the use of electronic surveillance outside of the United States. Such calls do not fall under the jurisdiction of FISA and don't require said warrant for surveillance. Never have. So, I see no reason why such international calls should now be classified as 'domestic' because they are routed through a company in the US.

Mrs P- I had to re-read the whole article again to get through this circular argument "we can't tell you what we need to make america safe, but we want you to authorize it anyway, BTW- you just have to trust GW and Rove and Gonzalez"- NOT going to fly, hopefully.

Let's review what we DO know:

(from the linked article)

apparently concluded that the administration had overstepped its legal authorities in conducting warrantless eavesdropping even under the scaled-back surveillance program that the White House first agreed to permit the FISA court to review earlier this year, said one lawyer who has been briefed on the order but who asked not to be publicly identified because of its sensitivity.

Okay- even with this expanded authority to gather information, they STILL managed to "overstep thier legal authorities"- makes me wander - how much power do these guys really need?

this is the part that is pure *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** to me:


tap switches based in the United States without review by the FISA court. The administration effort has accelerated in recent weeks—and won the support of key Democratic leaders—amid warnings from the intelligence community that the country is facing greater risk of a new terrorist attack due in large part to the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

What the hell is the NSA hiding from a secret panel of judges? Methinks we ought to fear the NSA more than Al Qaeda at this point.

These judges on the FISA panel have the same security clearance as the poeple presenting the evidence. Why do they want to hide what they are doing from review?

Seriously- "only the evil flee when no man pursueth" (some parts of my bible belt upbrinin' stuck ) -

more from the article:

But there are indications the ruling has in some instances interfered with the National Security Agency's ability to intercept phone calls where one of the parties is in the United States, as well.

Damn straight it better interfere- there had BETTER be some checks and balances when they start wiretapping US citizens-

and that seems to be the key point Mrs P- NOT call that are totally foriegn in nature- but when one party is a citizen, or a local anyway, and they have too abide by American laws.

To bad so sad for the NSA.

We need more checks on those folks, they have demonstrated too many times that they feel they are above the law.

I don't like Gonzales or Rove to have this kind of power- but I would be just as afraid if it were Hillary or Obama.

Well, it would appear from what the article says that this "expanded authority" does not include calls that are entirely international but routed through the US.



The above should change. That is patently ridiculous. International calls do not become domestic because they are routed through the US. International callers do not suddenly obtain protections guaranteed under the US bIll of Rights simply because they use a cell phone overseas that is routed here. That is not an issue of domestic surveillance at all. It is absolutely ludicrous. If we are talking about domestic surveillance I agree with you, but that isn't the case there.

I dont' think we are so far apart in that one- on purely international calls- I would agree- but the real crux of the argument seems to be DOMESTIC wiretapping, and when one of the originator's of the call is in the US.

Regardless, even with international calls, since so much of this is hypothetical- what is so wrong about a FISA judge reviewing ALL of that info as well to ensure there is no wrongdoing? What is so wrong with reasonable oversite? I mean, NO ONE is saying they CAN'T do this- they are just saying that they can't do it UNRESTRAINED AND WHENEVER THEY FEEL LIKE IT FOR WHATEVER REASON- I don't think that kind of restriction- one that allows them to do thier job, and then go before a judge AFTER THE FACT to explain why they did what they did is such a bad thing.

At first, I couldn't figure out why the democrats would capitulate and give Bush what he wanted. And then it struck me that they counting on a democrat president to be elected after Bush. There, the benefits will be enormous to them.

The democrats basically voted themselves almost unlimited power and there's nothing the republicans can do about it.

I mean face it - the democrats are as crooked and pathetic as the republicans. So, when they gain the White House, they will have all these powers to abuse as much as the republicans do.

So, Hillary will take office and under the guise of national security and the GWOT, make hiding FBI files in her office look like an episode of Spongebob Squarepants. All this oversight the republicans got rid of for the last year and a half of Bush, they also got rid of it for 8 more years of Hillary. And what will they be able say about it since they are the ones that implemented it?

It's amazing that all of our great presidents have managed to overcome monumental problems, win world wars, recover from civil war, and move our country forward without having to circumvent the constitution or change our laws. However, Bush is not capable of doing the same, so he needs the rules changed so he can play the game. The democrats have allowed him to do so because he will only have these powers for a short time - the democrats will receive what the republicans have handed them and with another 9/11 style attack - or even the appearance of one, democrats will have unlimited power. Democrats can play the fear card just as well and reap the same benefits.

Neither party cares about us. They only care about more power and getting re-elected. So, the unintended consequences of republican actions will be the democrats receiving this expanded power for a much, much longer time period.

Winners move the chains. Losers move the goalposts.

Monitoring calls from terror suspects to their co-conspirators is "unlimited power?" Boy, is the verbiage getting thick in here. Godwin himself made an appearance. CruisingRam - If fixing the FIS court is "pro-gestapo," nationalizing health-care must be "pro Mengele" right?

To those claiming that this is some sort of unlimited power grab - The terrorist bombers in the UK this July were emailing to US accounts. If we seize a computer in London or Glasgow, should a FISA judge have to OK us reading that mail, because there may have been recipients in the US, or it was routed through yahoo in the USA?


No the real crux of the rhetoric is domestic wiretapping. People just keep on saying it, despite the fact that it's not the issue at hand here. Moreover, the originator of the calls in question is overseas. Not "one of the originators," but the originator. The one pushing the buttons and calling the recipient. I could see where you should get a FISA to add that recipient's phone to the wiretap list, but not to listen in if a suspect is calling him.

Think of it this way - If the feds are monitoring a mobster Tony the Tuna. He calls freddie the fish, there is no need to get another warrant. Maybe to play the thing in court, they get a warrant, just as the US would get a warrant to arrest the US-based recipient of the terrorists' calls. Now, if they want to add Freddie to the wiretap list, given his association with Tony, they go get a warrant. Seems simple to me, as long as they keep briefing Congress.


What is so wrong about a FISA judge approving a warrant for monitoring overseas calls? How about undermining the constitutional authority of the Executive branch? How about setting an unbelievable onerous precedent for how wars are fought? Whether you want the intelligence services to be "restrained" should be of no importance in gatherine intel overseas. No offense, but overseas is, well, overseas.

By the way, it looks like they found the source who leaked to the press about this wiretap program. He's an ex-DOJ lawyer, who just happens to work for a George Soros-funded liberal organization and has donated to the DNC. Just another patriotic Democrat doing his duty to save the country.

CW- funny, like DR said- greater men have won far bigger battles within the confines of the constitution.

Yes, the DOJ lawyer should absolutely be hailed as a freedom fighter against the forces of an oppressive goverment.

And yes, this president has shown us how vunerable we are to the executive branch, and perhaps even a constitutional amendment is neccesary to strip the president of some powers, in order for freedom to be maintained for all Americans.

I fear the presidents war on our freedoms much more than any Al-Quaida cell, GW is far more dangerous, obviously so.

But why do you keep sidestepping the question about whether the Constitution is relevant to fighting a foreign war overseas? Of course we won bigger battles, but we didn't grant the Nazis freedom of speech or the Japanese the right to remain silent. We were more likely to summarily execute them, especially in places like Iwo Jima, which seems far worse than wiretaps.

On edit...DR wrote that we managed to "overcome monumental problems, win world wars, recover from civil war, and move our country forward without having to circumvent the constitution or change our laws."

Just off the top of my head, let's think of a "monumental problem" and see whether we overcame it by "not circumventing the constitution or changing our laws." How about the Great Depression? Overcoming this problem, we got the unconstitutional NRA and:
- farm regulation which is still costing the world billions today
- minimum wage laws which are still costing us billions today
- Unconstitutional price controls
- The Agricultural Adjustment Act, which, if I recall correctly, resulted in the killing of several million pigs, which is both weird and counter-productive.

Not to mention FDR trying to pack the court by increasing the number of justices to 12. Was he circumventing the Constitution and changing our laws? Hell yes. And he's a liberal hero. Go figure.

As for "win world wars," what about WWII? Does rationing circumvent the Constitution? Does FDR attempting to tax all income over $25,000 at 100% count as changing our laws? How about the draft? The US government, at the point of a gun, compelling adult males to go kill or be killed - now that is a "change" in our laws?

Last, "recover from the Civil War." The 14th and 15th Amendments were passed, and habeus corpus was redefined. The Reconstruction acts provided for registration of adult males, disenfranchisement of others, forced voters to swear before Almighty God an allegiance to the Constitution, not to mention everyone's favorite - military tribunals.

As Mrs. Pigpen pointed out the issue here and why the people fighting this as Domestic Wiretapping are so completely off base is that there are people attempting to prohibit the use of warrant-less taps on communications ROUTED through US controlled switches. If anyone actually understood phone/cellular/packet switching/routing they would know that almost ALL communication IS routing through the US in someway shape or form. Thus, effectively stopping ALL warrant-less tapping that IS necessary for international espionage for fear that Bushco is listening for dissenters....

No- it is domestic wiretapping remains the issue- and what they seem to be wanting to have no oversite whatsoever- which is scary- because who knows if they are just doing this internationally- if there is no oversite? Obviously- they screwed the pooch already by overstepping their bounds.

If they already have overstepped thier already broad, sweeping powers- it seems to me that they need to have MORE oversite- NOT less.

And once again- everyone that seems to be okay with supreme powers resting in the hands of GW, no one can come up with up a single good reason why there SHOULDN'T be the minimum oversite that is being requested here

Once again, you keep saying that, but are not providing any evidence for your position. Try this.


And the word is oversight.

How do you believe these new revelations will affect Gonzales's future as Attorney General?

Hardly at all. Gonzales is practically surgically attached to Bush’s backside, and as such, has impenetrable protection from any and all of those pesky things like rules, laws, accountability, and so forth.

What are the ramifications of acknowledging the existence of more secret surveillance programs?

Well, FISA may be illegal, but that has never been a deterrent to this administration. Now, we the citizens, have no privacy whatsoever when it comes to any sort of communication other than a secret whispered into another’s ear…and even that might be subject to government intrusion.

"Reasonably believed" Is there anything reasonable about the Bush administration? Yah, right.

So now, not only does your phone company have to tap your phone at the orders of our dear leader, you are powerless and without any legal recourse to do anything about it. Anyone can be deemed a threat (thanks to other executive orders) and anyone can be spied upon, and we can’t do a damn thing about it.

So, abuse away, federal government. We have an attorney general with a disturbing lack of ethics who will back up anything you do. We have a do-nothing Congress who stands by impotently while our rights are systematically stripped away and the Constitution is reduced to toilet paper for the fat cats in government to wipe their collective butts on. America is no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave; it's the land of the watched and home of the cowed.

I expect the feds will be knocking on my door soon.

You don't seem to understand the reason that FISA is illegal. The Chief Executive is the guy elected to protect us from foreign threats. His is the only one in the 3 branches of gov't empowered to do so. FISA requires him to get a warrant from a court to do his job. That's extra-constitutional and an encroachment on the Executive. Dismiss, whinge and hypothesize all you like, but foreign intelligence gathering is not left to the courts.



At any point in this debate, is anyone going to point out one case of this law being abused, one case of domestic wiretapping, or maybe tell us just how many overseas calls to suspected terrorists that will be tapped. The hysteria is breathtaking. And unfounded.

Up to 72 hours after tapping.


Dear me. However did past executives manage, being forced to have their wiretapping activities screened for abuses of power after the fact. Well, feel free to kick the bar into the ground if that's what it takes for a Bush presidency to manage with the unpleasantries of living in a democracy. This gig is the electronic version of the highly unlikely should we torture the terr'ist with the knowledge to save the world copout.

Now the Times, quoting anonymous "experts" mind you, suggests


The White House's predictable response is, don't worry; be happy. Democrats are "raising theoretical questions based on a harsh interpretation of the law". Democrats are doing more than just that. They've realized constituents aren't impress that Bush threatened to blame them for a terrorist if they didn't pass the law before recess.

As for what the law actually means, it doesn't matter. There aren't many laws this executive hasn't directly challenged through Executive Orders and intentional bureaucratic mismanagement, such as the EPA's standards. Bush doesn't want something as quaint as constitutional protections and separation of powers to come between him and your life. The fact that he has also ignored and/or challenged these checks and balances in areas that have nothing to do with stopping another terrorist attack doesn't faze his supporters and when it comes to saving lives, well, why not trust him?

How do you prove it either way CW- if they don't have to answer to anyone? How will we know it is being abused if there is no oversite? If there is no way to discover it's abuse? If all the evidence is squirrelled away in such a manner that only those in GWs "circle" can access the info? That is the problem here- when you answer to no person, and hold yourself the supreme law of the land, then abuses don't even see the light of day. This is much like Stalin's Russia, where gulag detainees were writing "secret" letters to "Dear" Stalin to please save them from the abuses they were enduring- not knowing the entire time, it was Stalin that was the one doing the abusing- and no one ever knew, because you couldn't "prove" any of it was going on- until there was too many missing to discount.

All GW has to do is not abuse it too much. And because he holds all the cards- we won't know until we get someone in office that can force this to the light of day.

Besides the New York Freaking Times (via 'anonymous sources'), here is GW's "circle" of oversiGHT.

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
John Boehner, Republican House Leader
Harry Reid, Democratic Senate Leader
Mitch McConnell, Republican Senate Leader
Silvestre Reyes (D), Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Peter Hoekstra ®, Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
John D. Rockefeller, IV (D), Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Kit Bond ® Ranking Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Before the 2006 elections, you had folks like Jane Harmon in the gang of 8. Hardly "GW's circle."


Well, the Gang of Eight, which is 8 people, not "no person", plus the FISA court plus every other control, but don't let that stop you. I mean, why let facts get in the way of your narrative, which is about to go into Godwin-land via Soviet Russia.


unless the NEW YORK FREAKING TIMES is the light of day, that is. Or congressional leaders. Or anyone.


You know, I was reading Solzhenitsyn the other day, and thinking exactly that. Here in the United States of America, tens of millions of citizens are starving and dying, all for George Bush's secret prisons. It is hard to believe. Literally.


Yes, which is why I am keeping track of my missing neighbors by naming them all here on this forum. Ready? Here goes:

(list of carlito's missing neighbors)

You have insulted the memory of every single one of the tens of millions of human beings who were sent to the GULAG. Congrats.

Ron Paul will save us all, don't worry.