Bush Justified in Wiretapping

[Nightwish]

SO move onto idea #2. You said there dozens, or hundreds of alternatives to war. Thousands? Do I hear 10 thousand? Sold to the loser named nightwish.

I said there were dozens, possibly hundreds of other alternatives, ranging from the farfetched (meaning that admittedly they'd probably have a snowball's chance in hell of working) to the conceivable. The number of ideas that would be fairly realistically conceivable are far fewer, but the problem is, aside from sanctions, none of them were tried.

Any responsible person will tell you that war isn't ever supposed to be the first option, it should always be the last one, the most drastic, after all else has been tried and failed. Bush didn't understand that (partially because this war fit perfectly into the stated neocon plan to immerse our forces in no fewer than four large-scale foreign wars made it so that Cheney and the other admin members who are members of PNAC made sure Bush didn't get the opportunity to understand that). But BushCo didn't try all the things they could have. They didn't start with A, then go on to B, then C, until they finally found one that worked. They started at A, it didn't work, so they went straight to Z, ignoring everything in between. And in your bid to be a good little GOP posterboy, you've cheered them for it. That makes you an idiot, and a terribly gullible one at that.

 

[MtnBiker]

Without something to dramatically push his numbers back up, he would have had no chance at re-election.

Conjecture

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Wonder why the PResident felt in 2004 that he should lie to the American people and assure them that all terrorist investigation was done with warrants.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

NewsMax Poll: Bush Justified in Wiretapping

Americans overwhelmingly support President Bush's authorization to the National Security Agency to tap the private conversations of U.S. citizens to search for evidence of terrorist activity, an exclusive NewsMax.com poll reveals.

In one of the largest responses to a NewsMax poll ever, more than 150,000 people across the Internet have made their opinions known about this controversy. And they resoundingly say that the President was justified in taking this action to protect America.

Here is a breakdown of the poll results for several key questions:

1) Has President Bush been justified in tapping the conversation of U.S. citizens?
Justified - 80%
Not Justified - 20%

2) Do you believe the President must have a court-approved warrant to conduct a wiretap?
Yes - 23%
No - 72%
Not Sure - 5%

3) Do you believe President Bush's claim that he undertook this action to protect America?
Yes - 83%
No - 17%

4) How would you rate media coverage about President Bush's actions?
Fair - 20%
Unfair - 80%

NewsMax continues to update its online poll. You can still vote - just Go Here Now.

from www.newsmax.com

Oooooooooooooooooooo - an internet poll! How scientific.

 

[Adam's Apple]

what's to stop him from tapping Howard Dean's phone?

This wire tapping had a specific purpose which everyone knows and recognizes, but the libs refuse to accept it because it would take away an issue they think they can use to impeach Bush.

...he stated directly that there was no such program...

Unlike the NYT, the President does not divulge classified information to the public in times of war, thereby aiding and abetting the enemy.

And what about the Constitution, which specifically forbids "unreasonable searches"?

Please provide one or more examples of "unreasonable searches" conducted by the Bush Administration. It would be helpful to your argument if you could provide just one example of the Bush Administration spying on ordinary American citizens.

I'm betting this poll didn't ask, "Do you support the President in circumventing the system already in place that permitted wiretapping with a secret judge's authorization?"

The questions asked in this internet poll were printed in my post. They are pretty simple and to the point. Almost three-fourths of the poll respondents said the President did not need a court-approved warrant to conduct the search, so that speaks pretty clearly to your proposed question re "circumventing the system in place" and "wiretapping with a secret judge's authorization".

That judge has resigned in protest over the current system, and Republican Kean, as well as many other Republicans with a libertarian streak (which I would expect to include many U.S. Message Board members), have concluded that the program was likely unconstitutional.

Just as many have thought it was constitutional and that President Bush was within his right to take this action. (If my memory serves me right, "that judge" you referred to was a Democrat, so it can be assumed he was just resorting to a little theatrics to help the party. )

Bush seems to want a kingship, not a presidency. He wants to be able to declare war, to hold enemy in secret dungeons without legal reason or representation, to keep programs and information secret from congress (circumventing the constitution's checks and balances) and to read our emails and tap our phones.

Poppycock. President Bush is just doing what any war-time president has done to protect America and its citizens in times of war. Remember that FDR imprisoned Japanese-Americans during WWII; and he also demanded that Mr. McCormick, the publisher of the Chicago Tribune, be tried for treason when the newspaper published a story in 1942 about the battle of the Coral Sea and revealed that the U.S. had broken the Japanese code. So President Bush's actions are no more a threat to the American people than President Roosevelt's were during WWII.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Oooooooooooooooooooo - an internet poll! How scientific.

Don't believe this poll was intended to be scientific. Newsmax provided it to their readers so their readers could indicate how they felt on the issue. I brought it to the board for informatioin because many of us feel the same way those readers do on this issue.

 

[Annie]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/61214.htm

INTEL, LIES & TREASON

By RALPH PETERS

ACCORDING to the Democratic Party's leaders, we all have been betrayed by the Bush administration's Big Brother intelligence tactics as evil government operatives invaded the privacy of innocent Americans.

Stop lying. Show us the victims.

Name one honest citizen who has been targeted by our intelligence system. Name one innocent man or woman whose life has been destroyed. Come on, Nancy. Give it up, Howard. Name just one.

Can't do it? OK. Let's dispense with the partisan rhetoric and reach for the facts:

1) Has a single reader of this column suffered personally from our government's efforts to defend us against terrorists? Have any of your relatives or even your remotest acquaintances felt our intel system intrude into their lives?

That's what I always ask the group-think lefties. Not one has ever been able to answer "Yes."

2) The same big-lie politicians attacking the president's efforts to uncover plots against America by monitoring terrorist communications will be the first to shriek that the War on Terror has failed when we're attacked again.

They want it both ways: Drop our defenses, then blame Bush when terrorists strike.

3) The "eavesdropping" operations revealed so sanctimoniously by The New York Times aimed exclusively at foreign terrorists and their willing contacts on our soil. When such operations are "exposed," the terrorists find ways to work around them. Doesn't it just make sense to keep secrets from enemies who announce they want to kill Americans? Who already have killed Americans?

4) Would the Pelosi-Dean gang prefer to give the terrorists the run of the house? For all of their whining, the ultra-Dems have never laid out a coherent, detailed strategy of their own for fighting terror. Show us your plan!

5) Contrary to the nonsense concocted by Hollywood ("King Kong" was far more realistic than "Syriana"), the intelligence community isn't populated by evil sneaks plotting to destroy the constitution and assassinate bothersome citizens from the bridge of the Starship Enterprise.

I worked in the intel field for 22 years and still give occasional lectures at various agencies, and the truth is that analysts and technicians work in cubicles that would make Dilbert run screaming. Recent recruiting efforts mean that more-senior officials work in cubicles, too.

Our intelligence professionals could make more money in private industry. But they serve because they believe in our country and their mission. And not one of them goes to work in the morning asking, "How can I do a bad job for my fellow citizens today? How can I subvert the Constitution?"

6) Our intelligence system has so many built-in safeguards to protect the personal information of our citizens that it seemed like overkill to me. Intelligence reports couldn't include even a passing reference to any American citizen by name (given the variety of American names, we did a lot of scrambling to conform to the very strict rules).

My fellow Americans, the real threats to your information security are Google, eBay, chat rooms, credit applications, junk mail, etc. And the Democratic National Committee holds vastly more information about individual American citizens in its files than do all of our intelligence agencies combined.

7) Self-interested renegades posing as whistleblowers aren't patriots, they're traitors. Not one of the recent "anonymous sources" has been able to cite a single example of an innocent American harmed by our intelligence campaign against Islamist terrorists.

The leaks that so badly compromised our security were made to score political points by those who place their personal and political vendettas above our nation's safety.

8) We need to get serious about treason and the destructive culture of leaks — on both sides of the aisle. Let's face it: Both political parties have served our country badly with their use of leaks for partisan purposes.

Compromising classified information, for any purpose and at any level, is a serious crime. Those who betray their trust and harm our national defense need to go to jail — for life. If we were truly serious, we'd treat treason as a capital offense again.

THE dishonesty and cynicism on the American left is breathtaking. The only reason the Dems are hand-wringing over the imaginary threat to your personal secrets is that every other approach has failed them.

They couldn't get the traction they expected by betraying our troops and declaring Iraq a failure (note how shamelessly the Dems have deserted Cindy Sheehan as her nuttiness turned radioactive — they'll bail on John Murtha, too, as he gets whackier). Now they're trying to convince you that Big Brother Bush is peeping through the blinds to make sure you and your spouse stick to the missionary position.

The truth is that you are being endangered. By politicians so desperate to gain power that they willingly pave the way for terrorist attacks.

The Dean-Pelosi chapter of the Osama bin Laden Fan Club has provided aid and comfort to our enemies. Reasoned dissent is patriotic, but serving as propaganda agents for mass murderers is something else. Now the Dem extremists are welcoming the compromise of clandestine programs to prevent terrorist attacks.

They, not Bush, are flouting our laws. By encouraging the compromise of classified material. And you will pay.

When the Islamist killers come to our soil again and left-wing politicians attempt to exploit our dead by howling that the War on Terror failed, just remember who it was that gave away our secrets to the terrorists.

Ralph Peters is a former military intelligence officer.

 

[Gunny]

The Commander-in-Chief is commander over the military, not over everyone. The Constitution could not be more clear that the President is a citizen subject to the same laws as everyone else.

To put it another way, how many people on this message board would be happy if a Democratic president arrogated herself the right to wiretap anyone?

Mariner.

You need to do a little research. Obviously your idealism is conflicting with reality as are your definitions. As Commander in Chief of the US military AND all DoD assets, the President is the final authority for all matters relating to the defense of this Nation during a time of war. The Constitution could not be more clear on THAT.

The President has not "arrogated himself the right to wiretap anyone." Dishonest statement. The President has authorized wiretapping of suspected terrorists speaking to know terrorists/terrorist organizations overseas.

I don't see a problem here unless you happen to be a suspected terrorist, in which case I could care less about the rights of someone setting about to do deliberate harm to noncombatant personnel who are citizens of this Nation.

What then of the civil rights of victims of the misdeeds of terrorists?

You lefties arguing against a common sense decision just because a Republican President made it are showing your true colors.

And I served 9 years under Democrat Presidents. I don't recall once refusing to carry out any order given by them. Clear that up for you any?

 

[Mariner]

article doesn't have any credibility. Since Bush has given himself the right to wiretap anyone, we can't really say who he's wiretapped. That's exactly the worrisome point. Sure, he's "supposed" to only wiretap people with direct terrorist linkage, but how do we know he won't decide that since old Howard Dean was against the war, he'd better be checked on? And while we just happened to be listening to him, he just happened to mention Democratic Party strategy, that just happened to be more useful to Karl Rove than a successful Watergate break-in would have been to Nixon. Gosh, darn, it was just a computer error (that was their excuse for domestic wire-tapping, which they initially said was never occurring).

I still can't believe that libertarian Republican types here are just fine with Bush using his judgement about whom to tap.

How about if we challenge Peters instead to provide one, just one example of a wiretap that saved us from a terrorist attack, which could not have been pre- or post- authorized by a judge, just to ensure the tiniest bit of check and balance?

And how would you all feel if our next president, Hillary Clinton, had the same power? Would you trust her as much as you trust Bush, to use the power correctly? Ever heard the maxim, "power corrupts"?

As for wartime--you make my point, Adam's Apple. Much of what we did during WWII was inappropriate, and we've had to apologize for a lot of it, e.g. interning Japanese-Americans. That's exactly why there should be a bit of check and balance to this system.

As for Bush wanting an imperial presidency, just read a little Andrew Yoo. He's the Berkeley professor who provides the theoretical basis for a king-like U.S. president (although when challenged, as he was in an excellent expository piece in the New York Review of Books a few months ago, he admits his basis is weak in the Constitution). He was a Bush team adviser for a while, and Cheney's two top aides are his acolytes. It's absolutely clear that Bush wants to strengthen presidential powers. Being at war is just a useful time to do it. He's made quite a few Republicans worry, but apparently no one here is worried at all. Where are the Specter Republicans on this board, the McCain Republicans, the Kean Republicans? Bush has molded his formerly "big tent" party into a big monolith, where everyone seems to think everything he does is just perfect.

Given the vast number of current Republican corruption scandals going on, you really want to trust this party to protect your privacy?

Mariner.

 

[Nightwish]

Those of you who have bought the President's line about only tapping people known or believed to have terrorist connections, and that average Americans are completely safe from this monitoring, might want to take a look at this. Yes, I know that some of you don't care for the NYT, but it's an infinitely more reliable source than Newsmax (the fabrications of one fired journalist notwithstanding). I'll only post some of the passages, you can read the rest of it for yourselves.

Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report

The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said.

As part of the program approved by President Bush for domestic surveillance without warrants, the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications, the officials said.

-snip-

What has not been publicly acknowledged is that N.S.A. technicians, besides actually eavesdropping on specific conversations, have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects. Some officials describe the program as a large data-mining operation.

They're not just listening in on people they already know or believe to have communications with terrorists, they're listening in on everything going in and out of the country, searching for clues to who might have communications with terrorists. If you make a phone call that passes through the international switches, somebody is going to be listening to your call, or filtering it through a computer program designed to pick out key words, and if any of those words show up, then your entire conversations may be eavesdropped and analyzed.

Some of you need to wake up and quit thinking, "I'm perfectly safe from this because Bush tells me so!"

 

[Bonnie]

Those of you who have bought the President's line about only tapping people known or believed to have terrorist connections, and that average Americans are completely safe from this monitoring, might want to take a look at this. Yes, I know that some of you don't care for the NYT, but it's an infinitely more reliable source than Newsmax (the fabrications of one fired journalist notwithstanding). I'll only post some of the passages, you can read the rest of it for yourselves.

Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report



They're not just listening in on people they already know or believe to have communications with terrorists, they're listening in on everything going in and out of the country, searching for clues to who might have communications with terrorists. If you make a phone call that passes through the international switches, somebody is going to be listening to your call, or filtering it through a computer program designed to pick out key words, and if any of those words show up, then your entire conversations may be eavesdropped and analyzed.

Some of you need to wake up and quit thinking, "I'm perfectly safe from this because Bush tells me so!"

Im willing to take that chance if it helps in stopping any terrorist attacks here........ Im more concerend with the Democrats getting involved in every other apsect of my life.
What I wonder though is whether it bothers you that the NYT in it's efforts to continually undermine the Bush presidency has in fact placed our security in jeopardy by runnning this story??

 

[Nightwish]

Im willing to take that chance if it helps in stopping any terrorist attacks here........

As am I. I have nothing to hide. But it would still be a little bit reassuring to know that I'm not going to be painted with a target just because I'm a vocal critic of the war and the Bush administration, as the Pentagon watch-list scandal illustrates.

Im more concerend with the Democrats getting involved in every other apsect of my life.

A perfectly reasonable concern, if a bit exxagerated. The Democrats are likewise concerned, and just as rightfully so, with the Republicans getting involved in every other aspect of their lives. Both parties are getting annoyingly and unnecessarily intrusive these days, and I wouldn't lose a minute of sleep if both parties were suddenly completely done away with.

What I wonder though is whether it bothers you that the NYT in it's efforts to continually undermine the Bush presidency has in fact placed our security in jeopardy by runnning this story??

It doesn't bother me a great deal, but neither am I terribly happy with the situation. It's not likely to risk our national security all that much, but it will make the administration have to work a little bit harder. But if Bush hadn't felt compelled to unnecessarily discard the rules and circumvent the court that had only very rarely been known to not grant a warrant, then none of this would have happened. You can't point the finger at one side and not the other, especially if, when the investigation is over, it is found that Bush overstepped his authority.

 

[Gunny]

article doesn't have any credibility. Since Bush has given himself the right to wiretap anyone, we can't really say who he's wiretapped. That's exactly the worrisome point. Sure, he's "supposed" to only wiretap people with direct terrorist linkage, but how do we know he won't decide that since old Howard Dean was against the war, he'd better be checked on? And while we just happened to be listening to him, he just happened to mention Democratic Party strategy, that just happened to be more useful to Karl Rove than a successful Watergate break-in would have been to Nixon. Gosh, darn, it was just a computer error (that was their excuse for domestic wire-tapping, which they initially said was never occurring).

How do we know he won't get into his car and drive down the center of the Mall in DC running over little old ladies? We don't. Your overactive imagination and speculation is evidence of nothing.

I still can't believe that libertarian Republican types here are just fine with Bush using his judgement about whom to tap.

We're fine with it because we voted him into office to make such judgement calls. The only reason you are not is because he is Bush and a Republican. You'd be fine with it if a Fasco-Dimocrap was doing it.

How about if we challenge Peters instead to provide one, just one example of a wiretap that saved us from a terrorist attack, which could not have been pre- or post- authorized by a judge, just to ensure the tiniest bit of check and balance?

How many terrorist attacks have we suffered here in the US since 9/11?

And how would you all feel if our next president, Hillary Clinton, had the same power? Would you trust her as much as you trust Bush, to use the power correctly? Ever heard the maxim, "power corrupts"?

Getting your hopes up already, huh? At least you have two words in the same paragrah that go together .... Hillary and corrupt.
As for wartime--you make my point, Adam's Apple. Much of what we did during WWII was inappropriate, and we've had to apologize for a lot of it, e.g. interning Japanese-Americans. That's exactly why there should be a bit of check and balance to this system.

Inappropriate to some, AFTER THE FACT. It's a crying shame politicians actually stooped to the level of appeasement by apologizing for decesions made by others that were considered appropriate at the time.
As for Bush wanting an imperial presidency, just read a little Andrew Yoo. He's the Berkeley professor who provides the theoretical basis for a king-like U.S. president (although when challenged, as he was in an excellent expository piece in the New York Review of Books a few months ago, he admits his basis is weak in the Constitution). He was a Bush team adviser for a while, and Cheney's two top aides are his acolytes. It's absolutely clear that Bush wants to strengthen presidential powers. Being at war is just a useful time to do it. He's made quite a few Republicans worry, but apparently no one here is worried at all. Where are the Specter Republicans on this board, the McCain Republicans, the Kean Republicans? Bush has molded his formerly "big tent" party into a big monolith, where everyone seems to think everything he does is just perfect.

Given the vast number of current Republican corruption scandals going on, you really want to trust this party to protect your privacy?

Mariner.

The "vast" number of current Republican corruption scandals going on is a testament to the vast number of Democrap witch hunts being conducted.

 

[Bonnie]

Nightwish...But if Bush hadn't felt compelled to unnecessarily discard the rules and circumvent the court that had only very rarely been known to not grant a warrant, then none of this would have happened. You can't point the finger at one side and not the other, especially if, when the investigation is over, it is found that Bush overstepped his authority.

Under FISA the phones were tapped without knowing who was using them, if al-Qaeda was calling someone in the United States. You can't realisitically get a warrant for whoever picks up, but the President can order wiretapping without a warrant when the subject is associated with a foreign power. The FISA review court itself had to admit in 2002 that the President has the power to order warrantless surveillance to gather intelligence, especially when we are at war. This seems to be very basic?
Even though the press has complete freedom to print what ever it wants, a little responsibility every now and again would be nice.

 

[Nightwish]

Under FISA the phones were tapped without knowing who was using them, if al-Qaeda was calling someone in the United States. You can't realisitically get a warrant for whoever picks up, but the President can order wiretapping without a warrant when the subject is associated with a foreign power.

That's Bush's argument, anyway. Whether or not it is true will ultimately be up to SCOTUS to decide. The jury is still out on that one.

The FISA review court itself had to admit in 2002 that the President has the power to order warrantless surveillance to gather intelligence, especially when we are at war.

Where did you get this from?

This seems to be very basic?

If your claim about 2002 is correct, then it would seem to give the President at least a limited authority to do so without a warrant. But I'm very doubtful that it gives him the authority to tap into our telephone company databases and monitor each and every call coming into and going out of the country, regardless whether the recipient or caller is known to be a terrorist or to have terrorist ties, which appears to be the case if the NTY article I posted is trustworthy.

Even though the press has complete freedom to print what ever it wants, a little responsibility every now and again would be nice.

If it turns out the Pres did nothing illegal, I'll concede full agreement. For the moment, I'll concede a conditional agreement, but still reserve my opinion that if this was done without constitutional authority, then it definitely undermines some of our most basic freedoms. As Ben Franklin said, (paraphrased, as I'm too lazy at the moment to look up the exact quote), anybody who is willing to sacrifice freedom for security is neither secure nor free.

 

[Bonnie]

Nightwish..If it turns out the Pres did nothing illegal, I'll concede full agreement. For the moment, I'll concede a conditional agreement, but still reserve my opinion that if this was done without constitutional authority, then it definitely undermines some of our most basic freedoms. As Ben Franklin said, (paraphrased, as I'm too lazy at the moment to look up the exact quote), anybody who is willing to sacrifice freedom for security is neither secure nor free

The Constitution, however, doesn't exist solely to constrain the executive, as those braying about the NSA wiretaps seem to suggest. It confers powers on the executive as well as limiting them. If those powers are abridged by another branch of the government, the Constitution is being violated — and not, obviously, by the president.

Thus, only one player so far in the NSA controversy has been held by a court to have probably violated the constitution, and he's a judge. Judge James Robertson resigned from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court — the secret court that approves domestic wiretaps related to national security — to protest the NSA program, making him something of a cause celebre among Bush bashers. But he's an odd hero, given that his contribution to the debate over the executive's surveillance power was a flagrant error.

In a 2002 decision, Judge Robertson and others on the FISA court imposed restrictions on the Bush administration's conduct of foreign-intelligence investigations that weren't mandated by the language of the 1978 FISA statute, and that had been explicitly made unnecessary by the 2001 Patriot Act. The Bush administration appealed, and the FISA court of review issued a stinging rebuke to Robertson, et al.

The court of review, apparently a stickler for such things, said the FISA "court did not provide any constitutional basis for its action — we think there is none — and misconstrued the main statutory provision on which it relied." Besides that, it was world-class jurisprudence. By effectively trying to micromanage the Justice Department, the decision continued, "the FISA court may well have exceeded [its] constitutional bounds."

Would that the court could permanently monitor the debate over the NSA program. Democrats who argue that Bush has abused the Constitution are, like Judge Robertson, themselves Constitution-abusers. The president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend the United States. If he can bomb the nation's enemies overseas without a court's approval, he certainly can listen to their conversations. (FISA, which requires a special warrant for foreign-intelligence surveillance in the U.S., doesn't apply abroad, making cross-border calls a murky area).

Every administration, liberal or conservative, has claimed this warrantless surveillance power, and no court has ever denied it. The FISA court of review explained, citing the 14th Circuit's 1980 decision in a case involving the surveillance of a Vietnamese spy named David Truong, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." The court added, "We take it for granted that the President does have that authority."

The court in the Truong case noted that the executive "not only has superior expertise in the area of foreign intelligence, it is also constitutionally designated as the pre-eminent authority in foreign affairs." And the Constitution's framers knew what they were about, according to the Truong court: "Attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign-intelligence initiatives."

That argument rings all the truer in the Age of al Qaeda, when a fast-moving, amorphous enemy operates both outside and within U.S. borders. Like it or not, the president has the constitutional authority to wage the war on terror. His detractors don't like it, so they pretend the authority doesn't exist, and trample on the Constitution in the process.

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601031523.asp

 

[Mariner]

it would be so constraining to seek the approval of a judge (and therefore have a written trail that documents who was wiretapped and why).

Has everyone forgotten J. Edgar Hoover? Don't any parallels with places such as East Germany come to mind? Wasn't there a little novel about "Big Brother" that suggested we might not want to trust Him?

I can't get over it. Republicans, who are supposed to want to protect the little people from big government intrusion, just delighted with the idea of a president being able to read their email, just because he says he wants to.

If in some extreme situation he wiretapped someone in order to prevent 9/11/2007, I think everyone would forgive him. But to be able to wiretap at will--especially when we just saw the military man who defended the wiretaps as international-only being embarrassed when it was immediately revealed that they were domestic too--seems completely unnecessary to me.

Why not at least require he keep a list of who was wiretapped and have it reviewed by a private bipartisan Congressional committee after the fact? Why give him more power than is really needed? In the current setup, it's like handing him the keys to the Democratic Party's secrets, and there's no reason Democrats should trust a word he says, given what a divider, rather than a uniter, this President has been.

Mariner.

 

[archangel]

it would be so constraining to seek the approval of a judge (and therefore have a written trail that documents who was wiretapped and why).

Has everyone forgotten J. Edgar Hoover? Don't any parallels with places such as East Germany come to mind? Wasn't there a little novel about "Big Brother" that suggested we might not want to trust Him?

I can't get over it. Republicans, who are supposed to want to protect the little people from big government intrusion, just delighted with the idea of a president being able to read their email, just because he says he wants to.

If in some extreme situation he wiretapped someone in order to prevent 9/11/2007, I think everyone would forgive him. But to be able to wiretap at will--especially when we just saw the military man who defended the wiretaps as international-only being embarrassed when it was immediately revealed that they were domestic too--seems completely unnecessary to me.

Why not at least require he keep a list of who was wiretapped and have it reviewed by a private bipartisan Congressional committee after the fact? Why give him more power than is really needed? In the current setup, it's like handing him the keys to the Democratic Party's secrets, and there's no reason Democrats should trust a word he says, given what a divider, rather than a uniter, this President has been.

Mariner.

but hey if ya want to play...at least play fair..J.Edgar was a cross dresser no?...anymore comments from the peanut gallerie?

 

[Nightwish]

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601031523.asp

Unfortunately, the article doesn't specify what the conditions and characteristics were of those cases -- Truong, and the 2002 decision -- so we don't know just how it parallels the current question, or if it does so at all. The problem is that the wire-tapping was more broad than just targeting known and suspected terrorist ties. If the NYT article is accurate, then it also involves broad-scale monitoring of regular US citizens, based solely on the criteria that the calls are going outside the United States or coming in from outside the United States. I'm pretty sure that there is no constitutional authority for that. And if the question were as simple as the right wing would like us to believe, then it wouldn't still be under investigation.

 

[manu1959]

anyone know which US citizens were wire tapped?

anyone know if the wire tapping stopped any terrorist acts?