He's on the news right now, talking about the NSA and terrorists. You can tell he's pissed that people want him to have oversight.

Bush..."Terrorists are bad, terrorists want to hurt us, just listen to the words of Osama Bin Laden...blah, blah, blah."

I can tell he's pissed.


Just get a freakin judge! Just get a independent judge for oversight. How hard is that?

Oh yeah...and what about the border?

Oh yeah...and what about the border?

Damn straight.  I'm sick of the state and federal government IGNORING illegal immigration.  


Sorry.  Don't mean to hijack your thread....

CMOS

The border needs some Tanks parked on it

Sorry to hijack

Quoted: He's on the news right now, talking about the NSA and terrorists. You can tell he's pissed that people want him to have oversight. Bush..."Terrorists are bad, terrorists want to hurt us, just listen to the words of Osama Bin Laden...blah, blah, blah." I can tell he's pissed. Just get a freakin judge! Just get a independent judge for oversight. How hard is that? Oh yeah...and what about the border?

No shit. Unfortunately, if he can't win on this NSA thing, he sure as hell can't win on the border issue either, that is if he were ever serious about doing anything about it. Time for a new clown at the circus.

I have to agree.  How hard is it to run this stuff past a judge no ore than 72 hours after the fact?
I'm not really all that worried about Jorge, per se, but about the next warm body to occupy that chair.  President Hillary Clinton with this type of unfettered power makes me quite nervous.


CO

If we have judicial oversight, then the terrorists will win...
As I have said before, I'm not really all that worried about Bush, but more about the next person to take up residence in the White House.

Let's focus on securing the border - then we won't need to worry about tangos at home.

I am 100% fine with wire taps.

Ive never seen a president make more appeals to the American people then Mr.Bush. He needs to get out of the radar for alittle bit. Almost 4-5 times a week this guy addresses the nation, I feel like im being programmed. Never anything new, Same bullshit different context.

"War on Terror" Means nothing unless you address the war on the boarder.I cant belive this guy dishes out the tough talk on iraq/ al qadea but is a little softie when it comes to our boarders.Whoever takes up this boarder issue in 08' will defenitly become the next President.

Quoted: He's on the news right now, talking about the NSA and terrorists. You can tell he's pissed that people want him to have oversight. Bush..."Terrorists are bad, terrorists want to hurt us, just listen to the words of Osama Bin Laden...blah, blah, blah." I can tell he's pissed. Just get a freakin judge! Just get a independent judge for oversight. How hard is that?

He does.  In some cases though the sureveillance was implemented before a warrant was obtained.  However, this was all done with the knowledge the warrant would be issued, if given the time to go through the normal speed and procedure.  But in instances where time was of the essence, the process was expedidited and the warrant issued retroactively.

This nothing issue has been distorted, conflated, and hysterically and breathlessly exaggerated in order to inflict political damage against the president.  These people don't give a goddamn about privacy issues (who illegally obtained Michael Steele's credit report to look for damaging information they could use against him?  Democrats).  They don't give a fuck about national security, they think terrorism is an exaggeration Bush is cynically using to push tax cuts for the rich.  

Things like this come around every 6 six weeks like clockwork, and each time everyone acts like we've never seen these obvious attempts to smear Bush which are heralded as the end of our Republic but ALWAYS end up having zero substance to their accusations.

This is just more of the same.  This too shall pass.  Bush seems content in the past to just take it passively and watch his approval ratings sink as a result.  He's getting sick of it, and frankly so am I

Quoted: Quoted: I have to agree.  How hard is it to run this stuff past a judge no ore than 72 hours after the fact? I'm not really all that worried about Jorge, per se, but about the next warm body to occupy that chair.  President Hillary Clinton with this type of unfettered power makes me quite nervous. CO Did you worry about the hundreds of times Slick used it domestically? (aledged)

Hint: Bush is too. The funny thing about all all the software used to monitor emails and telephone calls are on international routers... sure; however, these routers also service domestic services for West and East coast communications.

As for monitoring international communications, nothing is stopping the US government from routing communications through other countries such that they are designated "international communications" even if both the target address and source address are in the US.

Quoted: I am 100% fine with wire taps.

My sig line is for you.

Bush is seriously kidding himself or someone else, but the new act about the wire taps is ILLEGAL, UN-CONSTITUTIONAL, and it IS a CRIME. Get over it.

Quoted: Quoted: He's on the news right now, talking about the NSA and terrorists. You can tell he's pissed that people want him to have oversight. Bush..."Terrorists are bad, terrorists want to hurt us, just listen to the words of Osama Bin Laden...blah, blah, blah." I can tell he's pissed. Just get a freakin judge! Just get a independent judge for oversight. How hard is that? He does.  In some cases though the sureveillance was implemented before a warrant was obtained.  However, this was all done with the knowledge the warrant would be issued, if given the time to go through the normal speed and procedure.  But in instances where time was of the essence, the process was expedidited and the warrant issued retroactively. This nothing issue has been distorted, conflated, and hysterically and breathlessly exaggerated in order to inflict political damage against the president.  These people don't give a goddamn about privacy issues (who illegally obtained Michael Steele's credit report to look for damaging information they could use against him?  Democrats).  They don't give a fuck about national security, they think terrorism is an exaggeration Bush is cynically using to push tax cuts for the rich.   Things like this come around every 6 six weeks like clockwork, and each time everyone acts like we've never seen these obvious attempts to smear Bush which are heralded as the end of our Republic but ALWAYS end up having zero substance to their accusations. This is just more of the same.  This too shall pass.  Bush seems content in the past to just take it passively and watch his approval ratings sink as a result.  He's getting sick of it, and frankly so am I

Then why doesn't he come out and say the NSA got a warrant for their searches? Because they can't. This may be a nothing issue for you, but I don't think it "is" a nothing issue. What's next?

I don't care if they wire tap people they suppect as terrorists, but I want some oversight. The Democrats break the law and so do the Republicans and Bush and others broke the law.

But he's right on this...confirm Alito. I want a Constructionist judge on the Surpreme Court. We need more of them that will follow the Consitution.

Quoted: Quoted: I am 100% fine with wire taps. My sig line is for you.

At least get it right then.  The actual wording is: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The omission of those key qualifiers -- 'essential' and 'little' -- makes all the difference in the world. Ben Franklin has been hijacked to endorse an untenable and deadly view that no sacrifice of any liberty for any amount of safety at any time should ever be made.

You guys are fucking idiots who are buying into the liberal media spin.

You rightly kvetch when you see them calling an SKS a "machine gun" or a 1911 an "assault pistol," but you parrot their bullshit spin on this NSA thing like this and it is clear you don't understand it.

Let me break it down for you:

1.   The US Constitution does not protect the phone calls of terrorists located outside of the United States.   cf. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1989) (search and seizure protections do not apply to non-citizens in out of USA searches).

2.   Therefore, no pre-approval is required to monitor communications of these out of country non-citizens.

3.   As in any "search and seizure" case, the property or communicaitons of "non targets" can be exposed.   If the POPO pull me over and conduct a wingspan search (for which no warrant is necessary) they may well have cause to look into my girlfriend's duffle bag in the seat next to me even though she is not there to grant or withhold her consent.  And if there's contraband in that bag, I get charged and probably so does she.

4.   Once the government has the lawful right to be "somewhere" i.e., in your house, or on your phone line, as to one party, then its validly there as to incidentals.   So if Luca Brasi gets his phone tapped because he's the target of a mob investigation, that means that when Luca's baby sitter, or car mechanic, or brother in law call or are called by Luca, their conversations are being intercepted even though there's never been a judicial review or warrant issued as to THEIR phone lines.   The government already has the power to be there, and if you're phoning or receiving calls from Luca, you're going to get monitored.

5.  Same, exact, fucking thing applies with the NSA shit now.   We've got a fix on certain cell phones, e-mails, servers, and shit like that used by out of country foreign non-citizens.  We can monitor these things without any judicial review whatsoever, and without a warrant.   And if those means are being used to contact US citizens or by US citizens to contact the terrorists, then those citizens are in no different a position as one of the "innocents" (or maybe not so innocent folks) calling Luca Brasi in my example above.    You don't like it?  Quit fucking calling mobsters or terrorists whose calls are probably being monitored.

6.   At some point, Congress passed a law purporting to limit what POTUS could do without congressional approval.  We'll see this law tested, now.  Congress is famous for attempting to exhert power over issues already delegated to other branches of the government or to the people..  Congress could pass a law tomorrow that says "Congress shall henceforth pick the POTUS without any election by the people."   But that shit won't fly, because Congress exceeds its authority in going there.   Likewise, Congress can say "the Congress henceforth shall have the power to sack members of the cabinet," but again, that's something already in the exclusive realm of the POTUS as the cabinet members serve at his pleasure.   Bush (and Clinton, and Bush 1, and Reagan, and probably others) have taken the position that Congress does not have the power to _add_ a warrant requirement for these out of country non-citizens' communications without usurping the "executive" authority of the President.    I don't know what the SCOTUS will do with this question, but I think the executive has a colorable argument, and certainly a good reason to monitor the calls made between foreign nationals with terror ties and their contacts here in the USA.
 

The 4th amendment is clear. Let it go.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am 100% fine with wire taps. My sig line is for you. At least get it right then.  The actual wording is: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The omission of those key qualifiers -- 'essential' and 'little' -- makes all the difference in the world. Ben Franklin has been hijacked to endorse an untenable and deadly view that no sacrifice of any liberty for any amount of safety at any time should ever be made.

Word.

I don't feel like the "liberty" to have unfettered and unmonitored conversations with foreign terrorist agents is an "essential" liberty, but what do I know.  

Quoted: Quoted: He's on the news right now, talking about the NSA and terrorists. You can tell he's pissed that people want him to have oversight. Bush..."Terrorists are bad, terrorists want to hurt us, just listen to the words of Osama Bin Laden...blah, blah, blah." I can tell he's pissed. Just get a freakin judge! Just get a independent judge for oversight. How hard is that? He does.  In some cases though the sureveillance was implemented before a warrant was obtained.  However, this was all done with the knowledge the warrant would be issued, if given the time to go through the normal speed and procedure.  But in instances where time was of the essence, the process was expedidited and the warrant issued retroactively. This nothing issue has been distorted, conflated, and hysterically and breathlessly exaggerated in order to inflict political damage against the president.  These people don't give a goddamn about privacy issues (who illegally obtained Michael Steele's credit report to look for damaging information they could use against him?  Democrats).  They don't give a fuck about national security, they think terrorism is an exaggeration Bush is cynically using to push tax cuts for the rich.   Things like this come around every 6 six weeks like clockwork, and each time everyone acts like we've never seen these obvious attempts to smear Bush which are heralded as the end of our Republic but ALWAYS end up having zero substance to their accusations. This is just more of the same.  This too shall pass.  Bush seems content in the past to just take it passively and watch his approval ratings sink as a result.  He's getting sick of it, and frankly so am I

My understanding is that the warrants were never issued at all though.  Not 24,48, or 72hrs after the taps.  That's the part that raises my eyebrows.  Why not use the process if it allows you to obtain the warrant after the fact... you can't use expediency in that case... so what's the problem with getting them?

Is that correct or have I heard wrong?

Quoted: You guys are fucking idiots who are buying into the liberal media spin. You rightly kvetch when you see them calling an SKS a "machine gun" or a 1911 an "assault pistol," but you parrot their bullshit spin on this NSA thing like this and it is clear you don't understand it. Let me break it down for you: 1.   The US Constitution does not protect the phone calls of terrorists located outside of the United States.   cf. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1989) (search and seizure protections do not apply to non-citizens in out of USA searches). 2.   Therefore, no pre-approval is required to monitor communications of these out of country non-citizens. 3.   As in any "search and seizure" case, the property or communicaitons of "non targets" can be exposed.   If the POPO pull me over and conduct a wingspan search (for which no warrant is necessary) they may well have cause to look into my girlfriend's duffle bag in the seat next to me even though she is not there to grant or withhold her consent.  And if there's contraband in that bag, I get charged and probably so does she. 4.   Once the government has the lawful right to be "somewhere" i.e., in your house, or on your phone line, as to one party, then its validly there as to incidentals.   So if Luca Brasi gets his phone tapped because he's the target of a mob investigation, that means that when Luca's baby sitter, or car mechanic, or brother in law call or are called by Luca, their conversations are being intercepted even though there's never been a judicial review or warrant issued as to THEIR phone lines.   The government already has the power to be there, and if you're phoning or receiving calls from Luca, you're going to get monitored. 5.  Same, exact, fucking thing applies with the NSA shit now.   We've got a fix on certain cell phones, e-mails, servers, and shit like that used by out of country foreign non-citizens.  We can monitor these things without any judicial review whatsoever, and without a warrant.   And if those means are being used to contact US citizens or by US citizens to contact the terrorists, then those citizens are in no different a position as one of the "innocents" (or maybe not so innocent folks) calling Luca Brasi in my example above.    You don't like it?  Quit fucking calling mobsters or terrorists whose calls are probably being monitored. 6.   At some point, Congress passed a law purporting to limit what POTUS could do without congressional approval.  We'll see this law tested, now.  Congress is famous for attempting to exhert power over issues already delegated to other branches of the government or to the people..  Congress could pass a law tomorrow that says "Congress shall henceforth pick the POTUS without any election by the people."   But that shit won't fly, because Congress exceeds its authority in going there.   Likewise, Congress can say "the Congress henceforth shall have the power to sack members of the cabinet," but again, that's something already in the exclusive realm of the POTUS as the cabinet members serve at his pleasure.   Bush (and Clinton, and Bush 1, and Reagan, and probably others) have taken the position that Congress does not have the power to _add_ a warrant requirement for these out of country non-citizens' communications without usurping the "executive" authority of the President.    I don't know what the SCOTUS will do with this question, but I think the executive has a colorable argument, and certainly a good reason to monitor the calls made between foreign nationals with terror ties and their contacts here in the USA.

So what about the 'entirely' domestic communications that are being claimed to have been tapped?  Are they just lumping that in when warrants were atcually obtained or is it as it's being reported or implied that these were also conducted without even the FISA warrant

At least get it right then. The actual wording is: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The omission of those key qualifiers -- 'essential' and 'little' -- makes all the difference in the world. Ben Franklin has been hijacked to endorse an untenable and deadly view that no sacrifice of any liberty for any amount of safety at any time should ever be made.

+100000

Ive never seen a president make more appeals to the American people then Mr.Bush. He needs to get out of the radar for alittle bit. Almost 4-5 times a week this guy addresses the nation, I feel like im being programmed. Never anything new, Same bullshit different context.

I agree, but I can also accept why Bush HAS to do it.  His campaigning wasn't able to stop after the election.  As soon as he and the rest of the administration stop campaigning, then the media will swing the lights back SOLELY on those that are calling the admin liars, thieves, etc.  He has to keep talking, not just for himself but for morale.

Quoted: I have to agree.  How hard is it to run this stuff past a judge no ore than 72 hours after the fact? I'm not really all that worried about Jorge, per se, but about the next warm body to occupy that chair.  President Hillary Clinton with this type of unfettered power makes me quite nervous. CO

Probably because of time those idiots told the media we were tracking Osama by his satellite phone.

tag

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The US Supreme Court ruled that phone lines where included in the 4th amendment. I do not believe this is so.

Here's the admin's official position, from the AG:

www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_0601241.html

Quoted: The 4th amendment is clear. Let it go.

Here here! Its not like the 4th amendment says anything like "unreasonable search and siezure".

After all, who would consider listening in to international calls of a declared enemy of the country to be unreasonable.


For the clue impaired, it is reasonable to listen in to phone calls made by known Al Queda members and associates, especially if those calls are foreign originated, and are answered within the confines of the US.

Quoted: Just get a freakin judge! Just get a independent judge for oversight. How hard is that?

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Quoted: I am 100% fine with wire taps.

+1

They can tap my phone all they want if it'll increase chances of catching an al Queda.

Quoted: Quoted: I am 100% fine with wire taps. +1 They can tap my phone all they want if it'll increase chances of catching an al Queda.

How about if they only listen to incoming calls from known Al Queda members? Oh, right, thats what they are doing.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am 100% fine with wire taps. +1 They can tap my phone all they want if it'll increase chances of catching an al Queda. How about if they only listen to incoming calls from known Al Queda members? Oh, right, thats what they are doing.

That's what I'm saying.


There's NO "smoking gun" here. EVERYTHING Bush did is legal, and as important NECESARY to fighting a war.

The ONLY people complaining about this are the people who always hated Bush anyway, and now just found something else (imagine my surprise! ) to hate him for.

Quoted: He's on the news right now, talking about the NSA and terrorists. You can tell he's pissed that people want him to have oversight. Bush..."Terrorists are bad, terrorists want to hurt us, just listen to the words of Osama Bin Laden...blah, blah, blah." I can tell he's pissed. Just get a freakin judge! Just get a independent judge for oversight. How hard is that?

They already have the Senate and House Intelligence committees for oversight, in addition to the briefings the President has done with the Senate and House leaders, and the head of the FISA court.  

Perhaps if some of the Democrats who are whining (ie John Kerry) would actually ATTEND the committee meetings they are supposed to be attending....

Quoted: I can tell he's pissed.

You're easily amused, aren't you?

Quoted: I am 100% fine with wire taps.

Another obvious .

What a 'tard.

Quoted: Oh yeah...and what about the border? Damn straight.  I'm sick of the state and federal government IGNORING illegal immigration.   Sorry.  Don't mean to hijack your thread.... CMOS

+1,000,000

Quoted: Quoted: I am 100% fine with wire taps. +1 They can tap my phone all they want if it'll increase chances of catching an al Queda.

Three questions:
1)  What if I don't want MY phone tapped?  
You may give YOUR consent, but I do not.  

2)  Would you feel the same way if the democrats controlled the three branches of government instead of the republicans?  
If you wouldn't, then consider that we may not always control the government the way we do - but the precedent will have been set.  

3)  What happens when this "power" is used to "monitor illegal weapons sales within the US?"

What president Bush is doing isn't the problem, it's where this is going that is the problem.  Slippery slope and all that.

Matt

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am 100% fine with wire taps. +1 They can tap my phone all they want if it'll increase chances of catching an al Queda. Two questions: 1)  What if I don't want MY phone tapped?   You may give YOUR consent, but I do not.   2)  Would you feel the same way if the democrats controlled the three branches of government instead of the republicans?   If you wouldn't, then consider that we may not always control the government the way we do - but the precedent will have been set.   Matt

Some members here cannot see the forest for the trees, nor can they imagine two years in the future.  Such shortsightedness I thought was reserved for children, or perhaps those with the understanding of a child.

until the borders are secure then I'm not buying that GWB is serious about the WoT. that being the case I have to assume he want the authority to tap phones for another reason and therefore the answer is no fucking way.

Quoted: Two questions: 1)  What if I don't want MY phone tapped?   You may give YOUR consent, but I do not.

Irrelevent. That isn't happenning, chicken little.

The taps are for calls of KNOWN al Queda. In such case, ALL taps are legit IMO.

Don't want to get tapped? DON'T CHAT WITH alQUEDA. It REALLY IS that simple.

2)  Would you feel the same way if the democrats controlled the three branches of government instead of the republicans?   If you wouldn't, then consider that we may not always control the government the way we do - but the precedent will have been set.   Matt

al Queda wants to kill us no matter who has control of gov't.

Here's the problem -

You mistakenly think the phone lines are private. THEY AREN'T. They are owned by somone other than you. The service providers are someone other than you. The satellites are owned by someone other than you.

You want privacy on the phone?  GET YOUR OWN LINES, SATELLITE, AND BE YOUR OWN SERVICE PROVIDER. THEN and ONLY then do you have privacy rights. As you do inside your own home, or car.

I've ALWAYS conducted my phone conversations as if someone was listening in. And I also don't call 1-900 sex chats.

Quoted: Quoted: I am 100% fine with wire taps. Another obvious . What a 'tard.

I am not a troll i just believe the constitution does not covers wire tapes in the 4th amendment.

Quoted: Some members here cannot see the forest for the trees, nor can they imagine two years in the future.  Such shortsightedness I thought was reserved for children, or perhaps those with the understanding of a child.

Quoted: So what about the 'entirely' domestic communications that are being claimed to have been tapped?  Are they just lumping that in when warrants were atcually obtained or is it as it's being reported or implied that these were also conducted without even the FISA warrant

To the best of my knowledge, any purely domestic phone calls that have been monitored were done with the approval of the FISA court.  If you have information to the contrary, please post a link to the info or give us the source.

Quoted: I have to agree.  How hard is it to run this stuff past a judge no ore than 72 hours after the fact? I'm not really all that worried about Jorge, per se, but about the next warm body to occupy that chair.  President Hillary Clinton with this type of unfettered power makes me quite nervous. CO

I believe the reason the NSA didn't go to the court for warrants was that there is a suspicion that the FISA court has a mole that is leaking info to the press.

I can't think of any other logical reason.

Quoted: Quoted: I have to agree.  How hard is it to run this stuff past a judge no ore than 72 hours after the fact? I'm not really all that worried about Jorge, per se, but about the next warm body to occupy that chair.  President Hillary Clinton with this type of unfettered power makes me quite nervous. CO I believe the reason the NSA didn't go to the court for warrants was that there is a suspicion that the FISA court has a mole that is leaking info to the press. I can't think of any other logical reason.

That and there's significant precedent for NOT asking a judges permission WHEN YOU ARE AT WAR.

People who have a problem with this need to read up a little on WWII. The gov't was imposing rationing, controlling communications, even interring Japanese citizens (a little over the top) And see we turned out JUST FINE.

THIS was hasn't caused ANYONE anywhere NEAR the inconvenience. And the little cry babies are whining like school girls.  

Freedom ISN'T free. Quit whining cuz it costs  YOU (said generically) something.

Quoted: ...................People who have a problem with this need to read up a little on WWII. The gov't was imposing rationing, controlling communications, even interring Japanese citizens (a little over the top) And see we turned out JUST FINE. THIS was hasn't caused ANYONE anywhere NEAR the inconvenience. And the little cry babies are whining like school girls.   Freedom ISN'T free. Quit whining cuz it costs  YOU (said generically) something.

Might want to check up on that. Japanese citizens were repatriated. 110,000 people of Japanese decent were interned. Many had not completed their citizenship effort. Around 2/3 were American citizens. Many were from families that had been in the US for generations and were forced to sell their property at below market. Also check out the 442 Regimental Combat Team, of course.

Quoted: Quoted: ...................People who have a problem with this need to read up a little on WWII. The gov't was imposing rationing, controlling communications, even interring Japanese citizens (a little over the top) And see we turned out JUST FINE. THIS was hasn't caused ANYONE anywhere NEAR the inconvenience. And the little cry babies are whining like school girls.   Freedom ISN'T free. Quit whining cuz it costs  YOU (said generically) something. Might want to check up on that. Japanese citizens were repatriated. 110,000 people of Japanese decent were interned. Many had not completed their citizenship effort. Around 2/3 were American citizens. Many were from families that had been in the US for generations and were forced to sell their property at below market. Also check out the 442 Regimental Combat Team, of course.

Of course you realize the internment of the Japanese citizens wan't entirely punitive don't you? It likey saved thousands of them from being killed or maimed by idiots.

Well, here it comes.

CLICK

Lets get out of the "ethereal" and into the "nuts and bolts" of what's going on here:

An FBI sting case that targeted two members of an Albany mosque should be dismissed because the investigation originated from a national spying program that may be illegal, an attorney for one of the defendants said in a motion filed in U.S. District Court. The challenge of the government's case against Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain, who are accused of taking part in a plot to sell missile launchers to terrorists, may force federal prosecutors, and a U.S. District judge, to address a national debate unfolding about whether the National Security Agency violated any laws by eavesdropping on U.S. residents. Terence L. Kindlon, Aref's attorney, filed a nine-page motion late Friday asking for all evidence in the case to be thrown out, and for a dismissal of the indictment. While defense lawyers in the case have been requesting access to classified evidence for more than a year, the new motion specifically targets the NSA program.

So, you see:  These guys, members of a Mosque, were part of a plot to "sell missile launchers to terrorist..."  

They apparently had phone contact with one of those out of country non-citizens that the program has been spying on.   And, as one might expect when there are communications between out of contry TERRORISTS and their contacts here, those communications were about, well, TERRORISM.

So, I guess you guys are saying that a FISA warrant should have been obtained.

Of course, the FISA court leaks like a seive, and then the press would phone the targets "for comment" -- its happened before:  Judith Miller was leaked information about a raid on an Islamic charity acting as a terrorist front, and she called them for a comment on the story at the time advising them that government action was eminent.

Whatever guys.   You (and the knee jerk liberals) would howl to the moon of those missiles took out an airliner.

Quoted: Bush is seriously kidding himself or someone else, but the new act about the wire taps is ILLEGAL, UN-CONSTITUTIONAL, and it IS a CRIME. Get over it.

It is NOT new, it's not illegal or unconstitutional, and therefore isn't a crime.  Get over it.

Quoted: Just get a freakin judge! Just get a independent judge for oversight. How hard is that? Oh yeah...and what about the border?

Yeah, just cut into one of Zarwahiri's cellphone calls from Pakistan to Achmed Al-Kaboom in Jersey and tell them to put a hold on their conversation until we get a judge to okay the eavesdropping on Achmed's "privacy".

Uh-huh.

Quoted: Quoted: I can tell he's pissed. You're easily amused, aren't you?

Yup!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am 100% fine with wire taps. +1 They can tap my phone all they want if it'll increase chances of catching an al Queda. Three questions: 1)  What if I don't want MY phone tapped?   You may give YOUR consent, but I do not.   2)  Would you feel the same way if the democrats controlled the three branches of government instead of the republicans?   If you wouldn't, then consider that we may not always control the government the way we do - but the precedent will have been set.   3)  What happens when this "power" is used to "monitor illegal weapons sales within the US?" [size]4]What president Bush is doing isn't the problem, it's where this is going that is the problem.  Slippery slope and all that. Matt

DING, DING, DING

What's going to happen when Hitlery Klingon gets into office and the democrats get power back? Will you still be for this then?

Tapping phones of AMERICANS "suppected" of having ties with terrorists is not the problem...doing it the wrong way is. Get it? And if you call Kerry as part of the oversight... That guy couldn't pull his head out of his butt even if he had a crane helping him.

I want INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT! Meaning the judicial branch!

Sure, we are at war. Sure, the government has to go after people they suspect are with the enemy. But there is a LEGAL way and an ILLEGAL way of doing it, and Bush choose to go the ILLEGAL way route. Just like Clinton and his daddy, Bush Sr. did before him. This has been an on going thing for a LONG time and now Bush, Jr. got his tit in a ringer over it. Nothing will happen to him. Let me say that again...NOTHING will happen to him. He won't go to jail, he won't be kicked out of office....just like Clinton, if he is impeached, it will be all words and no action. For me? I just want some independent oversight, like it's SUPPOSE to be.

If you don't want to have your phone calls listened too, don't make them. Period. How's that for freedom? That's where we have been at for a long time and this is only going to get worse.

Tap phones if someone is suspected of doing bad things...sure. But get a WARRANT first. Just hiring an independent judge to be on call or be attached to the NSA would do it for me. Just as long as I know these activities ARE being watched over. We don't need some 30 year old NSA pervert listening into his hot neighbors phone conversations just because it get's him off.

And if Bush WAS concerned about our "war" on terrorism, he'd close the borders. Or at least do something constructive about it.