im split on this one,something tells me our gov will take advantage of this down the road.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071218/pl_nm/...u9leqt1OD0E1vAI

I hope so. Heaven forbid they hear me making dinner plans while they look for terrorist.

Well my thoughts on this are easy [for a change]. I've been watching the 'debate' over this for years. The issue is not phone spying can't be done - the main fight is the government going about doing it illegally when they clearly have an easy process to follow to do so legally. It's another Bush admin activity where they stomp all over the Constitution in their jackboots as if they have the privilege to do so disregarding the fact that they are elected officials of the people. Where does it stop? The evil trends of governments are allowed to go on a rampage after they petition their fear-mongering goals. There is NO need to do this without warrants obtained first - 'free' people need to keep their government's on a leash - I'm not saying it can't be a long leash, but we can't let those we elect establish a pattern of using underhanded manouevres to do what they want without accountability - remember what they say about 'absolute power corrupts...'
I've listed the following links about the recent 'progression downhill' from last May until now. Showing how those being watchdogs are playing a critical role in safeguarding the Constitution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7050302323.html
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/200...et-it-for-them/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washingt...p;partner=MYWAY

Wow, that is scary.. Interception of telecommunications without a warrant!! This means that any communication you have has a chance to be intercepted. I'm not up to date on all the facts on this bill. But I know in Canada, we need a warrant. If you have enough solid information, a warrant is easy to get. Why are these communication compainies doing the spying.. that should be done by intelligence units.

Watch what you say, big brother is listening!!

Must be nice being Canadian and not a target of international terrorist conspiracies hell bent on the destruction of your country and people. Yes, I know there are terrorist in Canada, but you have to admit that Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, and others, are not screaming for the destruction of Canada.



Warrants are often too little too late when trying to root out terrorist cells within ones borders. These actions are consistant when a country is at war. Similar things where done by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and as well as during WWI and WWII. The US government does not have an unlimited capacity to record and investigate every single person electronic/phone messaging. They are focused on known or suspected terrorist activities/people.



Am I wholy confortable about this, no. I am certainly concerned about its use. But, I realize we are at war with an enemy that is in hiding. The US has not had a attack on our soil since 9/11, but there have been over 200 plots stopped partly because of the efforts to monitor messages.



When a nuclear bomb goes off in New York, the last thing anyone will care about is that the goverment was monitoring messages without a warrant. In fact, the public will demand that they should have done more to stop the plot. And you know I'm right.



Let's say that Hellfighter was calling his drug runner in Florida arranging the next shipment of heroin. The US goverment, picks up on this. However, they cannot make an arrest of anyone, because the evidence would not have been obtained properly. Now, of course, they would be on too Hellfighter and his supplier and may begin to follow him and get further warrant's, ect., and then make an arrest based on the new evidence. Hellfighter would argue that it is unfair that the goverment knew about his drug dealing. But Hellfighter should not being doing illegal activities anyway. So I could care less.



Regardless, I feel it is important that the telecommincations companies be freely able to work with the goverment during times of war without penalties of "civil rights" lawsuits. If not, how are we ever going to monitor terrorists? How are we going to stop the next 9/11?

I remember when Echelon first came to light in the early 90's, the Europeans started complaining that the US NSA was sharing their intercepts with US companies, thereby giving those US companies an unfair advantage in their industrial espionage. There were many allegations that US companies had stolen proprietary information from European companies and were beating them to patent application with the foreign company's inventions. That was pre-2001.

The laws on the books at that time made it illegal for US intelligence to gather signal intelligence on its citizens. Allegedly, they worked around this minor handicap by letting five other countries access the data streams and those other country's personnel were the "official" spies. Each country would intercept communications from another country, thereby enabling them all to skirt their domestic spying laws.

There was a widely publicized claim that Echelon could record any conversation, anywhere in the world, in real time. Quite the claim. Obviously, they may have been able to record those conversations, but they clearly didn't have the resources to properly analyze the data and 9/11 stands as evidence of that ... unless you are a conspiracy theorist.

Today, we know that all of our email and web traffic is being captured by the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness (TIA) program. This first came to light when AT&T technician, Mark Klein, turned whistleblower and revealed details of their operation in hubs across the country. Read about it here.

I'm certainly not personally threatened that the US government can read, record and store every email I send, as I have nothing to hide. But, what about those pre-2001 arguments?

What happens if the government decides to help one of their favored companies? For example, what if AT&T donates heavily to the Clinton campaign and then, once in office, she rewards their support by giving them access to all Verizon and Sprint company communications? Worse yet, what if she decided to give our gaming strats to DeV??? Or, what happens if in 50 years from now our government decides to ban guns and takes away our few remaining liberties?

It strikes me as ludicrous that anyone would feel truly comfortable giving any government unfettered access to any and all communication.

Polls show that a majority of Americans feel that big business has too much influence on government. Well, this bill illustrates that when it comes to the government/big business nexus, it truly is a two way street. This bill just formalizes the arrangement.

Warrants are often too little too late when trying to root out terrorist cells within ones borders.
When a nuclear bomb goes off in New York, the last thing anyone will care about is that the goverment was monitoring messages
********************************************************************************
***********
Where is your evidence for this?
The FISA court is secret. The government could go there at any time and get a warrant to wiretap and none of the records are made public. It is my understanding that in the history of the court they have only turned down a request for a warrant a very few times.
The nly reason to avoid the court is that you want to spy on people that you have no evidence against, which would be unconstituional. But who cares about the constitution anymore right?
Also if a nuclear bomb goes off in New York what ws the point of all the spying? It didn't work very well did it?

So they can listen to any conversation to determine if the person is involved with criminal activity. There are a great deal more ways to go around it then to let them have access to all private communication. That's why warrants were needed in the first place.

There are also exigent circumstances that is used in Canada for emergency situations. My understanding of this bill is that no private citizen can now bring about a law suit against a private telecommunication company for intercepting their coommunication, even if there is no illegal offences occurring.

This sure takes away a great deal of privacy and rights for the legal, law abiding citizens.

Terrorism is huge in Canada as well. If you think Canada has not been a target, I can a sure you we have. But there are many ways to fight terrorism without taking away the rights of the decent, law abiding citizens, which there are more of then terrorists or drug dealers.

IMO, terrorists should have automatic death penalty and drug dealers should have death penalty on second offence. Maybe it won't look so appealing to be involved with criminal activity.

Acts of terrorism have been happening for a long time, 911 made it out right visible that it's still active. Todays communication via television, radio, internet, etc makes it more real for the average citizen. What about Pearl Harbour.... that in itself was an act of terrorism in my opinion.



Using exigent circumstances, one could obtain records in a heart beat without a warrant. It's done on a daily bases, for the best interest and safety of public interest.

JMO

First, No offense to my Canadian friends!!! I love and cherish y'all! Eh!

Pearl Harbor was an act of war. 911 was an act of war.
The difference is that the enemy of 911 was among us.

One can't obtain a warrant without sufficient cause. But sufficient cause was obviously not there to stop 911.

Again, we KNOW the enemy is trying to destroy us. maybe with one of the missing nukes from the Soviet empire.
US Attorney: Judge we need a warrant to wiretap "The Healthy Muslim Fund" of NewYork.
Judge: On what grounds.
US Attorney: Israel intelligence thinks that a member of that group may have knowledge of a nuuclear bomb.
Judge: Do you have a written statement or any other corrabarating evidence?
US Attorney: No
Judge: Get lost.
Kaboooooom!

Can't argue against your fantasies Capt.

Let's say Hellfighter used as an example as a drug lord is highly unlikely since he doesn't even touch pot and is lacto-vegetarian. Let's say that analogy would be as humourous as me commenting with rationale about Captain Rocket in the act of pimping out one or more of his closest female loved ones....

and mr.Rocket, let's also say what you don't mind at all your bimbo-headed buddy Bush doing is what all those list of bad guys you mention did without fear of people speaking up - decisions made without fear of consequences- your mom, brother, sister disappears and no one is accountable- what would you say then Mr.Rocket- you know they're innocent but you have bush's henchmen telling you by executive privileges you can't know where they are-they don't have a lawyer- who their accusers are, nor what is being done to them- I think your thinking you yourself are immune from of all of this... but when it comes the day you are accused by someone unknown of being 'american Taliban Rocket' and get whisked away for waterboarding - what will you do without those protections that are supposed to safeguard you.....?

So what you're saying is you want the tearing up of the constitution in favour of goose-stepping Napoleon's YOU elected. I fear you have no idea what freedom is really about and why protections are in place to guarantee mad-minds don't gradually chip away at its foundations to the point where suddenly the corrupted government has its own goons coming for those last remnants of freedom believers in the middle of the night.

"Here in the USA we...."
Repeatedly you keep making this a national issue as if foreigners miss some well-guarded point only US neo-cons are privvy to.
So while you think Canadians may be offended by the un-logic you use, I myself feel some pity that you don't see how you weaken your arguments resorting to that 'crutch' to lean on as if it has some credence. Sorry- but it impresses me not at all.
You need to study Canadian headlines too to understand we indeed are in harm's way of terrorists-somehow you gloss over the thwarted Toronto attack I mentioned in detail to you not too long ago.
And repeatedly I remind you 70% of Americans disagree with Bush's anti-terrorist policies. Many Americans disagree with this big-brother policy so please wise up and understand this spin you like to put on these policies as one condoned by the majority of Americans falls on its face. Point in case is fellow Americans differing from your opinions in this very thread!

Your Congress and senators, and watchdog groups are in place to make sure lunatics don't undermine freedom's credibility as seen by the rest of the world. If the USA can't be seen as the cornerstone of upholding freedom in the world then you'll see the valued alliances shy away- and here's another history lesson for you- Pearl Harbour happened because the USA's isolationist fevour prior to Dec 41-though valid- proved being alone with a maverick attitude to neighbours is a dangerous self-destructing policy.

You say 9-11 is comparble to Pearl Harbour- do you know your history- Bin Laden and his goons were waging war with the West long before sep.11th - thus it was no declaration of a war. How many years before were the same buildings bombed?

You learn well from Bush and cronies, Mr.Rocket in conjuring up hypothetical disasters as a pretext for taking pre-emptive drastic actions where none is needed. Your examples are pure speculations... your intent is fear-mongering- your desire is to get everyone besides yourself to run around like headless chickens ; perhaps just to console yourself that you are incapable of being sound of mind like the majority.

If you want to really understand how governments reap terror on its citizens by acting out secretive covert activities then start studying dictatorships and how their goons operate and how the rest of societies foundations are brought in line to support them.. ie, the media and communications.

And the thing about judge saying 'get lost'.... wow- If a judge lives in the city where some worthwhile proof shows a bomb will vapourise him and all its citizens - do you honestly he's going to utter those words.

Pearl Harbour was terrorism in my opinion.. many civilian victims. This was a plan put in place with people working on the inside providing the enemy with vital information as to what was where, providing pictures and photographs. Maybe the informants didn't set the bombs off personally, but there information provided the means and ends to the destruction. (internal cells)

I don't expect all to agree with my opinion, but I base mine on the terrorism training I had while being part of a specialty unit after 911. Most information is received through informants. In order to get a warrant you do not need infomants names or written statements. That in itself would put the informant in an vulnerable position. You just have to state that the informant has provided reliable information in the past, unknown reliability or why you believe it's true. There are other ways to lock up a person of interest... especially with this information. GPS is a great asset to many areas of policing.

If you really knew what goes on already, many people would be paranoid without having the new legislation.

IMO, it's all about power to Bush and wanting to leave a mark before his departure.

So am I, because on the one hand, hell no I dont want them listening in on my phone conversations! Because otoh, if your not doing anything wrong,they wont find anything, so what have you got to be scared of anyway?

But no, I dont like it...

im split because for once i agree with snot but at the same time ,in the back of my mind im thinking exactly (with out posting) what david posted.the bill seems to broad,do we really hae a say any more?

It's statements like this that make me wonder what planet the left is living on.....really hoping I'm misunderstanding....

But guessing not after reading this from Hellfighter:

"You learn well from Bush and cronies, Mr.Rocket in conjuring up hypothetical disasters as a pretext for taking pre-emptive drastic actions where none is needed. Your examples are pure speculations... your intent is fear-mongering- your desire is to get everyone besides yourself to run around like headless chickens ; perhaps just to console yourself that you are incapable of being sound of mind like the majority."

If you think it's pure fear mongering that there can and will be an attack on the US I think you are the one that is incapable of sound mind. Those towel heads didn't come over here and bake us cookies. And our ports and entries to this country are laughably controled. It's not a matter of if but when one of these catastrophic events takes place. So maybe its not a nuke. Maybe they just blow up the Rose Bowl with 85,000 people in it. Or some wonderful biological agent released in downtown NY. When it does you and your cronies will be the first one's moaning about how Bush was asleep at the wheel and he should have been personally monitoring the mail, phone calls, and diary entries of Osama, Muhammad, Akbar, and all their slurpee selling friends. I'm sick of hearing everyone whine about their "freedom". Fact is we haven't been attacked since 911. And like it or not we ARE AT WAR. We forget that we might have to sacrifice a bit durring times of conflict. So if they have to listen to Mike Moore's, The Pope's, and yes even your phone calls to prevent even one person from dying then damn right they should do it. Waterboard the whole lot of them daily if it saves lives. I guess that makes me a neo con, ditto headed, second class, no brain having, thoughtless, peabrain but I'm going to sleep well tonight knowing that we're trying to stop these bastards from killing people here and around the world. I haven't forgoten that on the planet I live on two buildings that employed 10's of thousands of people were hit by two planes, another hit the pentagon, and yet another crashed in a field in PA. All piloted by a network of nut jobs not from this country. It was not hypothetical and we are not going to keep it from happening again by talking about our feelings, closing our eyes, or negotiating with these people. Action and diligence is going to keep it from happening and is why we are still without another attack today. Poo Poo the methods all you want but they have been effective and I hope they keep doing all they have to do to keep producing the results they have since that day.

When Bush and 'cronies' received reports well before 9-11 about 'Bin Laden planning to fly planes into buildings' and implemented no heghtened security proposals or protocols its not hard to argue he was asleep at the wheel.

Freedom is our system that is the reason why many people all over the world dream about having and desire to live here.... and one of the best things is that we can whine and debate and muddle through a solution more or less agreeable to everyone. I'm not sick of it at all. Where there's no 'freedom' you know changes only happen after bloody revolutions or by the influential pressure of 'whining' freedom nations.
Give me whining-Give me liberty

Why hasn't an attack happened since 9-11-ever thought maybe they only wish to consider doing only outrageous attacks - they have ample opportunity to carry out small attacks- that shoe bomber Reid could've set off his bomb in the airport lobby instead of attempting it in flight.

I'm sorry but its not left versus right.... many Republicans are worried by Bush's antics and are clearly voicing their opposition. For the record the only Dem I like running at the moment is Biden -then I'd go repub for Ron Paul-> if possible I'd rather see George Bush Senior or Bill Clinton back... maybe some current candidates on either side can rise to the occasion of being a solid Prez, but I'm not impressed.
If you believe ends justify the means then why not nuke the entire Middle East [and if you say yes I'll give my opinion why not]. Fear mongering means just that -acting upon speculation. No-one is arguing people won't take drastic action/use torture as a last means given a situation that can save lives - well just say 'it's torture' don't dance around the issue and say certain techniques aren't -that's where the hypocracy comes in.

What were they effective in doing? Give examples.... how can you know what precisely was effective and what information was given if the entire procedure is secret and not publicized. I ask you again->
What was effective? Give dates and who 'it' was effective against and what was effective. Other than that waterboard report used several years ago which 'reportedly' got what information we know not, name what's been effective please to back up your statement.

Consider the original point of UD's enquiry - people against the big brother plan understand UDs point directly-its not about not permitted to listen in on phone conversations of the bad guys-> Down the road -the government could have any capability to listen to what anyone is saying at anytime on private phones-without warrants and with private phone companies immune to accountability- the 'don't worry if you have nothing to hide' argument is invalid- would these arguers not mind if their conversations were put online and on the tv, in newspapers? The opposition is about Bush's desire to do things [ action and diligence] without a warrant -underhandedly and without accoutability -bypassing the expectation's of society's belief they are above those similar 'methods' used by dictators, tyrants, and thugs in power.
The argument is not about not having the ability to listen to phone calls.
You can call it poo-pooing, but I say it's a step into a dark tunnel- it's not a left vs. right issue. Many of your fellow Americans and politicians on the right and left feel the same way - so it's really a delusion to create the impression it's an 'all americans are for this' like Mr.Rocket likes to do.

Then where do you stop torturing without accountability-> suspects [not proven guilty but those in power believe the person guilty or not has no rights] -it could be one of your relatives picked up to undergo the process. Not all terrorists are foreign - McVeigh... then we have serial killers and gang-drug lords currently our worst terrorists. I'd like them all summarily executed but they need to be put through a process to establish they are guilty first. Once you yield too much power to untrustworthy politicians playing around behind the scenes then its only a matter of time before everyone suffers.

Accountability is no longer in place. When there is no accountability, they can do what they want and get away with it... very scary IMO.

A lot of people think that monitoring phone conversation is going to catch a terrorist. Let's see how many they catch using this tactic in the next year compaired to how many people law abiding citizens get put on the watch list.

Surveillance to protect the US is not the sticking point in the debate over the legistative proposals. The "line in the sand" is whether or not to give retroactive immunity to telephone companies which have been participating in the government's warrantless wiretaps.

But, the phone companies already could not be held liable for their participation since surely they can show that the gov't gave them some written documentation compelling their cooperation.

The thing is, whatever that written documentation is, THAT is the problem. It would most probably have been drafted by AG Alberto Gonzales' office, and whatever it says that showed the warrantless wiretapping as legal, was not true.

And that's why the president is demanding that the phone companies be immune from lawsuits. Because when the phone companies produced their documentation for the warrantless wiretaps, it would be the administration and the justice department who would be in trouble.

More lies, more lies, more lies. This is getting old Mr Hellfighter. We know your in love with Clinton but it is clouding your judgement. This in an except from the 9/11 Commision Report showing the adorable Mr. Clinton (NOT BUSH) was breifed about Airplanes being Hijacked.



The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.



SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks

1. Reporting [-] suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq 'Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama'at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin, but that the operation was on hold.A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon thereafter to discuss options-perhaps including an aircraft hijacking.

• IG leader Islambuli in late September was planning to hijack a US airliner during the "next couple of weeks" to free 'Abd al-Rahman and the other prisoners, according to what may be a different source.
• The same source late last month said that Bin Ladin might implement plans to hijack US aircraft before the beginning of Ramadan on 20 December and that two members of the operational team had evaded security checks during a recent trial run at an unidentified New York airport. [-]

2. Some members of the Bin Ladin network have received hijack training, according to various sources, but no group directly tied to Bin Ladin's al-Qa'ida organization has ever carried out an aircraft hijacking.Bin Ladin could be weighing other types of operations against US aircraft.Accord-ing to [-] the IG in October obtained SA-7 missiles and intended to move them from Yemen into Saudi Arabia to shoot down an Egyptian plane or, if unsuccessful, a US military or civilian aircraft.

• A [-] in October told us that unspecified "extremist elements" in Yemen had acquired SA-7s. [-]

3. [-] indicate the Bin Ladin organization or its allies are moving closer to implementing anti-US attacks at unspecified locations, but we do not know whether they are related to attacks on aircraft. A Bin Ladin associate in Sudan late last month told a colleague in Kandahar that he had shipped a group of containers to Afghanistan. Bin Ladin associates also talked about the movement of containers to Afghanistan before the East Africa bombings.

• In other [-] Bin Ladin associates last month discussed picking up a package in Malaysia. One told his colleague in Malaysia that "they" were in the "ninth month [of pregnancy]."
• An alleged Bin Ladin supporter in Yemen late last month remarked to his mother that he planned to work in "commerce" from abroad and said his impending "marriage," which would take place soon, would be a "surprise.""Commerce" and "marriage" often are codewords for terrorist attacks. [-]

Brilliant analysis Steel!

I'm really enjoying these discussions. Keep the coming everyone!

First off.... who's this 'WE know...' business. I'm afraid your list of allies is very thin Mr.Rocket and the 'WE know' are phantoms in your mind. Do you not have enough self-confidence to say 'I know you love...".
It's funny how you love to knowingly distort people's words- I know you love doing it [much like you copied and re-edited my original quote to make it seem like I couldn't spell-what's that all about !?
-and why do you throw a link in my quote when I never did that... who is the liar? "lies, lies, lies" you said?]

I say knowingly distort because frequently in past posts from me that you've read I never claimed to worship Clinton- I merely said he was a solid world leader-not the most perfect. And again- I've mentioned pointedly I think he was a sleazy human being for trying to cowardly cast Lewinsky as a liar in the eyes of the world.

It's interesting you again bring up points to smack around your own position. You really busted up any argument you could make for Bush being caught unawares - now seeing as he was aware Bin Laden planning plane attacks in 1998, then his admin of cronies priority upon taking office would be 'fixing' the national security hole left open by clinton [ie, airpot security being ramped up] - correct? Where was the neo-con outrage at Clinton at him not taking extraordinary efforts to vapourize bin laden- nope- all the focus was on the Lewinsky scandal and making him look bad/impeachment rather than taking down terrorist no.1.

Your 'except'> exceRpt- relates nothing to my point about the direct quote Rice was forced to refer to at that commission about bin laden/planes/flying into buildings in intel reports at Bush's disposal when HE took office well before 9-11.


And for supporters of no accountablity -> if you think everything is/was on the up and up regarding wire tapping, why did then AG Gonzalez resort to this lowlife incident; it was big news at the time but maybe some of you missed it-
it regards a hospital visit he made to a colleague to twist his arm into signing a document approving a knowingly controversial plot; read-on and see why this whole thing smells foul.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/ja...omey_05-18.html

Snot, did you read everything on that page of the 9-11 report that you copied the PDB (president's daily briefing) from? http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm

The Clinton administration took action based on that PDB. And if you'll remember, Clinton told Bush during his exit briefing that Osama Bin Laden was the biggest security threat the US faced.

But, um, this discussion is supposed to be about the pending wiretapping legislation, isn't it?

I did not intentionally change any spelling on your words to make it seem you can't spell. Where do you get that from?

I did screw up and put that 911 link in your quote instead of mine. That was my bad. For some reason whenever I try to reduce the quote size when I reply I mess it all up. LoL. I wish I could be as smart as Clinton instead of as dumb as Bush.



While I thought Clintons interaction with Miss Lewinsky was quite pathetic, I was far more outraged by his actions or lack of actions in response to terrorist activities against the US. And even more put off buy his giving away of missle guidance technology to China.



I am buy no means giving Bush a complete pass on all issues in this regard. However, I do see him trying to combat the terrorists which is, by far, more than what Clinton did. In one view, someone could claim that Clintons response to terrorist activities against the US actual led to 9/11.



Hellfighter - I am curious to why do you have such a strong position on America's policies with what appear to be deep emotional concerns. Honestly, I may venture an opinion about a Canadian political issue but in the end it's really does not mean too much to me because it probably doesn't effect me much. I am just trying to understand your point of view on these issues.



This is my final post on this subject.

yup-i understand the editing thing- I re-edit my posts a zillion times before its alright.

Since you asked- and could not weasel out with a sly reply like Billy-boy could have done;
Compare my post 11- where you got 'copied' quote from to your post 19 with my 'altered' quote with 3 typos appearing mystically.

We know that terrorist plots have been foiled due to surveillance. We know that two of the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego were conversing with their al-Qaida brethren overseas before they attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing 3,000 people who had their right to life violated.



Carter authorized the warrantless surveillance of two people in the States, who later were convicted of spying for the Vietnamese government. The two men challenged their convictions on the basis that evidence against them was obtained illegally with the wiretaps. The U.S. Court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as spies and terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when the surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."



Remember that this surveillance is to and from known terrorists. If the president had not made this order for surveillance, and an event happened, then he would be targeted for not doing enough.

I don't know how much simpler I can keep saying this to you.... you equate Bush's policies as America's policies.
I differ on that opinion - I along with many Americans disagree with Bush's policies -Bush- bush bussh- and his neo-con cronies - You can now hopefully get off the Hellfighter hates America choo choo train you've been riding me on all this while in spite of my explainations stating otherwise.

Bush is quite mad imo and you're right generally Canadian political issues are of no interest to me too- except how we suck in the enviromental global arena.
Bush's policies however affect everyone in the world so I do like to keep up with him and his cronies activities. Remember I was arguing against my fellow canucks when the war started for the same reasons you give about america's right to protect themselves... after Baghdad fell I saw the whole neo-con scheme start to unravel in all its uglyness and lies and cast of murky characters... All the proof is there in all my past threads to show the said war about wmds was never that from the start. So please Mr.Rocket help me out- I'm even getting bored of hearing myself rehash my views. Let's just stay on topics from now on now that you know why I'm not a Bush fan -it's not anti-American to be anti-Bush.....

Oh yeah- if I don't get the chance again Mr.Rocket-Happy Holidays and thanks for the debate workouts -very mind-stimulating.

Capt. Snot Rocket, you are just agreeing to prevent being put on the wiretap hit list correct...lol J/K

I guess it's too early to say "GROUP HUG"....lol

Here's a little fuel to the fire.What about this?

www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/191207_b_nsa.htm

Hey Vinny, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was treated, as it should have been, as a heinous crime. This wasn't deemed state sponsored terrorism at the time. There was no country to bomb. Clinton's justice department, as incredibly flawed as it was, managed to capture and prosecute those involved.



Yes, weren't those very same San Diego boys the ones whose landlord was an FBI informant?!

Weren't these the same ones who were being pursued for their involvement in the Boijinka plot, and the Al Qaeda meeting in Malaysia, but had somehow managed to escape surveillance once they landed at LAX?

What bothers me the most about the bill that is before the Senate is that our government chooses to spend time and resources covering their asses, and those of their corporate sponsors instead of taking the basic steps necessary to ensure that containers arriving at our ports and baggage loaded on planes are fully inspected. What's the point of reading everyone's emails if you are going to have porous borders and ports?

More importantly, why are some of those who are contributing to this thread more interested in having their rights taken away instead of truly standing up for proper security measures.

Why does the Bush administration award medals of honor to those who have failed miserably in their duty? Why did no one get fired for 9/11? Did anyone even get a note placed in their permanent file? NO! gimme a break!

You know, the more I read arguments like this, the more I firmly believe that Lewis Black said it best(and this is a loose quote)."Republican, democrat,Kerry, Bush; does it really matter? Your basically given the choice between two bowls of shit, the only real choice is which one smells better."

Well while there at it might as well satellite you too. Big Brother justs keeps getting bigger.

www.infowars.net/articles/december2007/201207Satellite.htm

Uh Oh! found another one. Big Brother is now Superman

www.truthnews.us/?p=1366

Nothing new with that idea- i bet 99% of the time it's like that everywhere in the world where people vote for leaders. It's like the expression -everyone's a-hole stinks except your own.

Lol- and after all our constructive criticisms and intelligent arguing for and against, it all came down to this....

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5445266.html

"What is justice my man, what is justice ?.... ! " [- from Hill Street Blues / cop show]