Much more interesting than "a third rate burglary."

I dunno, I wouldn't trust that God person. He likes killing people. A lot.

Wow..interesting the timing for this green light, 5am eastern? This must be tailored for foreign daily consumption.

I'm really torn here.

On the one hand, I hate that the privacy of countless people (myself included) is being violated in the name of "protecting freedom."

But on the other hand, I love that it's someone's bullshiat day-to-day job, listening to my friends and I jabber about video games and movies. I can just imagine the conversation.

"Did he say anything about bombs yet?"
"No, sir. But he did say that the new Super Smash Brothers looked 'awesome.' Do you think that could be code for something?"

The Bush administration said on Saturday U.S. telecommunications companies have agreed to cooperate "for the time being" with spy agencies' wiretaps, despite an ongoing battle between the White House and Congress over new terrorism surveillance legislation.


And yet I don't feel any safer.

Isn't this illegal?

/like you can't dispute it illegal?

I wouldn't have been so troubled by the NSA monitoring Internet traffic to pick up useful intelligence data as so much of it funnels through our systems within our own country. Likewise, domestic wiretaps are legit, if run through the proper methods already established, like the specialized secret courts that review these requests.

My objection was the method and mentality of the Bush Administration and senior leadership of intelligence agencies bypassing established procedures.

Jesus Christ, the NSA would have had no problem if they did this more openly. It's not like all the intelligence gathering resources (satellites, etc.) and collection sites (certain civilian and military locations) aren't already known and/or suspected by our adversaries. Secretly doing this with civilian telecommunications companies scares the crap out of me, especially with an administration that displays trends of seeking vengeance against its political adversaries. I particularly object to a military officer being in charge of the CIA also.

And so say all of us:

Tap into America!

AirForceVet just Imagen President H. Clinton using this same approach. Just the thought makes me want to go back to using tin cans and string.

For the 1,000th time, have they ever stated why current (former?) FISA law is inadequate? No catch phrases, no scare tactics, no sound bytes, just a reasonable answer as to why warrants, even issued 72 hours retroactively, is unacceptable?

they never had to stop. all they had to do was

get

a

farking

warrant

The telcos have no choice but to apply the taps, so long as the administration follows the law.

But apparently that is unacceptable for Bushco.

Criminals, the lot of them.

GreenAdder: "No, sir. But he did say that the new Super Smash Brothers looked 'awesome.' Do you think that could be code for something?"

i hate to think what they'd say about me and my interest in pokemon

GreenAdder: "Did he say anything about bombs yet?"
"No, sir. But he did say that the new Super Smash Brothers looked 'awesome.' Do you think that could be code for something?"

"So then my 18th level Monk Assassin Shadow-walker dimension doored to the other side of the complex and distracted the Stone Golem and led him through the Underdark and right into a Temple of Lolth under construction."

"Sir, I think we've found a terrorist. Permission to send in the helicopters."

TFA: "Although our private partners are cooperating for the time being, they have expressed understandable misgivings about doing so in light of the ongoing uncertainty..."

Oh how farking terrible! Telcoms are finally having 'misgivings' about breaking the law. That's just a total tragedy. Not.

Good job Dems, its about time.

It's long past time for another revolution... heads on pikes and everything.

Daddakamabb: Isn't this illegal?

/like you can't dispute it illegal?

remember patriots: if America does it, it's legal (torture, spying, etc) if someone else does it it's because they hate our freedoms.

Daddakamabb: Isn't this illegal?

/like you can't dispute it illegal?

I think the one think the Bush administration has taught us is that anything is legal if you ignore a congressional subpoena.

nashBridges: So are they running the program according to FISA, or according to the expired legislation?

All of the wiretaps obtained under the expired legislation are good until August 2008.

Any new ones have to be done under the FISA law.

That's what I heard on NPR.

Here's an excellent speech by Andrew Napolitano on this very subject.

How else are you going to spy on the Democrats before the election? If you can think of a better way -then write to the whitehouse.

Because People in power are Stupid: How else are you going to spy on the Democrats before the election? If you can think of a better way -then write to the whitehouse.

He could have some guys break into their headquarters without a warrant and make it look like a robbery. After all, that's legal now.

AirForceVet: I particularly object to a military officer being in charge of the CIA also.

Did you object when Jimmy Carter appointed his classmate from Annapolis, Admiral Stansfield Turner, to be DCI for Carter's entire term?

I was taught by my parents never to say or write anything you wouldn't want published in a national newspaper on the front page -- not from paranoia or anything, but because it's a good way to keep yourself honest and your head clear. As a result, this doesn't really bother me all that much on a personal level.

On principle, of course, they can damned well get a warrant, because we should never allow the government even arguable point of leeway on that fourth amendment thing or they'll use the inch to take a mile.

But, honestly, if this really worries you on a personal level, you're living your life entirely wrong.

I hope they catch some terrist just before the election so we can all vote for ol' lumpy face. then after he's sworn in we'll find out it was yet another wrongful arrest of a brown person.

/mission accomplished
//"for now"

bunch of f*cking pricks

lying, cheating, assholes, the lot of them.

Not that I really have anything to say on the phone lines that I would care about if anybody heard, but STOP PISSING ON MY CONSTITUTION!

I will not be happy with Bush until I see him on CNN in jail.

usa=attractive and successful African-Americanish

attractive and successful = attractive and successful African-American ish bit=ch

Ya'll are having a cow over something's that not that big of a deal. Nobody's rights are being taken away (I don't think the Constitution guarrantees the right to a private conversation). They're "trolling" for numbers, especially overseas numbers that establish a pattern. If "A" here in America is calling "B" there in Iraq a lot, then that's something they need to look into. I really don't think it's that big of a deal. Chill. We still have our rights, our hot dogs and apple pie. And mom in the kitchen listening in on the other line......

tony41454: (I don't think the Constitution guarrantees the right to a private conversation).

You are exactly why there were a substantial number of people, including many founding fathers, who argued against the Bill of Rights.

Their argument? If we put a list of freedoms that we ensure into the Constitution, people will treat it as an exhaustive list.

tony41454: Nobody's rights are being taken away (I don't think the Constitution guarrantees the right to a private conversation).

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.

That's pretty close. Let's see if we can get closer.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

evaned: tony41454: (I don't think the Constitution guarrantees the right to a private conversation).

You are exactly why there were a substantial number of people, including many founding fathers, who argued against the Bill of Rights.

Their argument? If we put a list of freedoms that we ensure into the Constitution, people will treat it as an exhaustive list.

And I'm starting to think they made the wrong call putting it in.

Bush Wiretapping Theorem:
If: Preventing wiretapping endangers the lives of Americans
And: Bush will not pass wiretapping bill without provision to shield phone companies from lawsuits
Then: Phone company financial security > Security of American people

/Why do the Democrats hate the phone companies America?

mediaho: For the 1,000th time, have they ever stated why current (former?) FISA law is inadequate? No catch phrases, no scare tactics, no sound bytes, just a reasonable answer as to why warrants, even issued 72 hours retroactively, is unacceptable?

FTA :

The Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement saying wiretaps will resume under the current law "at least for now."

Translation :

We are using the FISA rules and it has not caused an interruption - despite our earlier protests to the contrary... but we still want to try to get rid of that whole warrant and burden of proof thing...

Lol...


Michael

/I still can't believe people voted him into a second term

macaddict0: And I'm starting to think they made the wrong call putting it in.
To be honest? I sort of see where you are coming from. Then I think of all the court cases that were decided because of the rights that are there -- and in particular the 1st amendment, which is stronger than protections even in many other "western" countries -- and I go right back to being glad they did.

From our aviation website:

So nothings changed?

i love God and trust him and Jesus Christ true...i hate Bush and the federal government ...all i will say ...

UNObserver: Translation :

We are using the FISA rules and it has not caused an interruption - despite our earlier protests to the contrary... but we still want to try to get rid of that whole warrant and burden of proof thing...

It's not about whether the FISA rules woud have stopped them from spying. It's that the FISA rules would have made them document who they are spying on. The Bush administration doesn't want people to know who they are spying on.

AH! AH! The US is a police state!

AH! AH! Your freedom is an illusion!

/sounds of marching boots

What, was 5PM on a Friday afternoon not good enough for these cretins? Gotta move it to 7:30 on a Saturday night. Great.

We need to set up someone to keep an eye on these kids full time, so they don't get us into serious trouble. I don't wanna be back-Farking on Monday and find out that we nuked China around the same time I was ordering rum and Coke #9. Hell, it would probably be worth it to go, say, a buck or two over minumum wage. Especially since these rascals are more of a handful than your average two-year-old.

/probably more diaper detail, too

Churchill2004: Here's an excellent speech by Andrew Napolitano on this very subject.

That was an excellent speech. Wow.

"George, George! Get off the line, George!"