Funny that you only mention the dems that are outraged by this. There are plenty in your own party that are a bit perturbed by this whole thing.

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/re...lassified.html

I will say again.....I do not like that this is happening. My point is that everyone is acting so shocked that it is happening. It is nothing new.

The interesting thing is that I am not vilifying Clinton or Carter in their actions. I have no doubt that they intended it to be for the gathering of foreign intelligence, but that it most likely also crossed into the domestic.

You don't see me being hard on Clinton or Carter about it. Again, my point is that everyone who seems so shocked KNOWS it has gone on.

Of course there are Republicans upset about it. As am I. One widely respected Republican - who I am not a fan of, by the way - McCain, said he believes it was justified and legal. Colin Powell has also said the same thing.

So....I am justifying nothing. I said if Bush has committed a felony, let him be impeached. I am pointing that it is nothing new, and those in the know in Washington who act like it is are sickening to me.

I really don't know how to make my point anymore clear. If you disagree with it, great - wouldn't be the first time around here, for sure. But I think you believe I am doing somehting that I am not, giving my approval to it (the domestic part of it) because it is Bush, and at the same time justifying it because Clinton and Carter both did similar things. Just pointing out that it is nothing new.

GD, how exactly would the president prevent Congress from investigating something? He has no power to prevent such (he can not cooperate with an investigation but that would give Congress reason to take it to the courts as has been done in the past when the president doesn't cooperate with an investigation).

I'm confused by comments from some of the senators that they were prevented from discussing this program, even with others on the subcommittee because the White House told them they couldn't. Unless there is some statute I'm unaware of that gives the executive the right to limit discussion in the legislature then at best this was again political cowardice and at worst agreement (now turned to repugnance for political reasons).

I have an opinion on whether this surveillance should have happened (it shouldn't have) but that opinion is independent of whether it is actually legal, which is a determination that most us here (and most of the armchair pundits we're turning to) don't have the technical knowledge to determine.

I hope it is illegal, and if it turns out it isn't then I hope it is made illegal.

A well written and relatively brief piece from the Chicago Tribune on why all was legal, including some history on court decisions from the last couple decades -

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...commentary-hed

::shrug::

I could link to ten opinion pieces that say Bush broke the law. It won't prove anything.



In any case, here's a rebuttal to the opinion piece you linked to, scaeagles:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/21/appeals-court-myth

Thanks, Sac - and I really mean that.

And exactly - it won't prove anything. All we have is conjecture and political posturing everywhere. From what I have read, I would tend to think his actions were not illegal. Obviously many would differ with me.

And in fact, the more I have read and heard, the more I tend not to find the action even horribly objectionable. I'm sure I'm going to be slammed on this.

In 2002, a terrorist with a cell phone was captured. They were able to do whatever one does to a cell phone and determine every number he had called, and eventually make up a list of numbers that they were going to monitor without warrant. The objective was to find out who on American soil was talking to these people on foreign soil from the marked numbers.

Most certainly, and I really don't know how, mistakes were made and some conversations were monitored that should not have been by the NSA.

Anyway, I have no objections whatsoever to the described actions above. I find them not unreasonable (remember, the 4th Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant).

So....call me a fascist or whatever, but that's what I think. It has not come easily. I am not comfortable in the least with the government monitoring my communications, whether intentionally or accidentally. However, should i have had contact with a phone number discovered on a terrorist cell phone, I don't think it unreasonable to be monitored.

This goes for actions from every administration that did similar things.

In my (close to expert, as I have worked in the field, and know there is lotsa red tape to jump through) opinion.... this needs to be investigated, because there are a lot of things that must be done to have the policies in place waived. If all the i's and t's were not correctly done, then there can be major problems... I hope that the congress and the courts investigate this fully, and not sweep it under the carpet.

But couldn't they have accomplished the objectives you cite with a warrant?


The problem with acting without warrants is that the Bush administration is essentially saying, "trust us, we only spy on the bad guys". So how do we know they're not behaving in an "unreasonable" manner? Their word? Puhlease.

I keep coming back to why? Why not request warrants from a judicial body with something like a .00097% denial rate? What are they up to and who are they spying on that they don't feel a warrant will be issued by this group who, seemingly, issue warrants at the drop of a hat?
Neither would FISA.

I really don't know the answer to the warrant question. All I can say, and this is not intending to justify anything based on the past, is that it is apparent that this is the M.O. with certain national security issues. Why, I have no idea.