No Steve, you're the one that hates America.

Why are you trying so hard strip americans of our rights? Do you have a problem with the founding fathers?

We're a nation of laws, not mandates. If Bush wants a mandate, he'll give you a call like he said he would.

your precious alleged "civil rights"

Wow - unbelievable to hear you saying this, yet not surprising. The basis of our revolution, the Bill of (Civil) Rights, has no meaning to the conservative half of our country? If that's the case, you can step right onto the next tall ship back to London, Tory scum.

Meanwhile, it's not exactly honest to cherry-pick a single case to make your point about the NSA spying scandal, Steve. What's yet to come is any explanation for what exactly is being collected and analysed by NSA. It's already been made clear that NSA has had unfettered access to information about all of our private communications - phone calls and email. That's illegal, and it's a huge amount of data - not at all the minor case of limited wiretaps that the former NSA chief and Bush would have you believe. What difference remains between the two has yet to come out - and it should, at least for democracy to prevail.

And if you're going to call us terrorists for wanting to know what our government's doing on our behalf (or to us) - then you're the terrorist, Steve. Transparency in government is something the Bush admin has sought to eliminate. We haven't forgotten and we want it back.

Why are you trying so hard strip americans of our rights?

Unless you think there is an American right to treason, aiding and abetting people who want to attack America is not a right.

Forgive me, but the founding fathers were not confronted with Al Queda when they penned the Constitution. Nor had they any idea that ordering a terrorist attack could be as simple as sitting in your living room and picking up a phone.

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 first thing I see when I read the 4th amendment is the word “unreasonable” search or seizure. Who decides that is reasonable? Do I think it’s unreasonable given the horror of 9/11 for the government to monitor calls being placed to middle-eastern countries? Do I think it’s unreasonable for the government to monitor the calls of suspected terrorists or those suspected of being affiliated with terrorism? No, I do not.

The other thing I notice is that the 4th Amendment never mentions telephone communication, cellular communication, internet communication, etc. In fact, I could be wrong, but it never actually mentions communications at all. Are we just assuming that the Founding Fathers would have also included these things had they existed at the time? Try as I might I cannot find anything in the Constitution even related to the “right” to privacy except the right of a person to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects.” Period. That’s it.

If I stand in my house and yell loudly, “I’m a terrorist” and someone outside my property hears it… is that a violation of my Constitutional rights? No, it’s not. Why? Because nobody has violated my person, house, papers or effects. I hold no Constitutional claim on sound waves that leave my house and / or property. If someone in the house next door sees me, through my window, murdering someone… did they violate my Constitutional right? Again, the answer is no. I hold no Constitutional claim on visible light in the 400nm to 700nm range that leaves my house and / or property. How then could one say that I hold a Constitutional claim on radio waves, which, like visible light, are part of the electromagnetic spectrum, if it has left my house and / or property. The founding fathers certainly never said that.

I think some of the president's supporters miss the point, at least the one being made by the more reasonable objectors to this policy. The problem is not the surveillance so much as the unwarranted presumption of executive authority. Between the patriot act and the fisa court, I don't see why this couldn't have been done in accordance with legal procedure (i.e. getting a warrant). Explanations of why this was necessary seem wanting to me.

But most Bushies would rather frame the argument as if dissenters were saying that the NSA shouldn't spy on suspected terrorists. I'm know there are some people making that argument, but that's not really the important one to address. If you read the excerpt carefully, you will realize that this is precisely the point being made by the lawsuit cited above.

This is what I'd call the New Strawman; find an extremist on the "other side" who says something indefensible, and then demolish not only the statement and the speaker but the entire other side along with it. This is a fallacy perpetrated far and wide, not just by Bush fans. It is easy to do accidentally when you let your paranoia demonize the opposition. Pundits are the worst abusers, because they like to simplify categories and talk in absolutes.

Almost all the arguments I've heard against the surveillance programs are about "privacy" and "civil rights". It's rare that someone brings up what you are bringing up.

As for not getting warrants, sometimes time is a factor...as is confidentiality.

"I think some of the president's supporters miss the point, at least the one being made by the more reasonable objectors to this policy. The problem is not the surveillance so much as the unwarranted presumption of executive authority."

Not all. Some of the presidents supporters have also made that point,....well that is, the warranted affirmation of executive authority.

I've heard several people make the argument that the FISA court is, itself, unconstitutional.

There is a good argument to be made that over the past, say, 40 years, the legislative branch has overexherted it's own authority into the executive domains. Presidential authority is much more degraded today then it was for the first 200 years of our history.

They make the argument that the President needs to ensure a seperation of powers - that means claiming the right of the executive to make the executive decisions as they were intended, so that the power of the legislative (congress) does not grow too large.

Bill Clinton also made this argument.

Richard, seventy two hours is a long time and if the Bush had spent a fraction of that time before the terrorist attacks On Sept 11, 2001 there might not be a need for this discussion, unless you choose to count Steves' incessant rants and mumblings. The law is clear.

JNE, I hear your argument and the founding fathers surely couldn't have seen the technology of today yet they were very bright and given the inventions that came out of that era they were intelligent and insightful. They were faced with some of the same dilemas yet in a different manner and if they had abused their powers as the current president has we might not have the America we have today. The FISA law isn't 200+ years old and it's written well enough that a person who's willing will see the abuse for what it is.

Some_Fella, you are correct and I believe most Americans understand the need to gather intelligence and without being redundant this CNN link to GWBs desire for power in 2000 is clear. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html

I have no way of confirming his desire of being a dictator, yet his "political capital" comments after the 2004 election are indicative of the power he believes he has at his disposal.

Steve, The "crap" dispensed here is your constant portrayal of Americans who disagree with the president's action as treasonous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui

"On August 16, 2001, Moussaoui was arrested by the FBI in Minnesota and charged with an immigration violation. Some agents worried that his flight training had violent intentions, so the Minnesota bureau tried to get permission to search his laptop computer, but they were turned down. Other materials he had when he was arrested included two knives, 747 flight manuals, a flight simulator computer program, fighting gloves and shin guards, and a computer disk with information about crop dusting.

Leading in that research was agent Coleen Rowley who made an explicit request for permission to search the personal rooms of Moussaoui. This request was first cut down by her boss Deputy General Counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman and later on rejected based upon FISA regulations (amended after 9/11 by Patriot Act, Bowman afterwards received a well paid bureau award for "exceptional performance"). Several further attempts failed the very same way. As a result the chance of finding early evidence passed unused.

On the whole situation FBI watchdog Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa wrote to FBI Director Robert Mueller:

If the application for the FISA warrant had gone forward, agents would have found information in Moussaoui's belongings that linked him both to a major financier of the hijacking plot working out of Germany, and to a Malaysian al-Qaida boss who had met with at least two other hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials. "

Thanks, FISA!

So why did the FBI get involved then only charge him with an immigration violation? If the information presented hadn't been overlooked by the agents supervisors they would have presented evidence that proved he was a terrorist and the warrant would have been issued.

Why was the FBI engaged in INS activities again? (_?_) I don't remember reading anything in the report explaining how FISA law and structure prevented the agencies from doing their job. You gotta' be running out of straws soon.

It's rare that someone brings up what you are bringing up.

Like I said, what I brought up is exactly what this suit is about. If you didn't notice this, then maybe you're leaning too heavily on your assumptions. Although I'll admit there are plenty of people worried about privacy (there always are), I wouldn't call this argument "rare" by any stretch.

There is a good argument to be made that over the past, say, 40 years, the legislative branch has overexherted it's own authority into the executive domains.

That particular argument doesn't sound relevant to me, although maybe you're leaving something out (I know you're just summarizing). We're not talking about the legislature acting too executive, we're talking about the executive acting too executive.

I've also heard the argument that the powers of the executive branch have expanded over time. This is not incompatible with what you're saying, if BOTH branches of government have increased in power. Of course, this is a long-standing complaint of small-government conservatives.

In my case, I don't want any public servant to be able to do such things without oversight from another branch (at least). Something like this is OBVIOUSLY too easily abused. Whether or not Bush did not abuse this power is, to me, somewhat beside the point. The problem is that he could, and if this is acceptable practice for presidents in the future, then I would fully expect it to be used in a corrupt fashion.

The real issue is whether the danger and damage of such abuse offsets what is to be gained in terms of security. This is a vague and hard thing to assess. Ultimately, I feel it is contrary to the kind of government that I want in this country, and contrary to our ideals related to limiting the power of our rulers.

Bill Clinton also made this argument.

Whether or not Bill Clinton was in favor of it is not important to me. The Seal of Clintonian approval is barely more meaningful to me than it is to you. Since neither of us really cares about what he said about this, let's set it aside. Even if I was a big fan of the man (I'm not), I wouldn't really care about his misguided stances.

MJ, your account of Moussaoui doesn't really change anything for me. I'm willing to admit that giving the president the ability to tap-on-demand without bureaucratic review is going to make us safer to some degree. This is a perfect example of the kind of situation it could be useful. But as I said, it's the trade-off that concerns me.

My understanding is greatly different from yours.

"I've also heard the argument that the powers of the executive branch have expanded over time."

I know of no such arguments (Except the mostly controversial issues of the last 10 years).

Going back 40 years in what way has the executive become more powerful? Going back 140? The office of the Presidency has not been as weak as it is today since Abraham Lincoln. The President has allways had the authority to spy on people, only in the past few decareds (Since FISA and Carter) has he had to get any sort of approval from any other branch of government.

The relevance here is that (under this argument) Bush is trying to take back executive authorities that have been taken (unconstitutionally) from the office of the presidency by the legislature (and some passed off by the legislature to the judiciary).

In other words: FISA does not have the power to grant or deny the president's ability to spy on foreign agents. The judiciary does not have that ability. That is soley up to the president.

Similary, Congress never had authority to try and restrict the President's constitutional powers with legislation short of constitutional ammendments.

And Congress constantly crying for 'oversight' of executive matters is a similar point of contention - Congress has no right or power to oversee those matters, it's not thier role or place. That is the job of the executive not the legislative.

As for the reasoning behind this, there's some solid argument there. The constitution gave us a 'Chief Executive' but not a 'Chief Legislative'. Bureaucracys are lethargic. In a time of emergency, the time it takes to get 100 people to agree with one another about what to do is time we do not have. More wrong is wrought by indecision then by wrong decision.

So they gave us 1 person who could be responsible (and thereby, accountable) to make quick judgement calls on executive issues, and quite a few people to take thier sweet time writing the legislature and rules that bind the other branches.

But Congress can't write all the rules for the Executive and Judiciary, it has constitutional limits. The Executive has constitutional powers that the Legislature cannot infringe upon. If this was not the case, the legislature could just legislate out the entire executive and judicial branches and claim all that power for themselves.

That's why this is a constitutional issue...

"I'm willing to admit that giving the president the ability to tap-on-demand without bureaucratic review is going to make us safer to some degree."

Well it's good you'll admit the reality of it and you see both sides. Your opinion is up to you...It's a perfectly valid opinion to say it's not worth it.

Although I will say, we are not giving him any such ability - he's allways had it. All presidents have had (AND USED) this ability. All we're doing is 'not taking it away'. Admitedly congress has been trying to take this away for 40 years, but they may not have that ability constitutionally, irregaurdless of whether you think it is a wise decision, so there's 2 issues there.

Clinton used this, Carter used this, Reagan used this, Johnson used this, Kennedy used this (KENNEDY SPIED ON Martin Luther King!)....

This isn't something new by any means. It certainly has been abused and needs to be watched, we know that has happened..

But it also certainly serves a place, as we see with what happened in regards to Moussawui when Congress tried to take this ability away. We know that has happened.

It's a matter of opinion as to what it should be...it's a matter of constitutional interpretation as to what it CAN be (short of an ammendment). But we should not see this as something new because it's not...And people trying to form an opinion shouldn't be expecting new things from this...this is the way it's allways been whether they have realized it or not - for the last 200+ years.