President Bush orders National Security Agency to spy on Americans

[Guest Tracey Schmitt]

The Honorable Karl Rove addressed members of the RNC the winter meeting. The following is a transcript of his remarks as prepared for delivery:

 

Let me stipulate a few important things. Our opponents are our fellow citizens, not our enemies. Honorable people can have honest political differences. And we should strive for civility and intellectual integrity in our debates.

 

At the same time, Democrats and Republicans have deep differences about our nation, where it is going, and what needs to be done to make it stronger, better, and safer. Those differences should be debated this year - openly, publicly, passionately.

 

America is at war - and so our national security is at the forefront of the minds of Americans. President Bush has established a remarkable record. He is winning the war against terrorism, promoting liberty in regions of the world that have never known it, and protecting America against attacks.

 

The United States faces a ruthless enemy - and we need a commander-in-chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of this moment.

 

Because of a New York Times story, our enemies now know that in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to intercept communications where one of the parties is outside the United States and there is a reasonable basis to conclude the conversation involves a member of, or someone affiliated with, al Qaeda.

 

The purpose of the NSA surveillance is to protect American lives - and the President's actions are both legal and fully consistent with the Fourth Amendment and the protection of civil liberties.

 

Congressional leaders from both parties have been briefed more than a dozen times regarding this program. Every 45 days or so, it undergoes a thorough review, after which the President decides whether to reauthorize it. Courts have consistently recognized an American President's constitutional authority under Article II of the Constitution to order warrantless searches. And the power to order warrantless searches rests on years of bipartisan legal consensus. In the words of President Clinton's Associate Attorney General John Schmidt,

 

"President Bush's post-Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and emails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents ... Every president since FISA's passage (in 1978) has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms."

 

Yet some leading Democrats have made wild and reckless and false charges against the President, and some even call for his removal from office.

 

Let me be as clear as I can: President Bush believes if al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree. This is an issue worthy of a public debate.

 

At the core, we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security. Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview - and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong - deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong.

 

Thank you all very much for your attention, for your support of President Bush and the Republican Party, and above all, for your devotion to this country.

[Guest Great Idea]

I am sorry I really dont see the problem here. Its not like they will be listening to you and your girlfriend talking dirty to each other. They will need reliable evidence before even bothering themselves. Plus you go to think there will be real machines recording most of this as there are so many people in the United States and it probaly only picks up on certain words or phrases. It would take alot of manpower to listen to each person.

 

The main point is: Why worry if you got nothing to hide? Sure it violates some of our rights but it could save lives sometime. Also I think the government honestly already does this but now they want to make us aware by passing it legally. We are all crazy if you think they already dont spy on people. Most people who are against this are afraid that thier dirty laundry will be discovered by all.

[Guest Leagle Beagle]

When the president acts in the absence of congressional intent, he enters a "zone of twilight." - Judge Robert Jackson, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. vs. Sawyer, 1952

 

In the 1970's, the Supreme Court made a series of rulings on this subject. The court concluded that the First and Fourth amendments to the Constitution require government officials to obtain a warrant before eavesdropping on U.S. citizens, even those whose violent ways threaten "domestic security."

[Guest Freetospeak]

Courts have long recognized exceptions from the warrant requirement for "special needs" outside "the normal need for law enforcement."

[Luke_Wilbur]

Here is some food for fodder.

 

The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan research arm of the Library of Congress, released a detailed memo on January 5, 2006 regarding the NSA electronic surveillance of communications, concluding that "it appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations" and that the Administrations reliance on executive power was not "well-grounded."

 

View that attached memo.

WarrentlessSurveillance.pdf

[Guest Media@dcaclu.org]

The American Civil Liberties Union expressed disappointment at the closed-door hearing held today by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the warrantless spying by the National Security Agency. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, the deputy director of national intelligence, are expected to testify. The hearing coincides with revelations that the head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was warned that information illegally obtained by NSA may have been used to obtain wiretap warrants.

 

"Our democratic system relies on transparency and candor from the executive, and so far, we have seen neither," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The White House was quick to defend the program, but when pressed for the facts, it has refused to provide them. Congress must conduct oversight and let the American public know the answers to the critical questions surrounding this illegal program. An aggressive public relations campaign and secret hearings cannot restore the public's confidence."

 

"Today's revelations only further underscore the need to stop this illegal program," Fredrickson added. "Our legal system is based upon the Constitution. If courts are using evidence that is improperly obtained, we run the risk that legitimate threats to this country will go unpunished because crucial evidence has been ruled inadmissible. The warrantless NSA program undermines justice; adhering to the rule of law ensures that justice will be served properly."

 

The ACLU has challenged the legality of the program and called for a full and independent review of the warrantless spying by the NSA on Americans. Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) is drafting legislation to require the president to have the FISC review the program. House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who has yet to schedule a public oversight hearing on the program, sent the attorney general dozens of questions about the program on Wednesday.

 

Some lawmakers have suggested that Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act needs to be modified. However, the ACLU believes that there is no need to change the existing law, but there is a need to properly enforce it. FISA specifically requires judicial review for the surveillance of domestic targets; the ACLU noted that the president took an oath to "faithfully execute the laws" and does not have the authority to choose which laws to follow.

 

Today's Washington Post reported that twice in the past four years, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the head of FISC, was warned by a Justice Department lawyer that information that was obtained through the warrantless NSA program may have been used to secure wiretap warrants from the secret court. Kollar-Kotelly has already expressed doubts about the legality of the warrantless wiretapping conducted by the NSA. According to the Post, at one point, her concerns lead to a temporary suspension of the program.

 

On Monday, Attorney Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he failed to answer basic questions from Senators about the program, sticking close to talking points and rhetoric rather than facts and figures. The ACLU said that concerns about the illegal NSA spying program remain, including: the number of Americans who have had their communications monitored or mined without a court order and how many resources have been wasted on this unlawful program.

 

On Wednesday, Congresswoman Heather A. Wilson (R-NM), chair of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, expressed "serious concerns" about the warrantless NSA domestic spying program, and called for a full congressional inquiry into the matter. The ACLU said that Wilson's stance underscores congressional frustration with the White House's refusal to share information with a co-equal branch of government in violation of the plain language of laws passed by Congress.

 

Gonzales and Hayden briefed Wilson and other members of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, but not all lawmakers were satisfied with the closed session. The ACLU also noted that the White House had failed to properly inform the House and Senate Intelligence Committees since the start of the program, as required by the law. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service agreed with the same assessment of Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA), the Vice-Chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

 

"We applaud those lawmakers, from both sides of the aisle, who have demanded the truth from the government," said Lisa Graves, ACLU Senior Counsel for Legislative Strategy. "The rule of law has been broken, and Congress and the public have a right to know. Effective and public oversight can be done without compromising state secrets. The administration must stop using national security as a blanket reason to keep their illegal activities hidden in the shadows."

[Luke_Wilbur]

Here is a release from the American Bar Association.

 

*******************************************

 

American Bar Association President Michael Greco says there's a need to aggressively deter terrorism but he finds the president's domestic surveillance program deeply troubling.

 

Greco spoke Friday at an ABA conference in Chicago and said Americans shouldn't be frightened into sacrificing their freedom.

 

Greco says a Harris phone pole has found that 77% of Americans reject President Bush's claim that he along can suspend constitutional freedomes without any check or balance.

 

Greco says an ABA task force has come up with a preliminary report on the legal issues surrounding the National Security Agency's power to eavesdrop on the communications of Americans suspected of ties to terrorism.

 

The task force's recommendations include urging President Bush to comply with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It says -- if that act is inadequate -- Bush should seek amendments from Congress.

[Guest Congressman Jerrold Nadler]

The President claims that he enjoys inherent constitutional authority, regardless of FISA, to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance because we are at war. He claims that as long as he is acting to protect national security, his inherent authority trumps the law. Devoid of any limiting principle, this claim asserts the monarchical doctrine that, with respect to war powers, Congress can place no limits on the Executive power. This logic could be applied to any action – unlawful surveillance today; it could be murder tomorrow.

 

President Bush’s monarchical abuses, if left unchecked, will, as Justice Robert Jackson said, ‘lie around like a loaded gun and be utilized by any future incumbent who claims a need.

[Guest human_*]

I sure hope that we in the United States don't see another 9/11 because the democrats want to play

CIVIL with the terrorists. The democrats love Venezuela, Al Gore is in sighting hatred towards the United States with his comments about how Arabs were supposedly abused, and the list goes on.

 

I am SAD to say that it is ALL TO CLEAR Where the Democrats Stance on National Security IS.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

The President claims that he enjoys inherent constitutional authority, regardless of FISA, to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance because we are at war. He claims that as long as he is acting to protect national security, his inherent authority trumps the law. Devoid of any limiting principle, this claim asserts the monarchical doctrine that, with respect to war powers, Congress can place no limits on the Executive power. This logic could be applied to any action – unlawful surveillance today; it could be murder tomorrow.

 

President Bush’s monarchical abuses, if left unchecked, will, as Justice Robert Jackson said, ‘lie around like a loaded gun and be utilized by any future incumbent who claims a need.

[Luke_Wilbur]

A federal judge has ordered the Department of Justice to release records from the program by March 8th. From the article: "In ordering the Justice Department to expedite the FOIA request processing, Judge Henry Kennedy Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said that the department's opinion that it could determine how much time is needed was 'easily rejected ... Under DOJ's view of the expedited processing provisions of FOIA, the government would have carte blanche to determine the time line for processing expedited requests.

[Guest Steve-O]

This is a really funny Saturday Night Live skit with Robert Deniro.

 

On the lookout for suspected gas terrorist Hous Bin Pharteen. Robert DeNiro plays Craig Fenson, a Homeland Security spokeman on Saturday Night Live.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fMojL57gU7Y&search=snl

[Guest Senator Russell D. Feingold]

Statement of Senator Russell D. Feingold

On the Need to Hold the President Accountable for the

Illegal Domestic Surveillance Program

 

As Congress heads into a weeklong recess, I hope members of the Senate have a chance to listen to their constituents back home. All Americans want to fight terrorism and protect our country from those who wish to do us harm, but they don’t want to sacrifice the rights and principles our country was founded upon. One of those fundamental American principles is that the President doesn’t get to pick and choose which laws he follows.

 

There has been a lot of talk in recent weeks, and especially this week, about Congress changing the law to authorize the President’s otherwise illegal domestic surveillance program. Of course, anyone who makes that argument concedes that the program is illegal. In addition, the President has yet to explain convincingly why he can’t follow the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which allows wiretapping of terrorists while protecting law-abiding Americans.

 

The President has broken the law, and the censure resolution I introduced on Monday is intended to hold him accountable. While there have been plenty of personal attacks directed at me this week, few have argued the merits. The facts for censure are clear. FISA makes it a crime to wiretap American citizens on American soil without the requisite court orders – which is exactly what the President has admitted doing. Before the program was revealed, he misled the American people by assuring them that he was getting warrants for wiretaps. Since it was revealed, he has misled the American people about the legal basis for his actions.

 

I look forward to a full hearing, debate and vote in committee on this important matter. If the Committee fails to consider the resolution in a reasonable time period, I will ask that there be a vote in the full Senate. I know Americans will have a lot to say when they see their elected officials during the break. I hope my colleagues listen.

[Guest BlingBling]

United States Senator Wayne Allard Smears Senator Russell D. Feingold

 

Senator Wayne Allard told Denver radio station KOA-AM reporter Roger Hudson that Senator Russell D. Feingold, D-Wisconsin., "has time and time again taken on the side of the terrorists that we're dealing with in this conflict."

 

Just because the Senator wants to hold the President accountable for breaking the law does not mean Feingold is a terrorist or traitor. The funny thing is moderate Republican are starting to move into

Democratic ranks.

[Guest human_*]

BlingBling; I thought that Senator Feingold did a perfectly good job in showing just how OUT OF TOUCH the democrats are when it comes to keeping ALL of us safe from terrorism.

 

As to your statement "moderate Republican are starting to move into

Democratic ranks."

 

BlingBling, I am considered a Moderate Republican, and there is no way in gods green earth that me or any other moderate republican is coming over to the democrat camp.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States Senator Wayne Allard Smears Senator Russell D. Feingold

 

Senator Wayne Allard told Denver radio station KOA-AM reporter Roger Hudson that Senator Russell D. Feingold, D-Wisconsin., "has time and time again taken on the side of the terrorists that we're dealing with in this conflict."

 

Just because the Senator wants to hold the President accountable for breaking the law does not mean Feingold is a terrorist or traitor. The funny thing is moderate Republican are starting to move into

Democratic ranks.

[Guest BlingBling]

In 1970, only thirty-four percent of Americans were "concerned about threats to their personal privacy." By 1978, though, that number had reached sixty-four percent. In 1990, those concerned had risen to seventy-nine percent. In 1995, eighty-two percent of the American public was concerned, and the latest poll numbers for 2005 show close to ninety percent are concerned.

 

In short Human, if you are not concerned, you are a bit out of touch with reality.

[Guest human_*]

When it comes to terrorist’s talking,e-mailing, or what ever else? I want our Government to catch them so they don't blow us Americans all over American soil.

 

A little reality check here blingbling. Anything that you enter into your computer "or any computer for that matter" is OPEN to any tech that you take your computer too to get it fixed. Anything that you post online is saved in a hard drive some where.

 

Personal Privacy as in Some antivirus programs logging where ever you go. I can keep on going too with the likes of I.S.P.'s, key logging programs. Where ever you shop, there are databases to that too,

Search engines.

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1970, only thirty-four percent of Americans were "concerned about threats to their personal privacy." By 1978, though, that number had reached sixty-four percent. In 1990, those concerned had risen to seventy-nine percent. In 1995, eighty-two percent of the American public was concerned, and the latest poll numbers for 2005 show close to ninety percent are concerned.

 

In short Human, if you are not concerned, you are a bit out of touch with reality.

[Freedom]

I challenge all Americans to study Senator Russell D. Feingold censure and consider the fact that this White House power-grab now gives tentacles that can reach out into every facet of our society. NSA wiretapping without the consent of a judge is another example what the White House will do to illegally strip American citizens of all of their rights and grant the government and its private agents total immunity.

 

When the Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment, it was not their intention to protect politically correct speech. It is exactly the purpose of the First Amendment to protect unpopular speech. Read John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty." The value of freedom is the diversity of opinions and thoughts it encourages. It's that old saying, "Which would you prefer, a hundred minds working to solve a problem, or just one?"

 

The Constitution is turning into just an old piece of paper.

[Luke_Wilbur]

Freedom,

While I agree that this issue is important, I do not agree with your portrayal of President Bush. I have not seen any type of racial or political profiling in NSA spying.

[Freedom]

I disagree. Both Hitler and Bush used national tragedies to justify the destruction of civil liberties.

[Guest Murdock Todd Cote (Doc)]

Mr. Bush, know matter the reason spying on your own people is wrong, yes you’re reason may sound right in fantasy land; this is not Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia or some totalitarian government with secret police and internment camps. This is the United States of America, and according to the constitution, the bill of rights; and the declaration of Independence that reason is not going to fly. Even with me, you made an enemy of the wrong man……

 

“He who makes me your enemy, the fault lies with him”

 

Julies Caesar

Triamvere of Rome

 

My cousin told me that if I keep writing controversial articles, letters to the editors and so forth I am going to make a lot of people mad as hell at me. If I do sir, it means I am doing my job as a soldier and as a patriot……. “For evil to thieve, all it takes is for good men to do nothing” Edmond Burke closed quote. Yes we were attacked on September 11th two thousand and one, which was our second Peal Harbor, and thirty five hundred innocent men women and children were murdered, maimed and psychologically changed forever. In Washington at the War Department, in New York at the World Trade Center and in a field in Pennsylvania; many who died were hero’s emergency services worker’s and those forty brave souls who forced their way unto their hijackers before allowing their plane United 93, they died as warriors not civilians, they died defending their country.

 

You Mr. President dishonor their memories by using that horrible day to get your own gulf of Tonkin resolution to start an unjust war in Iraq and passage of the so called Patriot act, which allowed you to do things other would not be allowed too. You and your crony’s made up intelligence and lies to launch an illegal invasion of a sovereign republic. Secret wire taps, spying on your own people and having the gall to call it preventive measures in time of War. Well sir to be a measure of prevention during time of war the houses of repersentives have to have declared a state of War between us and the Nation of Iraq. I have heard of no such resolution in the House. All I saw in two thousand and two was a president who openly lied to the people of the United State himself and by his designee.

 

A government that lie to the House and Senate comities on government over sight to get it’s way, namely the Secretary of State, the Director of National Security and the Director of the Central Intelligence agency, George Tenant and Condoleezza Rice now Secretary of State. So far we have lost in the ITO (Iraqi theater of operations) two thousand five nine hundred dead and thousands wounded and maimed. A war we have so called won, a war were children have been fighting and dying on the ground not their own and thousands more killed in the mind………

 

"A soldier's first battlefield

is always his own mind."

 

Admiral Constanza Q. Stark

Chief of Operations

Commonwealth High Guard

CY 9762

 

How many will come home altered forever by the blood and gore and the smell of death and you dare to spy on innocent men and women and children. It is one thing to hunt the dogs and animals who attacked our homeland who the clariques of Mecca have denounced as faithless murderers of women and children. It another to spy, control and manage what are people see, come November’s fall you lose you’re job with everyone else loyal to you. Spying on your own people is an act of treason that can not and will not be forgiven. We will bring our warrior’s home, we will get our allies home; an America will not ever forgive you, for the secret prison camps, the detention center at Gitomo and for putting our warriors in position to violate the rules of War and the Geneva Convention. In the ATO (Afghanistan Theater of operations) we did what was right and our still doing right hunting the butchers of September 11th and their protectors, the fanatical Islamic group the Taliban who we had to drive from power to get at the butchers. We have made allies of our enemies……. Those who sleep with dogs get bitten in this so called war on terror…..

 

"Here is the price of freedom:

Your every drop of courage,

ounce of pain, pint of blood.

Paid in advance"

 

--Sebastian Lee,

"The Rising Tide" AFC 271

 

it does not mean we violate the civil rights of our own citizens…. And allow an immigrant invasion of illegal into the United States-to allow then a path to citizenship. We are losing jobs in manufacturing, it and many others sectors. Frack me once shame on me, frack me twice shame on you,

[Guest BlingBling]

Thank God for people like Freedom.

 

It looks like McPaper (USA Today) broke one of the biggest stories.

 

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

 

Bastards! I knew they were tracking us. The White House deliberately deceived the American people.

What happened to assurances from President George Bush that the wire-tapping applied only to international calls to known Al Qaeda contacts?

 

Moreover, the current attempt to engage in data-mining of phone records appears to be a reincarnation of the Total Information Awareness program or Able Danger of a few years ago – which we were told had been shut down.

 

Finally a report came out that a senior federal law enforcement official told ABC News that the government is tracking the phone calls of journalists (the report specifically names Brian Ross and Richard Esposito.)

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/0...al_source_.html

 

Even Republican nut case, Pat Robertson, got heated about the NSA wire-tapping revelation, which he called a “tool of oppression,” Robertson cautioned the Bush administration for “encroaching on” Americans’ personal liberties.

 

This is becoming worse that Watergate. George Bush is making a mockery of the Presidency.

 

They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin

[Guest B Mitchell]

Admiral Bobby Ray Inman was one of our nation's highest-ranking and most respected military officers. He was a four-star admiral whose career in the Navy and in our intelligence community and in private business has won him praise from both Democrats and Republicans who admire his intellect, his integrity and his leadership ability.

 

For thirty years, presidents signed warrants authorizing the National Security Agency and its predecessors to collect information on foreigners, on entities, on individuals inside the United States. When I became the Director, I became acquainted with the process. A lot of people claim authorship of FISA, and this is how it really came about. The first set of warrants were due to be renewed, so I sent them down for approval and instantly got back, “Oh, they’re trying to trap the President.” So I let the warrants expire and we stopped the surveillance and within two weeks, I got, “Where’s the product? That’s very valuable.” And I said, “You didn’t sign the warrants authorizing—I’m not going to proceed.” “Well, get them down here,” and they were signed quickly and coverage was resumed and at that point I went to see two members of the Senate and said, “There has to be a better way so you’re not caught in, when administrations change, the issue of whether this is some kind of political trap, as opposed to valuable requirements.” Out of it came the FISA Court. Six, in the initial days, six judges, who were from the appeal court of state selected by the Attorney General. All of the hearings, everything about the warrants, done in closed session. They were tough. For both, “What is the purpose, what are you going to get, what is its intended use?” and they always focused on, “What if you inadvertently collect on U.S. citizens?” Because that first word of the FISA Court, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance was what drove it, so a whole series of processes were put in place.

 

I did not have the vision in 1978 to think about a world where people would come to this country on legitimate visas and spend weeks, months, training, planning, and then executing attacks. Nothing in the whole process of the court was structured to think about that kind of a target in the process. It was a totally different approach for criminal activity, new criminal activity, which you didn’t go to FISA Court initially, you went to normal judges. The other thing I didn’t envision was the dramatic shift from analog to digital communication—speedup—and what both meant in enabling surveillance. Notwithstanding all of the good movies and television programs, computers still in overwhelming (inaudible) cannot sort voice communications. Only people can. But digital activity, computers can sort and identify in incredibly short time frames, and that means what numbers are being dialed, how they are being dialed, suddenly could be accessible in the kind of time frame, that you can do warning, preventive attack. My understanding—and happily I have no access to the program. My understanding is I have tried to track and understand and candidly much of my understanding comes from those members of Congress who have had access, who still occasionally consult. In the immediate aftermath, the White House asked the NSA, “Are there any other prospective attackers out there?” And I don’t have a problem, on an emergency basis, of going to scan and say are there other, because it turns out that there were a lot of phone calls back and forth between those who conducted the attacks, moving money, other things in the process, which could have been tips for warning, if you had known what you were looking for, if you understood it, and had gotten it in a timely way. My problem is in not going through the Congress to revise the statute to deal with the issues that I simply wasn’t smart enough to think about in ’78. We can come back to that later. I think there are a number of ways you could have done it. But here, he said it publicly, so the Vice President, who was Chief of Staff to President Ford when the president still authorized this and said, “We don’t need law. The president has authorized these in the past and can authorize them now,” and that’s why no activity moved forward to pursue changing the law, to do it in the courts.

[Guest human_*]

It just dawned up on me, what nsa could really be after is VOIP. I’M guessing, but I think that is what they are after.

 

It would make sense, a new technology, many people using it, and more coming online everyday.

 

After all we are ALL using telephones "modems" to communicate with each other.

[Guest 8G]

Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine. Earlier in the day she had complained that the small number of lawmakers who were briefed on the NSA wire tapping before Wednesday were "handcuffed" because they were not permitted to share information with colleagues.

 

"The notification to a very limited group — they could do nothing much with that information, essentially — is not the kind of checks and balances that I think our founding fathers had in mind," Ms. Snowe said.

 

"I happen to believe that Congress was never really consulted in a way that we could perform our oversight role," she says. "If it was good enough to brief the full committee yesterday, why wasn't it good enough five years ago?" Hayden does not answer this question. "

[Guest human_*]

Okay, let's really debate this.

 

I really want to know where ALL of you democrats were when in the District of Columbia were installing the cameras to catch speeders?

 

It has mushroomed now from just catching speeders, to people running red lights, to watching people for any type of SUSPECIOUIS ACTIVITY.

 

Is it your "Democrats" contention that it is okay for local governments to impose surveillance, but NOT the Federal Government?

 

Let's not also forget that Private Companies do data mine on every level.

 

Let's really debate it, and NOT just have an Intellectual Finger pointing contest.