FISA frenzy: Yes, there are still differences between the GOP and the Dems; Update: Cloture vote Monday
Update 6:00pm Eastern. DJN: “Lawmakers in the Senate defeated an initial attempt Thursday to strip immunity for telecommunications companies out of a bill reauthorizing the federal government’s warrantless wiretapping program. Senators approved a motion to table an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that would have removed the immunity provision in the bill. The vote was 60-34. Democratic senators are planning at least two more amendments seeking to remove the immunity clause. If they both fail, then Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., has repeated his pledge to attempt to block a vote on the bill. Speaking to reporters earlier Thursday, Dodd said he was “vehemently” opposed to immunity and would do everything he could to prevent it.”
Debate continues on the Senate floor…cloture vote is schedule for Monday… hours before Bush’s State of the Union address.
More:
An earlier FISA vote in the Senate today netted 60 votes, and if that coalition of Republicans plus conservative Democrats holds firm, then McConnell will get cloture. However, rank-and-file senators from both parties often support their leaders on cloture votes, so Reid may be able to keep Democrats in line, thus blocking cloture.
It is also unclear at this time if the “presidentials” — that is, senators running for the White House — will attend Monday’s vote.
***
When I’m down on the Republicans, I tell you. When they deserve your support, I tell you. In the Senate this morning, the Republicans are showing that there are still fundamental differences between the GOP and the Dems. You can tune in right now to C-SPAN 2 to watch the battle over permanent reform and overhaul of the nations’ outdated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. There are nine days until the current stopgap measure expires.
The frenzy over FISA is a stark reminder of basic party differences on the War on Terror. The Republicans put security first. The Democrats put trial lawyers, terrorists’ rights, and election campaigns first. The Republicans are acting to prevent another 9/11. The Democrats are stuck in a 9/10 world. Treacherous Dick Durbin is currently on the floor right now using the FISA debate to foam at the mouth about Guantanamo Bay again and yes, he’s quoting that idiotic, Soros-backed Center for Public Integrity “study” to pollute the Senate chambers with more “BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED” propaganda as Denny K did in the House yesterday.
Democrat Chris Dodd is threatening a filibuster. And the jihadists are cheering.
As Andy McCarthy explains:
Dodd’s objection is about as counterproductive as it gets to national security. He is unhappy because a far from perfect but comparatively sensible FISA-reform proposal that won overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate Intelligence Committee would provide telecommunications service providers with immunity from legal liability.
The telecoms, in the wake of the 9/11 atrocity, acceded to the Bush administration’s requests for assistance in carrying out the NSA’s warrantless monitoring of wartime terrorist communications that crossed U.S. borders. This effort, relying on presidential authority consistently acknowledged by the federal appeals courts, did not comply with FISA protocols.
Granting the telecoms immunity, which is not merely the only fair thing to do but the only smart thing to do, would end numerous lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and others.
…Dodd and his colleagues in the Democratic party are desperate to keep the courts front and center. Feeling the heat from their hard-Left base, they would have al-Qaeda operatives given protection against surveillance not only inside the United States but overseas — such that if, for example, jihadists inside Iraq were plotting to kill American marines there, the government would have to seek a judge’s permission before eavesdropping on their communications.
This is so patently absurd and dangerous that even the energetic Leftist Congress which enacted FISA in 1978 did not attempt it, taking pains to exempt intelligence collection outside the United States from the new (and ill-advised) requirement that the president — the constitutional official principally responsible for national security — obtain court permission before monitoring spies and terrorists. The Democrats would obviously prefer to depict such foolishness as the doing of judges rather than a policy choice bearing their own fingerprints.
Thus the Dodd gambit: Just say “no” to telecom immunity while pushing for an 18-month extension of the temporary deal Congress and the administration struck this summer, which permits the CIA and NSA to continue overseas surveillance without court permission.
Currently, that deal is scheduled to sunset in early February. The Democrats’ strategy is transparent. They realize their position underscores how weak they are on national security and how beholden they are to the CAIR/ACLU/MoveOn.org Left, which is more animated by the “rights” of terrorists than the lives of Americans. If they can con the Bush administration into accepting the 18-month extension, that takes the issue off the table for the 2008 election. Not only would Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama be able to avoid being accountable for their party’s unpopular position. The ducking would further help one of them win the presidency, whereupon she or he could help Democrats sculpt a more terrorist-friendly FISA in 2009, when no one is up for re-election and public scrutiny ebbs.
The Bush administration and the Republican presidential candidates should not let them get away with it. FISA needs a major overhaul to make it easier, not harder, to monitor the people trying to kill us. Osama bin Laden doesn’t need to apply to a sharia court before blowing up an American embassy; the president shouldn’t need to apply to a federal court to try to stop him…
The nutroots are cheering on the Dems’ obstructionist effort to block a lasting FISA makeover. Where are you?
Make your voice heard.
Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121
***
Here are the proposals on the table. Some not-insane Dems are on board with the Senate intelligence panel’s version that contains retroactive legal immunity for the telecoms.
Here’s a left-wing site’s lambasting of amendments being offered by Feinstein and Specter.
The White House statement on FISA released this morning:
Last August, Congress passed the Protect America Act, which updated our foreign intelligence surveillance law to adapt to today’s technology and to meet today’s threats. This bipartisan legislation has aided our efforts to monitor the communications of terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets.
Unfortunately, Congress set this legislation to expire on February 1st. That is just 8 days from today - yet the threat from al Qaeda will not expire in 8 days.
If Congress does not act quickly, our national security professionals will not be able to count on critical tools they need to protect our Nation, and our ability to respond quickly to new threats and circumstances will be weakened. That means it will become harder to figure out what our enemies are doing to recruit terrorists and infiltrate them into our country.
Last fall, the Senate Intelligence Committee completed its work on a bipartisan bill to modernize our foreign intelligence surveillance law. I commend Senators Rockefeller and Bond, the Committee’s Chairman and Vice Chairman, for leading the effort to complete work on this bill.
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s bill contains many provisions that our intelligence officials say they need to protect our country. The bill would maintain the vital flow of intelligence on terrorist threats. It would protect the freedoms of Americans while making sure we do not extend those same protections to terrorists overseas. And it would provide liability protection to companies now facing billion dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in efforts to defend our Nation following the Nine-Eleven attacks.
This bill still needs some changes, but I am optimistic that with goodwill on both sides we can make those changes quickly. So I ask Congressional leaders to follow the course set by their colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee, bring this legislation to a prompt vote in both houses, and send me a bill that I can sign before the Protect America Act expires on February 1st.
Congress’ action - or lack of action - on this important issue will directly affect our ability to keep Americans safe.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- FISA frenzy: Yes, there are still differences between the GOP and the Dems « Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian
- cookiecrumbexpress.com Blog » Blog Archive » Republicans Support Security
- Michelle: The difference between democrats and republicans | BitsBlog
- Michelle Malkin » FISA fight: Will Senate play “kick the can” with terrorist surveillance?
- Michelle Malkin » State of the Grab Bag Address 2008
- Michelle Malkin » The FISA fight: Nutroots lose, America wins
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Ally McBeal approach, FISA, Homeland Security, White Flag Democrats
Hotline On Call
» Chambliss Wins; 60 Eludes Dems
JustOneMinute
» David Gregory To Host Meet The Press (While Hiding From It)Belmont Club
» A self-made hellRiehl World View
» Update: Chambliss WIns Georgia Run-offGateway Pundit
» 2 Year-Old Moshe Holtzberg Was Beaten By Terrorists... His Murdered Mother Was 6 Months PregnantNewsBusters.org
» Four Years Later, Kerry Admits He's a LiberalHotline On Call
» Obama Records Radio Ad For LA House Hopeful
This is the heart of this election to me. The Democrats are only focused on their own power, not the safety of American citizens, or any other people around the world for that matter.
It’s frankly sickening to watch this unfold.
God help us all.
Philabuster our security, this is outrages, more pandering to the anti-war liberal’s and the mindless idiot’s of the Democrap Party standing in the way of anything that has to do with our security. If the Dim’s are in power in the White House and Congress we will watch the dismantaling of anything the Republican’s have built, Military, Security etc…
It’s a shame, but inevitable. Dems have short short memories and are instantly mesmerized by election possibilities.
They require horror up close and personal to wake up, and yes, it will happen. I’m just glad I live in the midwest, as the coasts are still the most likely targets. It’s sad, but it’s gonna take having a city wiped out to stop these morons from appeasing the enemy. Dodd will regret his words one day, unfortunately way too late though.
I share Brian72’s sentiments… How is this even an issue? Security first. Period.
I find it hard to believe that the Republicans wouldn’t be able to score big points on this as long as they frame the argument correctly. National Security isn’t a game but can’t be played as strictly a fear issue.
There are plenty of ignorant people who buy into the invasion of privacy nonsense but those with half a brain understand what is at stake and why we all have to allow the government to hunt for potential terrorists. (Like the Columbia Bomb factory)
Reason #568 why I will never again vote for a Democrat.
Do these morons realize if not for a few brave, doomed souls on a hijacked flight, the very same sorts of people whose rights are more important to Democrats than my rights would’ve driven a 757 right into the U.S. Capitol, killing many of them?
I guess not. That’s why they’re the Dummycrats.
Peggy Noonan said it best once to a donkey acquaintance of hers: “You desperately want to rule America, but you don’t seem to like Americans very much.”
But perhaps more appropriate is the quote from Ripley’s character in the movie “Aliens”:
“I don’t know which species is worse; you don’t see them f*cking each other over for a percentage.”
And that’s pretty much what the donkey party leadership and much of its base have come down to: f*cking America over for their own gain.
Keep it up, donkey boys and girls. At this rate, one day soon our own military will have to ponder when your activities cross the threshhold and trigger their oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The Dems who are doing this are the same Dems who think 9/11 was committed by Bush, not the Muslims. The Dems are reminding us that we have a choice in the upcoming election.
I was watching Orin Hatch discuss this on Imus in the Morning, whats with the hold up? Hatch made a very good point so 3,000 dead Americans isn’t a good enough reason? How many dead Americans is it going to take? How bad an incident of terrorism do we need a dirty bomb that kills 10s of thousands?
Me personally don’t understand what is stopping the fence? They say there are a 100 landowners trying to block the fence on the southern border. Since when does our Government have a problem with emminent domain, they take away people’s properties all the time, remember the Supreme Court upheld the practice.
WHERES THE FENCE?
Simple anwer - democraps would rather lose a war than lose an election.
And until the voters realize this and keep them out of any hint of power for a good long time, this will be their M.O.
What sadness that real issues cannot be debated, along with the adage about where politics stops…
open borders = open for attack
even the morons doing fuzzy math should be able to figure that out.
Thanks for the head’s up and the phone number Michelle. I just made my call. I hope others do, too.
Even when, not if, one or more of our cities get flattened and irradiated, the Dems will not, well, er, uh, REPENT! They will kick in the spin machine and say, “There, you see. If we would have been in power we would have done bla and bla and bla and bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla. But we were stopped by partisans and obstructionists of the other party.”
This is the same type of liberal attitude about gun shops. Since the gun shop sold the gun, they’re “responsible” for a criminal using one. So, you can sue the gun shop. That’s why there are so few gun shops in the People’s Socialist Quagmire of California.
Since the Telcom companies own the service and sell it, the liberals want those very Telcom companies held responsible when the gov’t tries to provide the security we need as a nation.
Just more pandering to the lawyers. My brother once told me, “All lawyers are crooks.” He should know, he practiced law for many years and had to live and work in those shark-infested waters.
I have no one to call except Arlen the Specter… and we’re no longer communicating with each other.
This is just too scary to contemplate. Just hope and pray a donkey doesn’t make it to the White House for this election cycle or we are all royally screwed, without so much as dinner or a kiss.
In another study released today by the J S Ragman Institute for Fairness in Public Policy, it was reported that a Freedom of Information Act request to the NSA disclosed that approximately 70% of the cellular phone conversations intercepted by the intelligence community were made by Senate Democrats to a 1-900-HOT-BURQA phone number in Pakistan. When reached for further comment, the study’s author concluded, “This must be the reason they want to make it more difficult to protect American lives.” He went on to say, “In this dog-eat-dog world, these idiots insist on making us wear Milkbone underwear.”
Glad both of my Senators actually get it on this issue. I will contact both today to remind them someone is watching them. I fear it will take another mass casualty attack before our elected and appointed overlords bye a clue. Of course when it happens it will be Bush’s fault instead of the lying crapweasels in Congress who really should bear the blame due to their arrogance and lust for power.
Hey quick, somebody take a picture of Teddy, he doesn’t have a drink in his hand. Every single time that I see him on the floor, I get sick the a murderer can be in such a position.
I’m John Ansell and I want you to sue me Teddy. Here, TED KENNEDY IS A KILLER. He Murdered Mary JO. He fled the scene while she slowly died.
Teddy, you need to shut your fat trap.
Except that Bush threatened to veto the bill unless it includes retroactive immunity for companies who broke the law. So he can’t care about security that much. Immunity for telecom companies has nothing to do with security. It has to do with rewarding lawlessness. It has to do with this Liberal wishy-washy “well, their heart was in the right place” way of dealing with lawbreakers. It’s Huckabee-style “justice.”
Senator Dodd has no objection other than the provision of retroactive immunity for the lawbreaking telecoms. Drop the immunity provision and this legislation will proceed where Bush can explain to the American people why he vetoed “Terrorist surveillance” legislation because it didn’t include a giant fruit basket for lawless telecoms.
McCarthy:
We didn’t turn the industry into a defendant. They decided to break the law. They knew they were breaking the law. They didn’t have to. They could have, as other telecom companies did, refrained from breaking the law. The costs they face are nothing near ruinous. That’s hyperbole. And it doesn’t matter if their intentions were honorable or patriotic. They broke the law. If their help was so important, Congress could have (and should have) passed legislation legalizing their activities. You don’t break the law and then go out seeking retroactive immunity when your crimes are brought to light. That’s not how it works. This isn’t behavior that should be rewarded.
You can also go to Congress’s website to send an email/letter that goes directly to the President, US House Reps and Senators.
I have yet to hear any cogent explanation of how the telecoms “broke the law”. They obviously believed they were acting within the law at the time. You need a little more than an allegation that someone “broke the law” to prosecute a lawsuit.
There is also a compelling national security element to granting telecoms immunity. Just what records were requested and turned over in an effort to keep this Country safe have no place in a civil courtroom. Those who would deny granting telecoms protection are actually promoting making sensitive intelligence material public information.
The other issue here is that the Democrats are blowing smoke regarding citizen’s rights. In the real world, the actual fight is over the protection of the rights of non-US citizens. Shall we grant Constitutional privacy protections to terrorists of other nations simply because they use a switch or router that is located on US soil? That is what the Democrats are fighting for. And frankly, if they gave a damn about the rights of US citizens, they would have closed the border by now.
My bet is that neither Clinton nor Obama will vote on this. In my book, an “absent” counts as a vote against FISA, and a vote against FISA shows an extreme naivete and weakness when it comes to national security issues.
Sorry Mark, but the telecoms never broke the law.
—————————————–
I wonder how Mark would feel about our intercepting German and Japanese messages during WWII?
After listening to my Mo Republican Sen Bond and a brief comment by WVa Democrat Rockefeller, I called Senator Bond’s office asking him to continue to fight against the Judiciary Amendment which will restrict and hamper timely intelligence gathering. Senator Bond emphatically said that the Executive Branch and the Intelligence Committee have the authorization to “robustly use their oversight capabilities” for NSA’s collection of intelligence! He further stated that there should not be a “sunset clause” as the Judiciary Amendment says, because the constant debating of the Protect America Act and FISA has the effect to give our enemies vital insights into the collection of crucial data. Again, the Judiciary Committee is hampering our critical mandate to the Intelligence gathering agencies who carry out the Protect America Act! Shouldn’t the Judiciary Committee do their job: filling the hundreds of vacancies on the lower courts across this country..? Nearly every lower court has 3 to 5 desperately needed judges so citizens can have their Constitutional Right to appear in court in a timely manner! (I called Mo Sen Claire McCaskill’s office and her aide does not know her position on the Judiciary Amendments to FISA. That in and of itself tells me volumes!) jk
Here’s an excerpt from one of the lefty websites linked above;
It is clear to me that these ACLU types believe there is nothing that should be kept from the general public, or closed to public scrutiny. They throw around the term “rule of law” as if it were interchangeable with “full disclosure”.
I can’t help but think how much I would like to play poker with these guys, as they would be compelled to show me their cards before we bet.
Can we have the courage to preserve out freedoms, including freedom from searches without warrants sworn, judge approved, based on specific credible evidence, etc.? Are we going to let two bit Al make us abandon our constitution? Hitler never managed it. The Japanese internment was not Hitler’s fault and is a permanent blot on our history.
Correct the quote (Franklin?): Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for safety will have neither.
Dingy Harry wants another month.What’s he been doing since last August?
MM, thank you for the info, I’ve already called to make my view known. No red phone pic? Que pasa?
/s/
jose
The Republicans are more fascist on freedom. Bush hates our freedoms, but through the miraculous psychological self-esteem maintaining mechanism of projection saddles bin Laden with his philosophy.
#27 lgm
Not to change the subject, but during WWII, our own troops had to submit their letters home to screening by a censor, just in case they let something slip about troop/ship movements. Don’t tell me that every US military unit had a judge to issue a warrant over that.
We still live in the most free society out there. However, technology has made it vastly more dangerous. What is wrong with using technology to our advantage to protect American citizens from those who would do us harm?
As a country, we do have events in our past that we aren’t very proud of. Are you trying to theorize that some day in the future we will be ashamed of defending ourselves from the jihadists?
#16 zorro: Try having John McCain’t as your senator!
hello…..hello…..senator Mccain, are you there?
On January 24th, 2008 at 3:03 pm, lgm said:
Can we have the courage to preserve out freedoms, including freedom from searches without warrants sworn, judge approved, based on specific credible evidence, etc.? Are we going to let two bit Al make us abandon our constitution? Hitler never managed it. The Japanese internment was not Hitler’s fault and is a permanent blot on our history.
Correct the quote (Franklin?): Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for safety will have neither.
LGM….As usual the liberal argument is based on false premises and a complete lack of common sense. You have framed the argument incorrectly. I am not arguing to give away my freedom. I am not concerned about the feds listening to my phone conversation as I have not been talking to an Al Qaeda suspect most importantly and I also have nothing to hide(do you?). And by the way….True conservatives are much more concerned about our individual rights and protecting the “non-living” constitution than liberals who talk big but are more concerned about the “living” constitution and the criminal’s civil rights. I suppose you would also argue to give the Guantanamo “war prisoners” a lawyer. Would we have given the German and Japanese prisoners the same? We would have lost the war… These arguments are naive at BEST.
#30 Alphonse seems to know a lot about projection. It seems he is projecting his hatred on to others.
Alphonse, stop the name calling and make a rational point, if you actually have one.
FISA is common sense. Can you imagine in WWII if the J.Edger Hoover had to ask permission to not only wear his dresses, but also to actively seek out German and Japanese spies that were here.
We need to overhaul all of Congress and the Senate. These moderates are nothing more then socialist hiding in a skewed political spectrum that is tilted way left.
nosheep said:
You contradict yourself in the above statement. If true conservatives are more concerned about our individual rights, why aren’t they fighting against the government looking at our phone records? My right to live my life as I see fit is a core conservative principle. Allowing the government to run database queries on my phone calls to determine whether I might be a terrorist undermines my constitutional rights.
I hate the argument that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn’t worry if the government is watching you.
I would sooooo love to see Bush, or his Republican successor, stand up in front of Congress and say in a very few words, “This is what I am going to do. I have the constitutional authority to do it, and if you have a problem with this behavior, I’ll see you in court.” It seems to me that the basic security of the nation warrants this measure if it is ever threatened beyond reason by some Dhim nitwits.
And I hate the argument that no matter what the government says it is trying to do, it really only wants to invade the privacy of law abiding citizens.
As a conservative I am very concerned over my liberty and my rights under the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. However, in a war situation, some rights must be given up for the common defense. That includes Ragman’s censorship of mail and includes wire taps on the phones. We have been a lucky 2 generations that, for once, never experienced total war in this country. Our wars are far away and fought in the news. I really don’t think we could be capable of total war, given the way we think of the world today. Could we really rally to a President and military if we were truly attacked, without the Sheehans, Pelosis and Reids? Igm brings up Japanese internment. Yes, I agree…a terrible mistake. Given the mood of the day, I can “understand” the situation. It doesn’t mean I agree though, just understand. FDR is by far, in my book, the closest we ever got to an emperor/dictator. His policies still hurt us, as you can see in the Congress today. In the defense of the country, some rights must be given up…temporarily. It is up to the people to decide, when the war is over, that it’s time to have those rights given back. We fail on that accord.
Wile E,
The feds looking at a generic database and flagging only those calls to known Al Qaeda suspects and then listening to ONLY those calls is NOT IMO an infringement on my rights. At the point they DO listen to my conversations, I have already talked to “the suspect”. I then have put “myself” into a dangerous situation. If you went to a store with one of your buddies and he went inside and robbed the place….At that point, you are an accomplice whether you knew or not. It may seem unfair but it would foolish for the “feds” to immediately accept your innocence. It’s just common sense.
They intercepted communications without a warrant and provided them to the government. That is illegal. Hence they broke the law. The evidence of this has been leaked, and AT&T verified the leaked documents.
If they acted in good faith, they already have immunity under FISA. Consider the implications of that carefully. If they already have immunity for actions performed in good faith, why do they need additional immunity? Well, because their actions were not performed in good faith. The “good faith” argument is false because such immunity already exists. The existing immunity being sought is specifically for telecoms who knowingly violated the law. They tried that “good faith” argument in the EFF/AT&T case and the judge rejected their argument. It is unreasonable that a telecom company of that size would be ignorant about the law as it pertains to providing the government wiretaps or access to their call records.
If it doesn’t violate our Constitutionally-protected God-given rights as human beings — nothing. If it does — everything. The government exists to protect our individual rights. It cannot violate one in order to secure another. They are the ones charged with protecting our rights. What is our recourse if they become the agents of the violation of our rights?
I sure do! Everybody has something to hide. I haven’t found your bathroom webcam feed, so I’m guessing you agree. Perhaps you’d like to explain further why we should abolish the Fourth Amendment and give the government free and unchecked reign over our communications. Hey — maybe we should have a national database of guns while we’re at it! That way the government can keep criminals from having guns! Or, we could set up a system where the government is notified of every financial transaction we make. That way the government can catch criminals by monitoring for unauthorized trading! And those silly conservatives thought big government was a bad thing. Look at all the good that can come from letting the government monitor the minutiae of our lives!
Um, no. Read up on Hepting vs. AT&T. Wholesale duplication of all of their Internet and VOIP traffic.
Mark, they are trying to record the balistics on guns and register them on a state/national database now. And, as far as financial transactions go, if you bank $10K or more, at once, the IRS must be notified. A little “snip” here, a little “snip” there.
Here’s a possible scenario? A known Al-Qaida jihadist calls you by mistake. The NSA via the telecoms intercepts the call, renditions you to a secret location, waterboards you until you confess to supporting Al-Qaida only to end the torture, there is no recourse for representation, and you fall into a black hole forever. That’s what FISA, illegal wiretaps, and current Presidential powers allow today. How do we know that hasn’t happened already? Republicans should stand for the rule of law and not be so willing to see our freedoms treated so lightly by this administration.
Are these idiots really saying that compliance is optional and that henceforth all laws are just suggestions?
Best post in a long time around here Mark. Can’t disagree with anything in it. Your legal and policy analysis is absolutely spot on.
…”The government exists to protect our individual rights.”
No, it doesn’t. It exists first and foremost to ensure the continuing existence and functioning of the Republic. Should it fail in that, all discussion and concern regarding individual rights become moot - or cause for beheading.
As someone said, “The first responsibility of any nation is to win its wars.” (or something very similar), which seems to me to be a fundamental self-evident truth. First things first, Pookie.
Quoth Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
re: #42:
Shh! Don’t disturb my trap! I’m waiting for someone to say “That’s ridiculous! The American people would never stand for such governmental trespasses on their freedom!” and then I’d have my “Aha! But they have!” moment.
nosheep said (#33):
Just make your point and let the reader decide who is right.
You seem willing to give up freedom from warrantless search. If you do have something to hide (say, an affair with an intern), you have the right to keep it hidden. The government cannot tap your phone without a warrant.
Another constitutional principle: being accused of a crime does not make you a criminal. That’s determined by a trial. Al Capone had rights, just like George Bush has.
Japanese and German prisoners in WWII got more rights than our “detainees” at Guantanamo because we honored the Geneva Conventions. Our detainees are supposed to be “illegal combatants”, which implies that they committed crimes. If that’s what you think, you should use the legal process, and, yes, lawyers. The honor of our country is at stake.