If you are white and christian, and only deal with white Christians maybe you don't have to worry about the NSA.

But for those of us who live in this multicultural world and happen to have friends, family and business associates who are Muslim the NSA intrusion into our private affairs is real.

I am sorry people that I cannot think for myself.I must cut and paste long articles because I do not know how to put one word in front of the other. I am not sure if I have a personality or identity, but I will tell you after the holiday.

The pre-warnings for 9/11 were numerous:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
Check the "Before 9/11" part. There was and is no need for any patriot act.

And as for "hating our freedom":
"the US Defense Department released a report by the Defense Science Board that is highly critical of the administration's efforts in the war on terror and in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report says]."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2004/1129freedom.htm
http://amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0802/p04s01-wogi.html

The government hates democracy but that's ok, next election they are toast.

Once Democrats take back control of our government then we can target the real threat to our democracy: the neocons!

Hey, maybe the Manhattan cappucino drinker isn't being monitored--but out here in backwoods New Mexico, my phone and internet service suddenly developed problems a few days after I suggested in a public place that Congress should consider impeachment investigations. I joked about it last month. Now I'm not so sure it's so funny. That's the problem with the current administration's approach--it chills even bad humor.

When the predators are using the laws to get what they want and it has nothing to do with protecting you. Even government agencies given limited intelligence and assured that it's been cleared from the highest levels need to do something will do it. I mean, they don't get told the whole story, just enough so that they do what they get told to. Intelligence requires that it be disassembled enough that no one can put the pieces together. Creating the illusion of terrorists so that certain actions can be taken, under war powers acts....you of course need a war. SCREAMING THAT THERE IS A WAR ON ALL OF THE TIME, MAKES PEOPLE BELIVE THAT ONE IS ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE. A WAR IMPLIES THAT WE ARE BEING ATTACKED. THE ONLY PEOPLE ATTACKING US WORK FOR US. YOUR GOVERNMENT BELONGS TO YOU, NOT TO THE F....... PRESIDENT. MAYBE IF YOU GET THAT SO WILL HE....THERE IS NO WAR. IT IS A METHOD OF ASSEMBLING THE NECESSARY BACKING TO USE MILITARY FORCE TO CONTROL AN ECONOMICALLY AND GEOGRAPHICALLY IMPORTANT REGION.

WHAT A BUNCH OF CLUELESS MORONS....YOU OWN THE GOVERNMENT ACT LIKE IT....YOU PAY FOR EVERYTHING....EVEN GIVING YOUR ROYAL LAIRDS POWER OVER YOU, TAKE IT BACK.

How do we know if our e-votes counts?

THE WHOLE F...... BORDER INTO THE UNITED STATES IS CRAWLING WITH BEANERS AND YOU THINK THAT A TERRORIST COULDN'T GET IN IF THEY WANTED TOO?

DID YOU NOT HEAR THE 9/11 COMMISSION SAY THAT THEY LACK OF EFFORT BY THIS ADMINISTRATION TO MAKE ADEQUATE CHANGES TO PROVIDE FOR OUR PROTECTION IN THE EVENT OF TERRORIST ATTACK WAS LUDICROUS AND BORDERED ON THE CRIMINAL.

THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOT WORRIED ABOUT TERRORIST ATTACKS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE TERRORISTS.....

NOT TO SAY THAT SINCE WE'VE BEEN SCREAMING TO THE WORLD THAT TOWELHEADS ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE "EVIL EMPIRE" WHICH INCLUDES KOREA THAT THEY MIGHT HARBOR SOME FEELINGS AGAINST US AND OH YEAH, WE'VE KILLED A COUPLE OF THEM, AND OH YEAH WE'VE SUPPORTED ISRAEL NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO TO OTHER PEOPLE....CAUSE WE NEED _THEM_ TO HAVE NUCLEAR CAPABILITY....NO OTHER CRAZED MEGLOMANIACS NEED THAT CAPABILITY IN THAT REGION THOUGH.

Ooops, fingers must have slipped on my last post. INTER-national, not "INTRT-national."

Matt Dooley: "there were only an estimated 500 people targeted with this surveillance."

Whose estimate? How did they arrive at it? What makes you think it's accurate?

Matt again: "only communications with known or suspected ties to terrorist groups were targeted."

Again, where did you get this? How do you know it's true?

One more time: "only intra-national communications were targeted."

Well, first, INTRA-national means WITHIN a nation, INTRT-national is between nations, but I can tell that was a mistake in wording. But yet again, how do you know this? What makes you so sure whoever you heard this from isn't a baldfaced liar? Or that he even has the slightest idea what he's talking about? The whole problem here is that the wiretaps were authorized in secret, without judicial or Congressional oversight, and NOBODY except the ones doing the wiretapping knows who the targets are, or how many there are, or where they are, or why they were targeted. So unless you're in the NSA Matt, how do you know these things? And why should we believe you?

So there are only 500 Muslims in America? Because there were only an estimated 500 people targeted with this surveillance.

Or are you saying that all Muslims have ties to terrorist organizations? Because only communications with known or suspected ties to terrorist groups were targeted.

Or are you saying that all Muslims are calling internationally or receiving calls internationally? Because only intra-national communications were targeted.

That doesn't seem like an overly-wide net to me. But if you don't want Washington to know what people in the US who communicate with terrorists are doing, I suppose I understand.

Bob Owens says "Fact: White House Counsel has reviewed this executive order more than 3 dozen times, and have found it to be within the president's constitutional authority."

Most clear thinking Americans do not believe that Harriet Miers is a constitutional scholar, let alone the fact that she has no judicial experience whatsoever.

Now that one of the judges of the FISA court has resigned over the warrantless wiretaps, what say you?

Bush and cronies are lying, bigoted, war mongering, far right wing religious extremists who lied to get us into a war, continue to purposely deceive us that this war is with terrorist rather than with insurgents and has now clearly broken the law in spying on US Citizens... both by the military and NSA... and continues to distort the facts in claiming congress knew and agreed. What will it take for the people in this country to wake up to the lies and bs coming from this administration? Bush's efforts in the last 5 years have not made us safer... he has created a whole new place for terrorists to call home and whole new reasons for that part of the world to hate us... all the while destroying our economy and placing our future in the hands of the foreigners who hold our debt. Bush is living proof there is no such thing as intelligent design. Tlak about activist judges... Bush and cronies have hijacked our great country and using the God vote have us on the road to a theocracy. Contary to what one lawmaker from NC said during the last election... the constitution most certainly does protect us BOTH FROM religion and the right to practice it. Wake up America, before it is too late!

"Has a single American citizen suffered even a minor legal or personal problem as a consequence of this NSA program since 2001? No!"

Well, all I have to say about that is this: They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.

Impeach him. Impeach him NOW

ITS DICK TIME

"Has a single American citizen suffered even a minor legal or personal problem as a consequence of this NSA program since 2001? No!"

Just because we haven't heard about the abuses doesn't mean they haven't happened. The news will leak out slowly, just as it has with abuses tied to other aspects of the "War on Terror." Secret prison camps where people are disappeared? Done. Open prison camps where people are locked up for years on end, without a trial? Done. Torture, beatings and other forms of abuse in these prisons? Done. Dead prisoners? Check? Innocent people imprisoned? Done. Innocent people abducted off the street in Europe and disappeared for 2 years? Done. An American citizen, guilty as he may be, locked in a Navy brig for two years with no access to the legal protections guaranteed by the Constitution? Done.

Anybody who thinks it is appropriate for the United States to treat people, even its enemies, in the same way that third world dictators treat their enemies, please stand up and take a bow. You deserve the country you're creating.

Could Mr. Arkin back down just a bit and admit that he doesn't know exactly who *is* being targeted?

That's what Congress is supposed to know and doesn't.

Bushco has made it very clear that they don't quite understand the nuance between dissent and treason. They may very well be targeting political enemies presuming that anyone against Bush is pro-terrorist.

Has a single American citizen suffered even a minor legal or personal problem as a consequence of this NSA program since 2001? No! Has there been even a minor attack on the U.S. since 9/11 after this NSA program began? No! Have many dozens more top Al Qaeda people been jailed or killed in the 4 Bush years since 2001 than in the 8 Clinton years prior to 2001? Yes! Does Al Qaeda worry about ANY of our American civil liberties, or even our right to LIVE? Hell no! So why are so many people in the American media so worried about the rights of terrorists? I can tell you this, IF there is another attack on U.S. soil, the American media which is now hounding Bush about doing TOO MUCH to protect us will then be the same media which will cry that he DIDN'T DO ENOUGH! My confidence rests in George Bush to protect me and the people I love, not in the editors of the NY Times !!!

"Bin Laden determined to attack..." (Presidential Daily Briefing/summer 2001)

***********************
I'd say the above was a 'heckuva' PERFECT counter-intel warning for Bush & Co to acknowledge and immediately scramble a few jets for...'just in case' the warning proved to be a REAL attack on September 11, 2001.

I wasn't aware that Greenpeace and Quaker members, both sited as being on the eavesdrop list, were from the Muslim world.

Sarah Meyer
Researcher
http://indexresearch.blogspot.com
Sussex, UK

"Come on. The government is not just repeating the targeting of political opponents a la J. Edgar Hoover or Richard Nixon. It is not picking out a Seymour Hersh or a Cindy Sheehan to find their links to foreign influences nor seeking to ruin their lives by developing incriminating evidence on them.

I know I sound like some Fox news watching, flag waiving, gun toting, Cappuccino hater defending the national security state. "

No, you just sound like someone who only gets his news from the Washington Post. If you would look around a little you would discover this is already happening.

I was digging through my records looking for links, but then I thought "This guy is ignoring so much that's going on around him that he's not going to be swayed."

You need to get out more.

Where is Osama Bin Laden?

Where is the one eye Taliban leader?

Where are the persons who send antrax letters to the senate?

www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info/audio

Its pretty simple really. Bush violated Article 4 of the Constitution and broke the law that allows eavesdropping (FISA) within Constitution protections. We as a people now have to decide whether the Constitution and our laws are just paper or actually mean something.

Benjamin Franklin said it best:
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

The Bush administration deserves no liberty or security from a Confressional investigation of his admitted violation of the Constitution and oath of office.

sakeirishman wrote:
>"So when the sleeper cell in the US gets the call from an Al Qaeda operative we're monitoring on the Afghanistan border to pick up the smuggled nuclear device, most of the writers want the NSA to hang up until they can get a warrant to monitor the sleeper cell's number rather than know what's coming and intercept it!!"

Wrong. The FISA law allows for that phone to be monitored with a FISA warrant applied for up to 72 hours AFTER THE FACT. Here is the real question - Why did Bush order the NSA to avoid a FISA court warrant when obtaining a warrant would not prevent the urgency of any evesdropping.

The only answer I can come up with is that Bush knew a FISA judge would have disallowed some of the warrants. That would happen if the evesdropping would overstep the Constitution by, say, spying on people who have no association with terrorism, like political enemies. So I have concluded that Bush planned, in a premeditated fashion, to violate his oath to protect the Constitution.

I think a review of all past evesdropping should be performed in secret by the FISA judges who would report their overall findings, not the details, to Congress. Congress should then consider impeachment if it was determined spying for political rather then defense purposes was performed.

If Bush is allowed to get away with this without a review, a very bad president will be set for this and future presidents. The way this government functions will forever be changed for the worse.

The assertion by Bush and his people that they only spy on international calls is also disingenuous. Nowadays your calls for customer service and tech support are more often than not handled in India! So who is to say they cannot listen in? At the same time a click on a Web link can take you to a server located offshore, so who's to say they can not monitor it? For all I know the site the Post uses to process this blog - www.typepad.com - is located in Pakistan! And if that's so the NSA can 'legally' track down every posts made by the Post readers!

Mike P.
Please check your history books, Guatemala 1954, Brazil 1964, Allende 1973, Irak(Saddam coup 1963)for more information on this check the following video at:

http://deeperpolitics.gnn.tv/blogs/6897/Saddam_as_puppet_dictator_played_by_the_US_Administration

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info/audio

Sen. Reid calls US Congress 'most corrupt in history'

www.infowars.com
Reuters | December 18, 2005
By Thomas Ferraro

U.S. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid called the Republican-led Congress "the most corrupt in history" on Sunday, and distanced himself from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, at the center of an escalating probe.

The Justice Department is investigating whether Jack Abramoff directed illegal payoffs to lawmakers, including Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, who was forced to step down as House Republican leader in September after indicted in his home state of Texas on unrelated charges.

"Don't lump me in with Jack Abramoff. This is a Republican scandal," Reid told Fox News Sunday, saying he never received any money from Abramoff.

Reid, like many members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, has received campaign contributions from Abramoff clients. Some lawmakers have returned those donations, but Reid gave no indication he would do so.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has been examining stock sales by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, and last month Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a California Republican, resigned from the House after pleading guilty of taking more than $2.4 million in bribes involving defense contracts.

Democrats have accused Republicans of "a culture of corruption," and plan to make it an issue in next year's congressional elections.

"America can do better than what we've done," said Reid. "The most corrupt Congress in the history of the country. We have such significant problems with what's going on in this country."

Most of the federal investigative focus is now on Abramoff, whose lobbying activities, particularly on behalf of Indian tribal clients, are also being examined by Congress.

Appearing on Fox TV, Reid said, "Abramoff gave me no money. His firm gave me no money. He may have worked (at) a firm where people have given me money."

A Reid aide later explained that the senator received money from a political action committee affiliated with a firm where Abramoff had worked, but Abramoff did not contribute to it.

"I feel totally at ease that I haven't done anything that is even close to being wrong," Reid said.

> "If we just stopped providing ever more excuses for the America haters and the haters of democracy, that would be a far more effective counter-terrorism strategy."

Please remind me - just what excuse did we provide the America haters that justified their mass murder of American civilians on 9/11?

The fact that there was none rather belies your implication that the terrorists would cease their jihad against us if only we would leave them alone...

Mr. Bush's argument for warrantless spying is disingenuous. He says we must be able to conduct this spying in order to safeguard America. The real issue is not American safety or even the spying. It's the spying based solely on the President's decision and his bypassing the court. By limiting the discussion to a question of keeping America safe, he avoids discussing the fact that he is violating the law. What makes the violation so heinous is that it is so unnecessary - getting approval for the spying is a no-brainer, if he can make the case. Perhaps he is so adamant about not needing a warrant because he intends to spy on those for which a case cannot be made. For all who wish to give Mr. Bush the unlawful authority he seeks, I would remind you that where they take away someone else's rights today, they will take yours away tomorrow. By directing the domestic spying and the Pentagon keeping records on anti-war protesters, Mr. Bush is in clear violation of public laws - laws he took an oath to faithfully execute. With his willing confession of having committed the violations - and a stated determination to keep doing so - it is time to prepare articles of impeachment. If we do not stop the abuses of power, the 4th Amendment means nothing.

"Show me that the gov is spying on non-terrorism related matters, and you'll have an ally in me, otherwise, stop the incessant whining against Pres. Bush."
Michael in Dallas

I'd like to echo the comments of many here who point out that Arkin himself showed it's not confined to muslims, never mind to legitimate terror suspects. Peace groups and Bush protestors are also singled out. The defenders of the new police state continually claim that these powers are hardly ever used. They are lying.

The government claimed that the notorious Patriot clause on library records had hardly ever been used. Yet last year the head of the US librarians' association said library records had been demanded hundreds and hundreds of times. But instead of using the Patriot clause which they insisted was so vital, the FBI simply demanded them using 'national security letters' which don't even need a judge's oversight. These letters also bar librarians from telling anyone about the snooping. I really can't think of anything more unAmerican than a national security letter, a piece of paper that effectively says: 'forget the law, just shut up and do it.'

Forgive the spamming, but I'm attaching part of an article below that was in the SF Chronicle, and before that in American Conservative Magazine. It's not strictly about FISA or eavesdropping, but it shows who the government really regards as a security threat. And in a way, their concerns are justified. After all, everyone knows it's not Jihadi terrorists who are going to unseat the gangsters running America. It's angry Americans. And that's who they really fear.

The most revealing comment?
Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."

Van Winkle justified classifying protesters as terrorists: "I've heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing people."

Listen up, Congress does NOT have the authority to give the president or anyone else the right to spy on Americans WITHOUT court warrants either. So the argument whether it is legal or not is irrelevant. It's unconstitutional. Read, it's clearly spelled out right here:

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.

Quarantining dissent
How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech

When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."

The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.

The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.

Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a free-speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."

At Neel's trial, police Detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine "people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views" in a so-called free- speech area.

Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a site survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.' "

Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"

Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A recent St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, "At a Bush rally at Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators -- two of whom were grandmothers -- were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when Bush came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned off into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome."

One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man holding up a sign, "War is good business. Invest your sons." The seven were charged with trespassing, "obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct."

Police have repressed protesters during several Bush visits to the St. Louis area as well. When Bush visited on Jan. 22, 150 people carrying signs were shunted far away from the main action and effectively quarantined.

Denise Lieberman of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri commented, "No one could see them from the street. In addition, the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn't allow any of the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media."

When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine Mains and her 5-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small protest area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and her crying daughter away in separate squad cars.

The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a "No War for Oil" sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a "free-speech zone" half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the "free-speech zone."

Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the police officer if "it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.' " Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, "The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing."

Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge was dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department -- in the person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. -- quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding "entering a restricted area around the president of the United States."

If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5,000 fine. Federal Magistrate Bristow Marchant denied Bursey's request for a jury trial because his violation is categorized as a petty offense. Some observers believe that the feds are seeking to set a precedent in a conservative state such as South Carolina that could then be used against protesters nationwide.

Bursey's trial took place on Nov. 12 and 13. His lawyers sought the Secret Service documents they believed would lay out the official policies on restricting critical speech at presidential visits. The Bush administration sought to block all access to the documents, but Marchant ruled that the lawyers could have limited access.

Bursey sought to subpoena Attorney General John Ashcroft and presidential adviser Karl Rove to testify. Bursey lawyer Lewis Pitts declared, "We intend to find out from Mr. Ashcroft why and how the decision to prosecute Mr. Bursey was reached." The magistrate refused, however, to enforce the subpoenas. Secret Service agent Holly Abel testified at the trial that Bursey was told to move to the "free-speech zone" but refused to cooperate.

The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying protesters. Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio, "These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or nonsupport that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way." Except for having their constitutional rights shredded.

The Bush administration's anti-protester bias proved embarrassing for two American allies with long traditions of raucous free speech, resulting in some of the most repressive restrictions in memory in free countries.

When Bush visited Australia in October, Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mark Riley observed, "The basic right of freedom of speech will adopt a new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by George Bush and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to speak as much as they like just as long as they can't be heard."

Demonstrators were shunted to an area away from the Federal Parliament building and prohibited from using any public address system in the area.

For Bush's recent visit to London, the White House demanded that British police ban all protest marches, close down the center of the city and impose a "virtual three-day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters," according to Britain's Evening Standard. But instead of a "free-speech zone," the Bush administration demanded an "exclusion zone" to protect Bush from protesters' messages.

Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists. In a May terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government." If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of suspected terrorists.

One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest occurred when local police and the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders at the Port of Oakland, injuring a number of people.

When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."

Van Winkle justified classifying protesters as terrorists: "I've heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing people."

Such aggressive tactics become more ominous in the light of the Bush administration's advocacy, in its Patriot II draft legislation, of nullifying all judicial consent decrees restricting state and local police from spying on those groups who may oppose government policies.

On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI surveillance of Americans' everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One FBI internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews with antiwar activists "for plenty of reasons, chief of which it will enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further service to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox."

The FBI took a shotgun approach toward protesters partly because of the FBI's "belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate commission of act which might be criminal," according to a Senate report.

On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is actively conducting surveillance of antiwar demonstrators, supposedly to "blunt potential violence by extremist elements," according to a Reuters interview with a federal law enforcement official.

Given the FBI's expansive definition of "potential violence" in the past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual who falls into official disfavor.

From article by James Bovard, Dec. 15 2002 issue of the American Conservative.

Trust GW to have a strategy to beat the terrorists. They "hate our freedoms", he says. So all we have to do is destroy our freedoms ourselves and the terrorists will have nothing to attack, at least according to his reading of their motives. Brilliant, GW! No need to capture bin Laden with a genius like that at the helm.

Two comments made by others that bear repeating:
Mark Esposito: Nuances and justifications are irrelevent here. The law was broken by the president. He should resign or be impeached. End of discussion.

Robert Ashton: Democracies fall when vigilance fails. Never before has the collapse of a democracy into tyranny put a nuclear arsenal into the hands of a tyrant. That we have raised the stakes so high for humanity gives our American democracy a heavy responsibility for vigilance.
That is why it is almost impossible to overreact to the news of internal spying on our citizens. The crux of the American ideal is to allow people to live freely in a climate of mutual respect. It is up to each of us to live that ideal.

Just one thing to add myself: Did you know that Hitler's "Decree on the Protection of People and State", which was passed after the Reichstag fire and formed the basis of his dictatorial powers, had a four-year sunset clause?

Only problem was, by 1937 anyone who dared to remember that fact got a one-way ticket to Dachau.

ALL governments want to be dictatorships, ALL of the time, including ours. It's our job to stop it. If we don't, no-one else will.

If King George believes he did not need Congressional approval to spy on Americans, why does he need the Patriot Act? Since the Patriot Act gives the Executive Branch expanded powers to investigate terrorists, isn't King George arguing that Congress already gave him that authority when they authorized the war?

marty lederman -

/*
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/12/definition-of-audacity.html

Monday, December 19, 2005
Definition of "Audacity"

Noun: Bold or insolent heedlessness of restraints, as of those imposed by prudence, propriety, or convention.

As I explain below, the Administration's principal justification for its stark violation of FISA is the claim that Congress authorized the surveillance in question -- the circumvention of FISA's finely wrought scheme -- when, on September 18, 2004, it enacted the AUMF authorizing the President to take "necessary and appropriate force" against those reponsible for the 9/11 attacks. I suggested that this didn't pass the laugh test -- that it is simply inconceviable that any member of Congress, let alone a majority, intended by voting for the AUMF to allow circumvention of the FISA-court approval mechanism as to the wiretapping of communications involving U.S. persons.

But the Attorney General's press conference today makes it clear that that's their story, and they're sticking to it. The odd thing, of course, is that the Administration specifically went to Congress with a package of statutory authorities -- many related to wiretaps and surveillance -- that it thought were necessary to fight the battle against Al Qaeda. It was called the PATRIOT Act. Therefore, it's understandable that two reporters at today's conference asked the AG why they didn't simply ask Congress for a simple amendment to FISA, if this eavesdropping authority was as critical as the Administration now claims.

First, Gonzales is asked why, if this authority is so important, they didn't just "address that issue and fix it," i.e., through statutory amendment, rather than taking the "backdoor approach" [of pretending that it had already been authorized]. Here's his response:

"This is not a backdoor approach. We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance. We have had discussions with Congress in the past -- certain members of Congress -- as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible."

Did you catch that? It's a two-part answer: (1) Congress has authorized the circumvention of FISA (in the AUMF); and (ii) We didn't ask Congress for an amendment to FISA because we were informed they would have denied it.

And then there's this exchange, in which the answers are inverted (1. We couldn't have gotten congressional authorization; 2. In any event, we got congressional authorization):

Q If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.

The interesting question now, of course, is whether Congress will permit itself to be treated with such contempt.
*/

from "the national security archive," gwu.

/*
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB24/press20051219.htm

The National Security Agency
Declassified

Archive Electronic Briefing Book Informs Current Debate Over NSA Domestic Eavesdropping

Washington, D.C., December 19, 2005 - In the wake of revelations that the Bush administration authorized the warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens in 2002, the National Security Archive reposted its "National Security Agency Declassified" electronic briefing book, first published in January 2000 and updated as recently as this year.

President Bush's recent admission that he authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on U.S. persons without obtaining a warrant has focused the nation's attention on the authorities and regulations governing this sensitive issue. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) specifically prohibits domestic surveillance by the NSA, the nation's largest intelligence agency, unless it gets permission to do so from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Specific guidance for adhering to FISA policies is spelled out in United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18, the most recent known version of which was issued by the NSA director in July 1993. The directive "prescribes policies and procedures and assigns responsibilities to ensure that the missions and functions of the United States SIGINT System (USSS) are conducted in a manner that safeguards the constitutional rights of U.S. persons."

Also included in "The National Security Agency Declassified" are warnings given by the NSA to the incoming Bush administration in January 2001 that the Information Age required rethinking the policies and authorities that kept the NSA in compliance with the Constitution's 4th Amendment prohibition on "unreasonable searches and seizures" without warrant and "probable cause."
*/

/*
Bob Owens | Dec 19, 2005 2:21:18 PM - Never has so much, been uttered by so few, who actually knew so little... here are the facts as we know them today without the Chicken Little hysteria... Other than hyperbole from non-lawyers (and lawyers from other fields well in over their heads), there is no reason to suspect that the executive order violates the Fourth Amendment, nor is their any evidence that it runs afoul of current FISA requirements. In actuality, from what little we are being shown, it appears the executive order is a compliment to FISA, not afoul of it.
*/

/*
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13438122.htm

"The president's dead wrong. It's not a close question. Federal law is clear," said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in surveillance law. "When the president admits that he violated federal law, that raises serious constitutional questions of high crimes and misdemeanors."
*/

meet bob owens, a.k.a. chicken little.

"We are being asked to destroy our country in order to save it."

Couldn't had said it better myself. As someone who's studied the Alien and Sedition Acts of WWI, I know that abuse of laws enacted in the hysteria of war (and WWI was a declared war when we knew which nations were our enemies) often do much more harm than good. Are constitutional rights the same in war as in peacetime? Yes, especially since the war on terror is a quasi-war where 1) Congress has not declared war, 2) we won't be bringing bin Laden to the peace table to sign a treaty (I'm not suggesting we do, of course) so we have no idea when it'll end, 3) Iraq was a policy of preemption, and 4) some nations (Iraq, Iran, North Korea) are presumably hostile while other nations with oppressive governments (China, Russia, Napal, Saudi Arabia) are not.

The warrantless eavesdropping demonstrates to me that Bush has declared war on his own people: everyone is a suspect, anyone can be arrested as an "enemy combatant," data can be gathered in large databases for an indefinite period on anyone, the rampant use of National Security Letters, abuse of the Patriot Act, the Justice Department's debunked TIPS idea to encourage Americans to spy on each other and arresting and monitoring peaceful protesters (the Secret Service has arrested any anti-Bush demonstrators at speaking engagements and hundreds of protestors at the NYC convention were detained at Pier 57). As the Supreme Court ruled last year, a state of war is not a "blank check" for abuse of executive authority.

If Congress reveals that Bush violated the law or demonstrated a clear abuse of presidential power with the eavesdropping or other presidential acts, it's time to finally utilize impeachment for what it was meant for.

The argument President Bush failed to make is what was so different about these wiretaps and surveillance that made it necessary to circumvent the law.

What I worry about is the abuse of power; instead of targeting jihadists are they spying on groups that disagree with the administration (e.g., moveon.org)? Until proven otherwise we have only their word to rely on and we know how good they are at not telling the truth.

Isn't it possible some "terrorist" attacks are carried out by zionist hoodlums?

Federal Investigators Probe High-Tech Explosives Theft in New Mexico...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1421579
One hundred and fifty pounds of the plastic explosive compound C-4 and 250 pounds of undetectable "sheet explosives" -- a flexible explosive material that can be hidden in books and letters -- were stolen in the burglary, which also included the theft of blasting caps.

In 1972, as a reflection on the ugly doings of Richard Nixon and his gang, I commented that the USA was the only country that I knew that hasd the wealth, technology, and competence to run a long term authoritarian regime but that, mercifully, the will was absent.

Now I am afraid that the Bush administration may have the will and can only hope that the competence is missing since the wealth and technology are much improved since 1972.

I wonder what "enemy's list" this will get me on?

"due process" costs money. Money is not infinite, hence money has to be apportioned by priorities. Your priorities, may not be mine. So what are our priorities? The answer depends on who you are fighting.

Samuel Huntington believes we are in a cultural war. Depending on the degree to which you share his views --from paranoid to suppressed from your consciousness-- your priorities are either "win the war and then due process," or if you're very idealistic, "wi the war through process".
Russel Mead believes we are at war with social ills, whose only solution comes from better financial institutions facilitating a global middle class. Institutions and embourgemong depend on the transparancy, accesability, and reliability of government institutions. Sharing Mead's priorities leads you to emphasize process over immediate victory, and what is considered as "idealistic" of Huntington, is the norm for the Meadists.

Now I have taken liberty at presenting the views of Mead and Huntington, but benefit of doubt please.

In a rough way, if you read Arkin's column and blog, you are demographically an upper middle income reader with left of center leanings. Although Arkin began as moderate, readers sharing Huntington's concerns, have by now become somewhat discouraged, with only idealists still around. Am I wrong?

The priorities of Huntington's men are clear. They are exemplified globally by Sydney and by France. "wake up, we're at war" say the Huntington's, for whome Bush may be the worse of two evils. They want money for the military, better surveilence, and want both a cultural assertion of Europeanism (which includes Americanism), and a cultural isolation of Europeanism from what they understand to be neo-barbarism of just about anyone, from militant Arab teenagers, to overcompetitive Chinese teenagers.

THe priorities of those in Mead's camp are different. Feeling less at "war with cultures" , they are still at war with social ills, as they perceive them. I believe there are only thre types who follow Mead.

1-The bourgeoise who are always ambivalent about such matters. At once national hence patriotic, they work globaly, hence clear distinction between culture vs business. Their position on events and issues is key, because they determine discourse- whether you dreamers of egalitarianism like it or not.

2- PC "whites". In the American context being "white" is taken for granted; globally, it has yet to. For whatever reason you are "white", you either appreciate your social networks, or you complain about them. If you are "not-white" you are free to be assertive of your skin tone or culture, if you are "white" you lack this freedom. Hence being "white" you either pretend you are not and are a walking talking PC --accepting blame for all the world's social ills-- or you are forced to the other extreme, appreciating that most of your neighbours, and children's school friends, are white. While both types share Mead's vision of a global middle class, the "PC white" wants money for better procedure, while the "whity-flighty" wants money for the Huntingtonian cultural war.

3. non-militant "non-whites". With exceptions at the statecraft level, in US demographics, non-militant "non-whites" cannot possibly identify with Huntington, for doing so puts them at odds with their environment. Cultural militancy ruled out, they have few options and sign up to the Mead vision for the world.

So depending on who you are, or what mix, you may harp about "due process" or about "barbarians" knocking at the door.

I personally think it foolish for anyone to pretend the position of the other is wrong. We have to take everyone's concern seriously. Without "due process," our economies cannot work; but with ethnic politics which legitimize the assertion of one culture (minority- an obsolete term in international context), while suppresing that of another (the majority- equally now obsolete), "due process" has already been sabotaged. If being majority means any and all your actions can be characterized as discrimination, the discourse (hence process) is already stacked against you.

Read the Book; "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis about the fascist takover of America in the Thirties. In staed we got Rosevelt-a result of economic chaos. Where are we headed?

No one mentioned Echelon.
The infrastructure to actually monitor the millions of communications messages worldwide has been being developed since WWII. The only difference I can see is previously, Echelon indesciminately searched all international calls & messages for trigger words and now specific persons or categories of persons are being more exhaustively analyzed.
Think about it. We don't monitor all these phone calls and have no hardware installed to do it. President Bush comes to you and says let's do it. How long to purchase and install the equipment? At what cost? How long to write the software?

"If we just stopped providing ever more excuses for the America haters and the haters of democracy, that would be a far more effective counter-terrorism strategy."

That's right! Play nice. Think of the myriad historical examples of appeasment that resulted in epochs of peace, justice and prosperity. Hatred of the decadent American infidels will melt away in the glorious warmth of love and understanding. Mohamat himself will stage an encore perfomance to deliver the final Sura of democracy and modernity. Chechens will visit our children's schools to do magic shows.

Ladies, get your burkhas back from the cleaners; black is this year's black.

Since when did Quakers become Islamic? If they are monitoring only Islamists, why spy on Quakers and other peaceniks? why confiacate a kid's book he was using for graduate research? Because it was by Chairman Mao? Please. Our biggest creditor is Communist China. And, finally, if "terrorists" are our focus, why didn't we go on in and get bin Ladin? Or, really, why not just treat him as any other mass murderer criminal in history: catch him, try him, punish him, which would humiliate him.

Al Qaeda has already attacked the United States from within our borders on 9/11. Now, we want to provide them with secure communication to their members who get through our pourus borders until we figure who they are and get a wire tap authorized. So when the sleeper cell in the US gets the call from an Al Qaeda operative we're monitoring on the Afghanistan border to pick up the smuggled nuclear device, most of the writers want the NSA to hang up until they can get a warrant to monitor the sleeper cell's number rather than know what's coming and intercept it!! I can't believe there is such desire to help Al Qaeda attack us!

with so many disparate agencies(new and old)gathering intelligence-how can you possibly aver that this is all being conducted properly? Since 9/11 this president and his operatives have trampled on every aspect of their constitutional boundaries.Perhaps he has been convinced that what he is doing is legal and justifiable. How many reminders do we need to see this is the same rationale used by tyrants and dictators throughout history!

Pacifists taste like chicken.

Let's get onto something really important. How about a little punctuation ... I'm sure that all those New Yorker reading Cappuccino drinking upper middle class Manhattan intellectuals would appreciate a nice hyphen now and then, not to mention a comma or two. Remember, if we let our editorial standards slide, the terrorists will have won.

50,no, 25,no: 5 years from now we'll wonder how we came to be a country reminiscent of the former Soviet Union. A country that allows what we now consider to be unlawful searches and flagrant violations of out Constitutional right to privacy. This is how!
If the 4th amendment were to be obliterated, there would be at least some kind of revolution. Instead, the 4th amendment is being slowly eroded in a way that the blue collars will not notice, the yuppies are too busy to notice, the dinks won’t care, and the right-wingers will say, “bravo, my president: right or wrong, ye-ha!”

A reminder that:
1. Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.
2. Not only were there no W.M.D., but after hearing the evidence
from General Powell, the United Nations chose not to sanction
an invasion of Iraq.
3. If we allow the government to continue this practice, then the
terrorists may be credited with destroying the American way of
life, (or at least eradicating the 4th Amendment)!
4. Your president continues to urge immunity for illegal aliens!

Today, we can’t drive our cars without a seatbelt; our motorcycles without a helmet; or walk our dogs without a pooper-scooper! What’s next?

Consider for one moment that your president may be wrong. OK, now remember who is supposed to have the power in this country. The people, right? So then why can’t you drive 66 miles per hour, or smoke in a restaurant? I rest my case.

"Come on. The government is not just repeating the targeting of political opponents a la J. Edgar Hoover or Richard Nixon. It is not picking out a Seymour Hersh or a Cindy Sheehan to find their links to foreign influences nor seeking to ruin their lives by developing incriminating evidence on them."

How the hell do you know?

PACUMIS: Can't touch dat!

Condor-

Aren't you missing the point?

I don't think anyone is saying that the President or the Federal Government should be banned from defending us from terrorists. We mistreat Americans domestically all the time and violate their rights legally.

For example, law enforcement can enter your home at any time of the day whenever they feel like... so long as they have secured a search warrant from a judge by presenting their case to a relatively impartial observer. This is what is called "due process".

I would understand Gonzales and the President's point of view if this "due process" did not exist for terrorists. We would need to set it up, for example, so that the President had the authority to save us from them. This does not seem objectionable. Even the card carrying ACLU members can understand the value of monitoring someone who is a terrorist.

But the DUE PROCESS exists and the President willfully bypassed it! If the President needs to spy on Americans to make our country safer, he should be able to present that compelling case to an impartial judge. It doesn't matter what side of 9/11 we are on, due process exists to protect the innocent, not the guilty. If someone is guilty than a judge will advocate "unlawful" measures to bring them to justice, like phone taps, email monitoring, etc.

When you ask how we "can sift wheat from chaf" I say: The same as we always have, using the due process of law that defends the innocent. If the President thinks that the due process of the law is not sufficient to defend the country he is welcome to make that case to the American people via Congress or through direct address. Until such time he cannot just demand we "trust him" without really telling us what we are trusting him to do/not do.

George wants what Judy's got, a new job title - President Run Amok!

Stop with the book long posts

It's not that what he is doing cant' be done--that's why I thought he was so worried about the Patriot Act. If he doesn't have to follow it, what is the problem with adding some protections he won't give us anyway? He has a panel of judges that are supposed to review these types of requests; I don't think they often deny them, but at least they would be in the loop should excesses occur.

It's the law; he admits breaking it; sounds impeachable to me. He is not King George; there is supposed to be a balance of power in the US government.

I think this rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Setting aside Constitutional rights without an ACTUAL Declaration of War is a violation of his oath of office. FISA was setup to balance the power of the Executive branch by the Judicial branch of government. His power as the Commander in Chief is limited until Congress declares WAR. I think that if the President violates the separation of powers between the Executive and Judicial branches then the Legislative should bring forth a Bill of Impeachment to the House floor.

It's unfortunate, but the only way to appreciate the value of anything is to lose it. It may be that it's only Muslims who are being targeted by the president's eavesdropping, and most Americans will say "great". What it's misunderstood by those who would have the administration save them from harm, is that nobody can save you without taking away your freedoms. Like a child who is protected by parents, the child is also monitored and told what to do and not to do and how to behave. Real adults give up the protection from parents and embrace the freedom and the risk that go hand-in-glove. The president promises to protect Americans if he is allowed to monitor everybody. I doubt that under FISA, approval of surveilance would be denied for a Muslim. No, we are looking at the president giving his okay to spy on people that FISA would not approve. Who might that be? The people most at risk are not the Muslims, but the press, lawyers and anyone who serves to maintain true freedoms of this country.

Membership of the National Rifle Association must be up a couple thousand percent! With so much new found fear of the erstwhile benevolent federal government, coupled with the latter day Roman Empire clap trap, it seems the gun-toting hillbillies will have some strange new bedfellows in the hate-Bush left.

This should take the deer and paper targets out of any future Second Ammendment debates. Does anyone see an emanation from the penumbra that can score us some ropes and torches?

ALL HAIL THE AMERICAN CAESAR! ALL HAIL CAESAR IRAQUS!

So, none of the critics want to offer their proposal for how any government's intelligence group can sift wheat from chaf.

Instead of providing us with examples of how the government knew beforehand that the Terrorist living,banking, making phone calls from Vienna, Virginia; a couple remind us of a Minnesota matter, yes the SAC was correct with her hunch, however, a Justice Dept. that may have found itself stoill influenced by the legacy of Sen Church and Pres. Carter said, "no you can't" prior to 9-11. If you're going to mix examples, pick a good one that does not support the case against putting on blinders.

My position for sorting wheat from chaf, err on one side of the issue.

Perhaps Mr. Wise Guy Arkin can explain the visit of two agents to query a student's inter-library request for a book needed for a research paper at U. Mass. this week. Big Brother is watching and it is not even 1984. The question is: Is Bush impeacable for this excessive abuse of power? Added to the disaster of Iraq and his lies, it would seem time to get rid of him.

Thank God we can all rest easy at night knowing that this administration is only involved in such minor offences as spying on citizens, rounding them up and putting them in camps, and torturing them.

It's not like this president has done anything really bad -- impeachable even -- like diddle an intern in the oval office and the lie about it. Now that would be a high crime indeed.

Now if only he would get off his butt and round up the bastards who are responsible for the War on Christmas. Those are the people we really should be afraid of.

Beren wrote:
"People who have lived in totalitarian countries have learned to ask, not just, 'How does the government say it is going to use this power?' but also, 'What could the government do with this power, if it wanted to?'"
People forget that the founding fathers grew up and lived in a totalitarian society under King George. It was largely that experience that lead to the way the Constitution was written, which prevents a president from acting like a king and places the power to make law in the hands of the legislative branch, which the executive executes, with checks and balances that includes the judicial branch.

This whole Bush experience leads me to believe we have done a miserable job of educating our children and society in general.

perhaps that is because I'm becoming a known quanity speaking out against the disinformation and the destruction of our democracy by controlling the media....who knows, I have had a couple of apps show up unasked for though.

Michael in Dallas, you write:
"I personally don't care if a bunch of foreigners emails and phone calls are monitored."

Did you read the article? It isn't just the emails of 'foreigners' but of any US citizen that the US government might want to spy on in the US. And it doesn't matter whether they're spying on non-terrorists (like Quakers, apparently) right now or not. The point is that if the executive gets that kind of power, even _if_ it is not being abused right now, it _will_ be abused in the future. It's no defense to say, "They're just spying on terrorists right now," when they've claimed a completely unfettered right to spy on US citizens in the US. Any time they decided to, they could eavesdrop on any of us for any reason, under the power they've claimed, and no one would be able to do anything to stop it.

Sure, they claim that they only do this eavesdropping as part of anti-terrorism investigations. But since they also claim the exclusive right, not subject to any kind of review at all, to determine who is and who is not part of a legitimate investigation, in actual practice, they're claiming the right to spy on anyone that they might want to. If they wanted to spy on someone who had nothing to do with terrorism, all they'd have to do would be to claim that he did have something to do with terrorism, and even if it was ridiculous to claim that, no one could actually contradict them, because, according to the power that the executive is now claiming, it has the sole right to determine who is part of a terrorist investigation.

People who have lived in totalitarian countries have learned to ask, not just, "How does the government say it is going to use this power?" but also, "What could the government do with this power, if it wanted to?" We should draw on their wisdom and ask this question as well, before we're forced to learn from our own experience, rather than theirs.

It's not always easy to draw lessons from history. But I'm a student of ancient Rome and I can tell you one thing that emerges very clearly from its long history: The first time that a constitutional precedent that protects citizens from political chaos and tyranny is broken or violated, it is always for a reason that seems good, or urgent, at the time. But once that precedent is broken, it becomes harder and harder ever to get it back. Soon it's being violated all the time, and mostly for bad reasons.

We all want to prevent terrorism and gain intelligence on possible plots. It seems (to some) like a good reason to destroy a precedent. But give the executive an unlimited ability to spy on citizens, and all you've done is create another, larger threat to our freedoms than the terrorists ever posed. Eventually, the administration will spy on citizens for all sorts of reasons, most of them bad. Our Founders understood this. It's time we paid attention to what they said, before it's too late.

I have no way of determining the average age of all of the comentators in cluding Mr Arkin and Mr Owens. I was born in 1927 and I grew up reading and listening to a man who is now being emulated by our present administration. His name was Adolph Hitler. The decisions made and actions taken, without regard for the law and the freedoms we are guarenteed, by Herr Hitler and Herr Bush and his deciples are frightingly the same. The only real difference is the excuse for these graspings of power. This administration uses the tragic incident of 9/11 and other incidents as thier excuse. Hitler used the Comunists. If you all would read the history of Nazism and what followed Hitler`s excuses perhaps you would be a little more concerned where this administration is taking us. I am not only concerned, I am frightened. What have we to loose. Everything! John R Peterson

Bob Owens wrote:
"Never has so much, been uttered by so few, who actually knew so little."

I have to agree with Bob that a lot is being written in ignorance and outrage. But you cannot be too upset that your overseas calls may have been listened to without a FISA warrant. But Bob makes a good point that the facts of what happened should lead the discussion, so I'll provide a few here.

Here's where you can find a copy of the FISA law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html

Within that law FISA does authorize surveillance without a warrant, but not on US citizens (with the possible exception of citizens speaking from property openly owned by a foreign power like an embassy.)

FISA also says in section 1805(f2) that the Attorney General can authorize emergency surveillance without a warrant when there is little time to obtain one. But it requires that the Attorney General notify the FISA judge of that immediately, and that he apply for a warrant "as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance."

The real problem here is that NSA was ordered to break the FISA law and the reason being given by Bush is a reason that is allowed by section 1805. In other words, there should have been nothing the NSA could not have gotten if they had spied within the FISA law. So why did they decide to forego the FISA warrants when they could have been applied for up to 3 days after the fact? I think its just plain laziness but I'll wait until I hear a good reason. So far I've heard none. The only thing that would make sense is that Congress gave Bush power to make law, or set law aside, in the pursuit of terrorists. I don't think the Congress can do that even if they wanted to, constitutionally anyway, without rewriting FISA law. This does not seem to be a difficult law to understand or understand when it has been broken.

Oh, and the argument that Bush would not break this law since it would allow anyone convicted with its evidence to be overturned is bogus. No one in Gitmo or the CIA's secret prisons is about to be convicted of anything that could be overturned. IMO Bush does not trust Americans or their courts.

Also, I wonder if the contention that the House and Senate leadership knew of this executive order may itself be a possible violation of the law since they knew a law was being broken. We live in interesting times.

I have no way of determining the average age of all of the comentators in cluding Mr Arkin and Mr Owens. I was born in 1927 and I grew up reading and listening to a man who is now being emulated by our present administration. His name was Adolph Hitler. The decisions made and actions taken, without regard for the law and the freedoms we are guarenteed, by Herr Hitler and Herr Bush and his deciples are frightingly the same. The only real difference is the excuse for these graspings of power. This administration uses the tragic incident of 9/11 and other incidents as thier excuse. Hitler used the Comunists. If you all would read the history of Nazism and what followed Hitler`s excuses perhaps you would be a little more concerned where this administration is taking us. I am not only concerned, I am frightened. What have we to loose. Everything! John R Peterson

What you're calling an external thing is totally an internal thing. What they are watching is anyone putting it together...it's not about Muslims and Christians it's about using control as a device to monitor the situation and being able to respond with disinformation.

Saudis are historically trained by the United States government....kuwait, iraq, saudii arabia are influential in position, economic mass and economic direction...

What more do you need to know, miscommunication, there was none, some people not in the know mentioned some stuff and they had to cover it. They even moved people away from the agencies that might talk about it. They also created an action that was to take care of something that never happened as a way of fabricating the "miscommunication," as far as joe publick is concerned it's all explainable...as far as people that can actually see, it's called redirection and coverup.

This group will probably be receiving some close scrutiny, and even some of the posters may be "them," clueless government agents assigned to harvest the ones that have matured to the point of actually examining the process for what it is and need to be detained. Your government is dangerous simply because it has lost the will to admit it's disingenuousness....they have subcumbed to the lurid and flashy taste of tyranny.

And actually dont' want you to know that they are doing things that are "against the law." Wizard of Ozness manifest, and the bully boyz are feeling their need to express their storm trooper feelings on someone as a way of acting out their fantasies of finally winning.

Why do we expect the feds to be any more effective in finding terrorists post 9/11 than they were pre 9/11?

None of this would be an issue if the President had been more truthful about his intentions in Iraqi. I was a supporter of the President.I agree with the President's policy on terrorism. I don't agree nor believe his rationale for going into Iraqi.

I'm amazed by the people who are hawkish on war but never served in the military and don't intend to.

The law says that in order for the NSA to conduct a wire-tap in the domestic USA, they have to have a warrant issued by a court. Due to the sensitive nature/ urgency of the surveillance, the warrant needed to be approved by a secret court. Now, in this country, where it is supposed to be about freedom, the bush white house cannot even follow the simplest law. Congress could give the President that warrant or the ability to waive the need for such a warrant.

Unfortunately, too many people are eagerly willing to give up the hard won freedoms which this country enjoys, in order to defeat an unseen (and perhaps within our borders, non-existent?) enemy.

Will there be a terrorist attack? who knows? I do know one thing... Why hasn't the US government used more of its armed forces and immense resources to find & kill Osama bin Laden and have his dead rotting corpse dragged thru the streets of NYC & DC?? bush hasn't even said bin Laden's name in so long, you'd think Saddam is the one who blew up the world trade center. Oh yeah, in bush world, he did!

Thank You Sandora.

Never has so much, been uttered by so few, who actually knew so little.

William Arkin, as ever, is long on hyperbole and light on facts in this post, which I suppose suits his readership just fine.

Nevertheless, here are the facts as we know them today without the Chicken Little hysteria:

Fact: Not one of the "experts" commenting on the illegality of the executive order - not a single one - have ever seen it. They base their arguments on hyperbole and rumor. They have not seen a shred of documentation to support their outlandish contention that the Constitution is in jeopardy, or that we are about to become a police state. For those of you not sure what hyperbole is, let us simply say that "Wild Bilge" Arkin is playing fast and loose with facts he does not possess. Down home, we call that telling a "stretcher."

Every single detractor, Mr. Arkin included, are acting upon third-hand hearsay. In short, Mr. Arkin is writing fiction.

Fact: Two Attorney's General and multiple lawyers from the Justice Department have reviewed this executive order every 45 days - more than 3 dozen times - to make sure it remains legal and constitutional.
The reasons for this are obvious: any convictions obtained using this executive order must be legal, or all evidence, and therefore convictions obtained using this evidence, stand being overturned.

Fact: White House Counsel has reviewed this executive order more than 3 dozen times, and have found it to be within the president's constitutional authority.

Again, the government must be right in its specific authority, or face getting criminal convictions of terrorists overturned.

Fact: the judicial system, specifically the FISA Court, has been made aware of and is updated periodically on the use of this executive order.

Fact: Other than hyperbole from non-lawyers (and lawyers from other fields well in over their heads), there is no reason to suspect that the executive order violates the Fourth Amendment, nor is their any evidence that it runs afoul of current FISA requirements. In actuality, from what little we are being shown, it appears the executive order is a compliment to FISA, not afoul of it.

Fact: Senate and House leaders, including intelligence committee leaders, have been aware of this executive order in since it's inception in 2002, and have been briefed on it a minimum of a dozen times without voicing any known concerns or objections to anyone, including the White House.

Fact: Of those who have actually seen the executive order, even those Democrats such as Harry Reid, none have called it illegal, have merely carefully worded their responses to push for a politically motivated "investigation."

Bill Arkin got another post wrong.

Well, at least I guess there is something to be said for consistency...

Never has so much, been uttered by so few, who actually knew so little.

William Arkin, as ever, is long on hyperbole and light on facts in this post, which I suppose suits his readership just fine.

Nevertheless, here are the facts as we know them today without the Chicken Little hysteria:

Fact: Not one of the "experts" commenting on the illegality of the executive order - not a single one - have ever seen it. They base their arguments on hyperbole and rumor. They have not seen a shred of documentation to support their outlandish contention that the Constitution is in jeopardy, or that we are about to become a police state. For those of you not sure what hyperbole is, let us simply say that "Wild Bilge" Arkin is playing fast and loose with facts he does not possess. Down home, we call that telling a "stretcher."

Every single detractor, Mr. Arkin included, are acting upon third-hand hearsay. In short, Mr. Arkin is writing fiction.

Fact: Two Attorney's General and multiple lawyers from the Justice Department have reviewed this executive order every 45 days - more than 3 dozen times - to make sure it remains legal and constitutional.
The reasons for this are obvious: any convictions obtained using this executive order must be legal, or all evidence, and therefore convictions obtained using this evidence, stand being overturned.

Fact: White House Counsel has reviewed this executive order more than 3 dozen times, and have found it to be within the president's constitutional authority.

Again, the government must be right in its specific authority, or face getting criminal convictions of terrorists overturned.

Fact: the judicial system, specifically the FISA Court, has been made aware of and is updated periodically on the use of this executive order.

Fact: Other than hyperbole from non-lawyers (and lawyers from other fields well in over their heads), there is no reason to suspect that the executive order violates the Fourth Amendment, nor is their any evidence that it runs afoul of current FISA requirements. In actuality, from what little we are being shown, it appears the executive order is a compliment to FISA, not afoul of it.

Fact: Senate and House leaders, including intelligence committee leaders, have been aware of this executive order in since it's inception in 2002, and have been briefed on it a minimum of a dozen times without voicing any known concerns or objections to anyone, including the White House.

Fact: Of those who have actually seen the executive order, even those Democrats such as Harry Reid, none have called it illegal, have merely carefully worded their responses to push for a politically motivated "investigation."

Bill Arkin got another post wrong.

Well, at least I guess there is something to be said for consistency...

if arkin is so *sure* people like 'him,' could never be targeted, where's the danger in unfettered, unconstitutional, extralegal exercises of executive power?

how, precisely, are we destroying ourselves if there's *no* risk of abuse whatsoever? or more simply and simplistically -- as arkins seems to prefer -- why is arkin complaining if there's NO "potential" problem AT ALL?

"The connotation of course is that the 'you' is some New York Times reading Cappuccino drinking upper middle class Manhattan intellectual, that thousands if not tens of thousands of similar Americans are having their phones tapped and e-mails intercepted."

oh c'mon.

the times no more *says* "thousands if not tens of thousands of similar Americans are having their phones tapped and e-mails intercepted" than arkin *guarantees* this administration would *never* abuse or politicize collected data for purposes other than national security.

Condor

Simply put,not at all.
Having seen your ideas regarding this matter I infer that you believe government can intrude into any sector of life under the guise the "lofty principle of protecting the citizens" when we all know in our heart of hearts we are unable to control our more base instincts.
These instincts make us vulnerable to abuse such power and that given time the abusive actions undertaken by those in power equal or surpass the evil that those who hate us and plot to kill us can perpetrate.
I have some doubt that you will think this couldn't happen so I ask you to imagine that Stalin wins our next election and has the tools you advocate are safe and necessary.
Now imagine that this Stalin guy doesn't like your politics.

Boy, it is amazing reading comments like Gary Griff's. And this is no slight at your loss. But the very freedoms that America is SUPPOSED to be all about are being eroded by this constant fear-mongering. And if you didn't read a previous article about that very data they've taken, it includes peace groups among (hey Bill you wrote that, did you forget because this article seems to ignore that)them. Does no one remember what happened in the past? Does McCarthy not ring bells? Is that the nation state you want? Technology was less innovative back then, so the targetting was very public. Now it can be done in a more back-door way that you can never know. Do you want the democracy that is the envy of the world or do you want a country that tramples on its own citizens rights? You walk a line ever backwards lately. The mixing of church and state, a cowboy attitude that say the rest of the world doesn't matter and now your own citizens are all suspect. Look at the reasons for 9/11 from the other side. Learn. Adapt. Work together with the rest of the world. That's how you control this. Not going alone. Not taking your own people into an endless cloud of suspicion.

And now, "W" is trying to intimidate the press again by shouting down reporters who "dare" to question him at a press conference!!! Holy Crap! Turn it on!!!! it's on TV!!!!

"We are being asked to destroy our country in order to save it."

catchy, but i don't recall being asked.

Gary wrote:
"I don't understand how you can defeat your enemies without using every means at your disposal."

The problem here Gary is that domestic spying without a FISA warrant on American citizens is not at the President's disposal, not according to the law. I did not have a relative who died on 9/11 but I had friends at the Pentagon who were hurt and one would have died had she been 10 feet to the right of where she was sitting. You don't need to have been impacted directly to want to stop this terrorism, but you cannot allow any president to brush aside the Constitution to do so. If the Congress allowed him to spy on Americans without a FISA warrant, then they also have to answer as well. This is America and I don't see the need to turn it into a police state to save it simply because Bush cannot use the many tools he legally has to do an effective job under the constitution and the law.

I am a 50-year old stamp collecter living in Omaha, Nebraska, buying stamps on E-bay from around the world. I have had in the past month an envelope addressed to me with stamps from Indonesian opened, and resealed, before arriving at my home, indicating that it was done as part of a US security check. I think we all need to know that any of us may have our mail or e-mail opened at any time by our Government. It's just the way it is now, and it isn't just Muslim taxi-drivers. (I am a Lutheran Sunday School teacher.)

too bad that Peter jennings had to die.i would have loved to hear his take on this.Jennings was a fellow Canadian but became an American citzen because he came to love the USA and ALWAYS carried a copy of the Constitution with him always.i think he would have been the only MSM journalist that would've had some outrage.i wonder how many journalists that were born and raised in the US carry a copy of the Constitution with them????.As for bush I hear he thinks that it just a God Damn piece of paper.Me i think it's one POWERFUL piece of paper that has been used by many countries as a guideline in forming thier Constitutions and the best EXPORT the USA gave the World.

Mr. Griff,

In an attempt to quell criticism of a valid debate, you unconsciably interject the loss of a loved one in order to garner sympathy. This insensitivity to intellectual intercourse makes the debate weaker, and it makes you weaker. It is not the point. Iraq did not fly planes into the world trade center on 9/11. Your cousin was killed by terrorists unrelated to Saddam Hussein. The Bush administration chose to take advantage of the angry post 9/11 sentiments in this country, and go after someone he didn't like because Saddam threatened his father.

Those are the facts. The sad fact remains that your cousin is dead, and George Bush has done nothing to fix the problem. He is the definition of a traitor.

Bill, exactly how do you know which Americans have been illegally wiretapped by the Bush administration? After all, the Bush administration has a long history of lying about matters small and large. Why should we believe them now?

PAT

Che

You comments are indeed out of sight. Do you really believe what you so laboriously printed? If you do all I can say is by starting with Wow!!! Too much!!!! And thinking in more expletive terms.

I lost a cousin on 09/11 in the WTC. He left a wife and four children, ages 3-12. That's reality. Based on today's news reports, the President did not break the law but was given permission, by Congress, to agressively pursue via military and clandestine methods terrorist threats against this nation. I don't understand how you can defeat your enemies without using every means at your disposal. Your comment, "we are being asked to destroy our country in order to save it." What a pompous, arrogant thing to say. You must have felt quite pleased with thinking that one up but do you really understand what you wrote?? Do you, or any of those agreeing with your utopian ideals really believe what you say? What is your plan to safeguard America? How would you end the war in Iraq? How would you quell the growing terroist element throughout the world? Where are your answers?

Condor wrote:
"We now know that on of the bad guys who flew into the Pentagon lived in Vienna, Va, we know where he banked, phone records were retrieved, etc.
How nice it would have been had the data been mined earlier."
Condor, Data was mined earlier. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509113.shtml

Good Lord. That's right. Well, Mr. Condor? Please read this and feel free to Spin away...

Condor wrote:
"We now know that on of the bad guys who flew into the Pentagon lived in Vienna, Va, we know where he banked, phone records were retrieved, etc.
How nice it would have been had the data been mined earlier."

Condor, Data was mined earlier. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509113.shtml

Bush's incompetence is all over the history of the last 5 years, 9/11 included. Now he says he needs more power because he cannot do it right within the law. He got the Patriot Act passed and still cannot do his job right. He's nothing more than a spoiled brat asking to do what he wants. That is no way to serve the great American public. God Bless America - Impeach Bush for his high crimes.

The quotation Richard Taylor was citing is attributed to Protestant Theologian Martin Niemoller: "When Hitler attacked the Jews..I was not a Jew, therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Cathoolics, I was not a
catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of a union and I was not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church - and there was nobody left to be concerned." It appears in the October 14, 1968 Congressional Record vol 114, p 31636

And, Mr. Condor,

I was wrong, I do have a solution. I believe the solution is to speak out against your spin. I have contacted every senator and representative I can muster up to tell them to put the problem right back into the laps of the Republicans who created them, and to acknowledge that no one but Republicans are obligated to fix the problems they created.

Mr. Condor, Take respponsibility for the fallout from your party's ideology, and quit pulling 5th grade antics of trying to pass the buck.

Thank you for playing.

Erik, I leapt to the same misunderstanding before reading to the end of Arkin's post -- that we cannot accept the word of any government when it comes to potential violations of human and civil rights. Whether we like or dislike those in power, it is the responsibility of citizens in a democracy to take nothing for granted, to ensure proper checks and balances are in place, to preserve individual and minority rights in the face of the inevitiable desire of those in power to use that power inappropriately.

The Nazis are, indeed, a good recent example of how the slow erosion of civil rights can lead to dicatorship: it is also instructive to recall that Rome existed as a resonably democratic state for longer than the United States has existed, before sinking into dictatorship under increasingly powerful dictators, in the mistaken belief that a powerful leader would keep Rome safe.

Human nature is perhaps the greatest threat to freedom, and vigilance against our tendency to cede freedom to power for false security is eternally necessary. Democracies fall when that vigilance fails.

But never before has the collapse of a democracy into tyranny put a nuclear arsenal into the hands of a tyrant. That we have raised the stakes so high for humanity gives our American democracy a heavy responsibility for vigilance.

That is why it is almost impossible to overreact to the news of internal spying on our citizens. The crux of the American ideal is to allow people to live freely in a climate of mutual respect. It is up to each of us to live that ideal.

Springfield,

I believe I asked for your plan to sift wheat from chaf, if you are a critic.

On another level, wouldn't you appreciate a pro-active effort that spared your Aunt Mary or some other loved one?

Uh, nope. Sorry, but I am not your student, nor am I intimidated by your snide re-statement of a request for my solution to a problem generated by "not me". I cannot think of a solution to the mess Republicans and conservatives have gotten this country into, other than to votte them out. I believe that is the call we all are asking upon you conservatives and Republicans to provide. So...right back at'cha, mr. Condor. Tell us YOUR plan to fix the mess your heroes got us in to. Cheers.

Mike Coleman,

Hasn't the Post articulated how Sen. Frank Church and Pres. Carter, during the late '70's, effectively hamstrung the former means by which international intelligence was collected and actions were taken? Then, hasn't the Post established the nexus between those lofty ideals and the smoky descent of the twin towers?

I think I am reading that such catas