taking a simple point of view on this and mostly only addressing the first paragraph:

People have been going nuts over this for awhile now. "i don't what them govment types watchin me!" "It's none of their business!" "I don't want them to steal my famous chocolate cookie recipie!"

"This is big brother..... we have to stop this before its too late."

These are the people that drive me nuts. Even given all the crazy technology that the National Security Agency has. The satellites that can zoom down and see if your smoking, voice recognition software that scans phone calls for known offenders(terrorists.)

Do you really think the government has the time, wherewithall, or inclination to spy constanly on 298,000,000 million people?

I'm no expert, but I've taken many electronics and engineering classes. We learned all about communications setups. We had an interesting teacher who addressed these sort of issues. Even if, we could monitor and record every communications transmission made in the United States. Even if our amazing Cray computers could flag suspicious transmissions. That would still leave hundreds of thousands of communicados every day that would have to be gone through manually by experts. And, given the fact that we cannot even get enough arabic translators, I doubt we have a thousands of communications experts.

So basically what I'm trying to say is "who cares!" I don't care if its legal or not. Let the president do what he thinks is right. He was elected, much as I don't like him sometimes.

Sure, maybe in 2009, the FBI will come knocking on your door asking about some weed you talked about on the phone in 1981. Them only knowing this because they just got through analyzing the tapes from that year.

But the statute of limitations will have long expired. So relax, its cool man.

I'm curious, seed, how do you have access to the information about who was being spied upon by Bush's illegal wiretaps? You seem to say it with great confidence that they weren't being misused but, to my knowledge, those folks being wiretapped illegally have not been identified publicly.

So, sorry, its bullshit of the highest order to give Bush the benefit of the doubt when he's got a demonstrably shitty track record of telling the truth.

Who are these terrorists that he couldn't bother to get a legal wiretap for? Why not? What's his reasoning? Urgency? Bullshit, there's a 72 hour retroactive clause built-in to the wiretap authorizations. Sensitivity of the alleged terrorists? Bullshit, this is assuming there's a leak on the FISA court.

What else? How else has he justified trampling on my right to privacy? 9/11? Oh yeah, he was authorized to go after the perpetrators and, four plus years later, Osama is STILL FREE. Damn, he must be a super terrorist crossed with a ninja to have escaped prosecution by the US for four years.

Bush didn't need to break the law but he did because he doesn't think it applies to him. His own party is distancing themselves from this because they understand what an awfully slippery slope he's standing on.

And the last president to illegally spy domestically? Nixon and he had to resign in disgrace. His legal advisor, John Dean, remarked that he's never seen a president admit to an impeachable offense on TV. Dean's a Constitutional scholar and should know what the hell he's talking about.

chuck, because its not feasible to spy on everyone its okay that they want to spy on some? That's some pretty ridiculous bad logic. We are a Constitutional Democracy, without the rule and guidance and reverence for the laws we set down in that Constitution and its amendments, we are nothing. You may not have a problem with your right to privacy being infringed but I sure as hell do regardless of what I'm doing or not doing. That's not the point, the point is that it is my right to expect privacy.

You know I like you guys but Bush is wrong here, he had no need and certainly has no authority to ignore the Constitution. He is, in fact, the steward of that document while he is the president and should be the very last one to choose which laws he obeys and which ones he ignores.

First up, Bush's demonstrably shitty track record of telling the truth is your interpretation, not mine. Information is slow in coming from the white house under W's administration. Intel varies on a day-to-day, month-by-month basis. None of that makes Bush a lair. Sorry to hear you see it that way.

Nixon and he had to resign in disgrace. His legal advisor, John Dean, remarked that he's never seen a president admit to an impeachable offense on TV.

Great, thanks for the re-cap. Not sure what you're getting at with this. Clinton did utilize Echelon to spy on foreign citizens for economic purposes. Umm, that's better than the current President using the same method domestically to thwart terrorism? French, British or otherwise, civil rights are definitely violated. Of the two, which is a better motive?

Osama is STILL FREE.
Yawn, Clearly, all the post 9/11 enhancements in security have been a waste of time because one terrorist is growing a really long beard sitting in a cave in between the borders of Here and There. Your right to privacy is pretty much where it stood before, unless you start taking calls from Hezebollah and the like. Time for a bad analogy: You also have a right own a gun. I'm guessing here, but you probably choose not to because you feel that current law enforcement is adequate in providing protection for you and your family. Your right to absolute privacy is sacrificed in the hope that those in authority can make the best use of it's violation. If I hear a few clicks the next time I pick-up the phone, I feel better knowing the Fed is listening.

The distancing you are seeing in the press is posturing on both sides. Nobody is going to stand-up and say "spying, we love it" Sen. Rockefeller and Pelosi knew about the program. They could have kept quiet for security reasons, or if I insert your suspicions, maybe they were getting inside info on wallstreet or Brad and Angelina.

So great, let's have another investigation about how are intel is gathered? Let's post the list of targets like the varsity pick-list, because some of us feel like all the names may not be warranted. Fantastic. If you find that W was getting the inside scoop somewhere, string him up. I have no issue with that. However, I do not assume that is the case.

And, we like you to, Johnny.

Just a quick note, Nancy Pelosi's letter disagreeing with the illegal wiretaps has been classified by Bush. She has requested permission to release her own letter and is being denied. She was NOT on board.

And no, I do not believe the reactive police force will protect me and mine in the event that something bad happens. The police are not a preventive institution, they are a mop up and punish institution. My house is most definitely not the one you want to try and break into. Unless you want to be shot and no, I am not joking at all.

I would like to know who's important enough to warrant a wiretap without the court's knowledge and approval. Or even the type of person that this extra special wiretap is for.

The point about Dean is that he should know what's legal and what isn't in regards to Constitutional Law and he's of the mind that Bush committed an impeachable offense.

I've gotta go and get some work done though or my ass will be in bad, bad trouble.

Johnny, If I didn't live in Chicago, I'd be right there with you. Alas, my gun ownership days are far ahead of me.

Anybody communicating with a known terrorist cell forfeits their right to a warrant, sorry. Let the NSA decide who those people are.

If Dean is right, and I am not qualified to determine that, then bang the gong. The motivation between Bush's tapping and Nixon's is huge. If they happen to both break the law, so be it.

Man, get back to work.

Just a few points-

1. Opening up a laptop during a customs check is worlds away from a wiretap.

2. Opening mail to and from soldiers is both legal and reasonable. Soldiers are not always protected by the same Constitutional rights that citizens have. It's part of the deal when you sign up.

3. The Constitution is a document that we must adhere to all of the time, or it is worthless.

Whether or not Bush is a consummate liar or a fool who acts before all of the information is in is something that only historical perspective will give us.

I don't have to get back to work. I'm still off on disability... :-(

Easy,
It is good to see you around these parts. Thanks for the comment. Sorry to hear about the disability.

I would normally agree that a wiretap is different from a physical search at a border. But then again, there was also a time when I thought there was a clear distinction between enemy soldiers and terrorists. Throw a post 9/11 term, enemy combatants, into the mix and the delineations are not so evident.

The constitution is a benchmark that allows for interpretations. I mentioned cavity checks for shock value. An abortion, as another example, is something I am confident was not in the minds of our founding fathers, and positively would have went over like a lead balloon had it been suggested at the time. Be that as it may, the document is applied to modern times and now it is legal.

The debate that should be occuring, instead of the typical name calling and finger pointing is similar. Even Colin Powell has come out in favor of the mode of wire-tapping. He has a question about the method, which is where the debate should begin.

Another thing worth mentioning is if the time-of-war reasoning has a foundation, and I think it does, how long is that period? The current war on terror is unlike any engagement prior. If Article II says that, in so many words, in times of military engagement the President's abilities are extended, how is that better defined? It is plausible to me that Congress authorized action in 2001, with little attention being paid to how it would apply to such a program.

Like I told Johnny, I am not an attorney. If the action is found to be an abuse of power, ring the gong. If it also allows for a revision of terminology and more precise definitions, that is not a bad thing.

What it comes down to for me, seed, is that there wasn't any reason to not get the wiretaps legally. Bush just decided that he didn't have to because he's the president. Its that mentality that's both frightening and illegal.

I think much of the case will come down to who's wires were being tapped and if they fall under any definition of "terrorist" or whether the taps were being used in the name of the War on Terror but we're being used to spy on non-terror suspects (ala Nixon).

I pulled this back to the top of the blog-roll.