News-Record.com

I'm thinking this is a bit of a tough call.

A law that grants immunity for special war-related actions is probably justified. Consider that in WWII the law redirected the automobile industry - stopping them from making cars and requiring them to make tanks. One could argue that violated GM's right to the pursuit of capitalistic happiness ..

Besides .. think of all the terrorists that have been stopped with these techniques, including extraordinary rendition, special gitmo interrogation techniques, staying-the course, the incarceration of Osama, the rapid democrazation of Afghanistan, the obliviated opium production .. all completed under fiscally responsible policies ...

... opps strike that last comment, I mean those last 6 comments. Like I said this is a bit of a tough call.

I agree God know we do not want to violate the terrorist civil rights. This is about the hundredth time I have read this letter in this paper. I want to read the one that was send in about how the code pink jackasses were treating the marines! If it not Bush bashing are praising the civil rights museum it does not make the NR.

I hate to burst your bubble, but this from the July 15 1994 Washington Post:

"The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers."

Just a reminder that neither party is immune to doing violence to the Constitution.

Look at the good that came from that.

Sadly, even my hero Ronald Regan was not immune- signing Executive Order 12333 in 1981 allowing "warrantless" searches.

Doggie says, "If it not Bush bashing are praising the civil rights museum it does not make the NR."

Doggie,
Do you read?
Since it appears the answer is 'no', then let me give you a refresher course:

3 out of 4 Americans do not think "W" is doing or has done a good job as President. That goes a great distance to explain why your small minority of deranged Bush supporting letters is outpaced by....drumroll please.......THREE TO ONE!

Doggie, I sure hope this little "refresher" course has helped.

Ron White said it best, "You just can't fix stupid".

Yes Smart/Dumb, you just can't fix stupid! This has already been ajuducated by the courts. It was upheld by an appeals court, and when the American Criminal's liberties Union tried to appeal to the Supreme Court they were effectively told to take a hike. They were unable to produce anyone in our country who had been harmed by the program. The only ones harmed have been a few terrorists, and we know how you liberal lunatics hate that!

Finally, the ultimate deprivation of your "civil liberties" is having a bomb shred you into little pieces! Where do you idiots come from?

I challenge anyone to prove they have been wiretapped. Speaker Pelosi, while complaining about the citizens privacy being invaded, watches as the trial lawyers dump millions into the democrats coffers. If tapping stops the terrorists then tap away. If waterboarding stops the terrorists then sprinkle away. The republicans and President Bush have made plenty of mistakes and I do not agree with a lot they have done. But we have not been attacked here at home since 9/11 and for that I am gratefull.

A store owner wants security, but he or she doesn't give customers a "cavity search" when they enter the store!

Bottom Line:
Safety does not mean trashing the constitution as Moschetti thinks should be done.

With ignorant and inflammatory statements like:

"Finally, the ultimate deprivation of your "civil liberties" is having a bomb shred you into little pieces!"

Sheesh! These lunatics never mention that the "color coded" THREAT WARNINGS went away AFTER Bush's re-election.

Guess I could borrow the misused line from Tony Moschetti, above and ask, "Where do you idiots come from?"

Much more appropos in that context.

"I challenge anyone to prove they have been wiretapped."

The FBI has been using a platform called "Carnivore" since the late 1990's for wiretapping. My understanding of this system is that it is a highly sophisticated symmetric-multiprocessing packet sniffing platform.

Since TCP/IP communications occur on a broadcast medium, any network that Carnivore is on will *indiscriminately* pick up packets that are not specifically addressed to the Carnivore node. These types of monitored communications include, but are not limited to VoIP phone calls and Internet traffic. There are no men in black coming to your house. This is all done at the phone company or your Internet service provider.

Just knowing the way current computer networks operate, the public knowledge of Carnivore, and that the US government is pushing so hard for wiretapping; is it really that big of a stretch to understand that you've been illegally wiretapped?

" ... is it really that big of a stretch to understand that you've been illegally wiretapped?"

What really trips me was .. it is (or was) SO EASY to be "legal" .. and the arrogance of "we don't need to .. " just rips me.

THis is further seen in the arrogant responses - like Mr. Thoughtful, tonymo .. who said "They were unable to produce anyone in our country who had been harmed by the program." OK - he's a "conservative" .. so had a "Dim-ocrat" shown the same arrogance, would he stil say "Where do you idiots come from?" I think not .. but since he never responds .. we'll never know.

Ellis says that Clinton wanted to do the same thing. Even if that info he posted did say Clinton wanted to spy on US citizens, that wouldn't make it right. I wouldn't blindly support all of any political figure's policies or actions just because he's a member of my party.

Even so, the article says that Clinton didn't want court orders for clandestine operations at foreign embassies, which would essentially be like needing a court order for clandestine operations in another country.