A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.

In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/us/politics/06mccain.html?em&ex=1212897600&en= 31b5a567bc00f285&ei=5087%0A

John McSame: Same war policy, same economic policy, same disrespect of our Constitution. Why not just elect George W. Bush for four more years?

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/u/0/2/mcbush-2008.jpg

Makes sense to listen to the bad guys who what to hurt us...ah US. If a certain group of people are out to kill you I think a good defense is best...it's worked the past 6+ years.

Within the law.

McCain is sending clear messages that he will not be changing anything. Status quo. Some are fine with that.

I'm not.

Any law against wiretaping known terrorists is bad law.

Any wiretapping of U.S. citizens without a warrant is against the law, and runs counter to the Constitution of The United States of America.

Remember that thing?

I have no problem with wiretapping, as long as it's done with oversight and a warrant, AS REQUIRED BY EXISTING LAW. Warrantless wiretapping is a recipe for abuse and is anti-American to it's core.

The more McSame embraces Bush policy, the longer his odds of winning become.

Politics of fear will not win him swing votes. He'd better start talking about economic solutions or he is TOAST.

Do all of you libs smoke your grass within the law?

I'd rather be a grass smoking lib than a right wing conservative with a permanent case of head in asshole.

Do all you Reicher's shoot up your Heroine with the same needle?

"Do all of you libs smoke your grass within the law?"

No. Therefore illegal wiretapping should be allowed to continue? Because someone else, somewhere, is breaking a different law?

Are there not enough Federal FISA judges to vet all the wiretaps that Bush/Cheney and Company wish to execute? There is a legal process in place to deal with the wiretap issue. They need to follow the law. But Bush decided that following the law in this matter didn’t work – which should not come as any surprise. He flouts the law at every turn. From lying about Iraq to the question of torture to his signing statements on legislation, he does what he wants, period, including if it violates the law.

If this had been Bill Clinton, the Republicans in the US House and US Senate would have ridden him out on a rail so fast it would make all of Washington’s head spin. He would not only have been impeached, but convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors by the US Senate and sent to federal prison.

I don’t get the hypocrisy from the Republicans. They talk a big game about the rule of law, but when it doesn’t suit their agenda, they plead “national security”. Mark my words, every document that comes through the Oval Office will be marked confidential. George W. Bush has been such a colossal screw up that he won’t want anyone to see his presidential papers till we’re all dead and buried.

"Do all of you libs smoke your grass within the law?"

Okay, really now Deane, you are out-doing yourself! That was classic.

Classically idiotic.

Bush et al don't want oversight because they have and will continue to abuse the process to the point that it would look very bad if they were ever audited and those results made public. I wouldn't be surprised if they have wiretapped their political foes either.

Do all of you libs smoke your grass within the law?

WOW!
Ignorance is bliss....
You must be the happiest fascist in the free world....

I really think that this topic is proof of how scared liberals are that they might not win the election.

I keep hearing the same thing, thats its a slam dunk for Obama but if it was would people really be spending their time on things like this?

I do not think it's a slam dunk. Not by a long shot. Or any other sports analogy. I still feel stunned by 2004. I mean, I'm over it - but I learned all sorts of lessons from it. It's unknown who will win. And yes, not knowing for SURE, scares me. But not to a degree that I am willing to ignore what IS known right now.

So can I still not like illegal wiretapping? Or do I forfeit that by supporting Obama now?

Broadway>>Any law against wiretaping known terrorists is bad law.

Nobody here has suggested otherwise.

Under FISA, there is a secret court for the purpose of providing warrants allowing the President to wiretap. If a wiretap is needed in a hurry for a specific situation going down, a warrant can be obtained after the fact from said court. All that's required is the President provide the court a reason for the wiretap at his earliest convenience.

Why would a warrantless wiretap ever be needed under the above stated laws? The court is secret, nothing in the public record, and a warrant can be had after the fact if necessary. Why is this so difficult for the current President?

Given the secrecy of the FISA court we don't know just how much accountability there really is, it may not be much, or it may be quite a bit, but why would this President constantly refuse any accountability whatsoever? Unless maybe he be misusing his privileges, or is otherwise being dishonest about who he is wiretapping and how he is using the information being obtained?

Broadway, you and I are from similar Christian backgrounds and we know there has been a lot of talk in the church in recent years about "being accountable," particularly in groups such as Promise Keepers. Shouldn't accountability also apply to a President who claims to be a Christian? Shouldn't the Commander and Chief be setting the example, not skirting a well-written law? If Bush is acting, as we like to say in Christian-ese, in an "above reproach" manner, why would he reject any sort of secret accountability with someone who has been duly appointed to uphold the law?

The Republican party used to stand for law and order, but there is currently neither in the Oval Office. "Secret accountability" sounds almost like an oxymoron, but it's better than nothing. Unfortunately the President, as well as John McCain, prefers a lawless nothing. Bush and McCain are no better than the window-smashing anarchists who want to tear down the law.

As a follow-up, here is an editorial containing an explanation of why the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enacted and how it works.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-napolitano18feb18,0,1665050.story

Braodway, my intent is simply inform and advocate, not to bash you, nor any other poster in this forum. Most of my questions are intended to be rhetorical in nature.

The only Bush wiretaps I support are the kinds that electrifies sex.

I am not an expert in the details/laws of our topic, it's just we need to be able to have our leadership/government have the freedoms to get the bad guys/terrorists of the world that want to kill you and me. I am totally against somebody listening to my phone calls or reading my emails or any other Americans (though I have nothing to hide) but it's already been proven that we can catch these guys with good "detective" work. Sad to say it's probably gonna take another major 9-11 type attack on our soil again to get these points across. I think all of us agree that we are only wanting find the Islamic Terrorist of the world here...thats all.

>> Bush and McCain are no better than the window-smashing anarchists who want to tear down the law.

Beg to differ...don't see a comparison.

In reading more about the topic I think it boils down to a power play...who should have the power here to do surveillance with or without warrants which according to one article I read the president has constitutional rights to protect the country "without acountablilty" ...it's just pretty dumb to vicker about the issue while the bad guys get away.

No it isn't.

There are always bad guys, always. We could surrender every single liberty we have, enter a totalitarian state where we have so little freedom it's scary and there still will be bad guys.

There might not be as many bad guys, I'll grant that.

But, the question here is one of worth. If we have lost all those good things, what is there for the bad guys to do?

And what is the potential to live our lives freely worth?

Our founders thought it was worth more than their lives. Surely that's not changed right?

If we say that corporations can just do whatever they are told by the President, this circumvents our Constitution in that there is no check on this power, as intended.

Given that there are always bad guys, this is absolutely going to be abused and there will be nothing we can do about it.

That's why we have accountability in our law. It's built in at the lowest levels and I just don't understand how people can say, "follow the law" and ignore the most fundamental elements of it.

Either we are Americans or we are not. Americans follow a system of checks and balances and they value freedom above all else.

If we give this up, terror wins, period.

All anybody has asked for is accountability. If the purpose of the action is just and true, it will be properly accounted for and there are no worries.

We hold government to this standard in return for it's authority over us. We do this because there are bad guys and sometimes they get elected. If elected, and they abuse that authority, we check that and try again.

Basic, American stuff.

The telcos should have done what Qwest did. They should have said no, and forced the issue back to the legislature and the courts so that legal solutions could be found, accountability kept in place and control maintained.

An absolute minimum is disclosure of who is tapped, when, why and how. This can be kept private, within the government, so that the targets don't gain an advantage. It can be reviewed later so that abuses can be checked and accounted for.

None of that impacts our ability to go looking after bad guys, so what's the problem?

The problem is that there have been abuses. People were lazy, or wanting to have the system serve their interests, using the "bad guys" for cover for doing this.

That's exploiting fear and as an American citizen that really should piss you off. The fact that it doesn't for a lot of people means fear has a grip on them that's a big ass problem.

I'm absolutely not ready to tell the world that we were wrong, that freedom cannot really exist, that we need totalitarian government to stay safe. NO way, no how.

Neither should any of you. And the why is very simple: fearing what might happen, vs, what will happen if we let this continue makes it a non-issue, no debate, no discussion.

These questions are not rhetorical. I'm really desiring actual answers.

Broadway said - " I am totally against somebody listening to my phone calls or reading my emails or any other Americans (though I have nothing to hide) but it's already been proven that we can catch these guys with good "detective" work. Sad to say it's probably gonna take another major 9-11 type attack on our soil again to get these points across."

I agree and disagree.

First of all, it has NOT been proven that these tactics are effective. It has been implied, suggested and hoped for. ( And ultimately, the wish from Bush that this all goes unchallenged and without oversight or accountability suggests that he knows that he is over-reaching. Otherwise, he'd be fine with operating within the law as stated ). But I, after a decent amount of actual searching, cannot find ANYTHING to show ANY success rate of illegal wiretapping. I noticed you put the word " detective " in quotes. I understand why you'd use a catch-all term like that to make your point. But just to be clear, I'm asking; Do you include the current form of wiretapping in your definition of " good detective work "? Or are you saying that there are effective ways to do this without having to include wiretapping?

Please show me the actual rate of success and I will weigh that against how much of a civil liberty violation I am willing to support. I'm not saying it has to be perfect. I'm saying that I have the ability to judge and decide for myself - once shown some stats or facts.

Also, your note about what it would take before people support a more severe implementation of 4th amendment bending ( another 9-11 attack ), I possibly agree with. But by that same logic, and I'm not saying this to be combative or split hairs or even change the topic, but by that same logic, you are saying that there are circumstances in which 4th amendment liberties can be bent or broken. Frankly, I agree with that. So if I agree with that, can you not see the conflict that a person may have with holding fast and tight to the ability to weigh those circumstances and apply them to say, guns? Would you not agree that if we have the ability to weigh a civil liberty issue like wiretapping against 4th amendment provisions - then we should be able to use that same rationale in dealing with gun ownership? The majority of people that freak out when talking about gun ownership changes that will make a difference, always cite the fact that it is a liberty to have a gun. But somehow, even talking about restricting who gets a gun is SO holy that it can't even be discussed with or by them.

So I'll make a compromise, I'm willing to allow a 4th amendment review for wiretapping if you are willing to use the VERY clear statistics to conduct a 2nd amendment review.

Deal?

I'm guessing " NO! " would be your answer. If it is " No. Gun ownership is protected and rightly so." then please explain why illegal wiretapping, a clear violation of the 4th amendment, sits so well with you. It can't be because it has a proven track record of success. Because it's NOT proven. In fact, what if I could prove that it is quite unsuccessful. Would that make any difference to anyone? Or is it just the appearance that is enough for you to endorse?

( The royal " you." But also, there are enough specific questions for Broadway that I would appreciate answers. Again, I'm not asking these questions rhetorically. I want a real answer. And if not an answer - at least a clear opinion about why these amendments are viewed so differently. Say it out loud. Go on a limb. Stand for something and if they are hypocritical in nature, then so be it. But say it with some conviction ).

If we followed Broadway’s logic, why don’t we just start spying on each other – forward reports of our neighbor’s un-American activities to a new office inside Homeland Security? It would save the government a hell of a lot of money. Something akin to the KGB or former East German Stasi – files upon files about everything you do, say, or even when you go to the bathroom. We can spend all our free time narcing on each because we live in such fear of each another and nobody can be trusted. You want undercover agents listening to telephone calls made to or from your church because someone might have made an un-American utterance while preaching from the pulpit? Or posting remarks on a website because they don’t comport with the political views of incumbent administration?

There is very logical process to follow – and it’s currently codified in law. The president does not have the right to arbitrarily wiretap someones telephone line because he may think they're a terrorists. And then, who do we define as terrorists? Should we let George W. Bush and Dick Cheney decide who fits the definition of terrorist? Islamic terrorists? Chrisitan terrorists? Blond haired, blue eyed terrorists? Pro-life terrorists? Democratic National Party terrorists?

Crazy and foolish.

If someone were to examine my situation, they would find:

that my business partner is a naturalized US citizen from Jordan, single, in his mid-40's;

as a young man, was very active in political matters in Jordan and Italy, where he attended college;

we send hundreds of dollars to his family in Jordan monthly;

our long distance communications consist almost entirely of calls to Jordan and to his brother in Toronto.

Gee, looks suspicious, doesn't it? We are self employed, law abiding citizens and a prime target for just this sort of warrantless activity.

I take serious issue with the statement that "...though I have nothing to hide..." !
Prove it. You never will. Not against the US Government, which has the money and resources to tear your life apart until they find that your biggest transgression includes ownership of a tie dyed t-shirt in '69. Then, they'll look even harder because everybody's hiding something, and you must be especially good at it.

That's why we're innocent until proven guilty in this country and have these checks and balances in place. No fishing until it's "warranted".

Good grief...I'm a simple man on this issue...getting into all this law stuff gets to tedious for this old radio guy. Simple...make it easy as possible to get the bad guys that are "Allah bent" to kill us...simple.

>>No fishing until it's "warranted".

Actually agree with that concept.

>>forward reports of our neighbor’s un-American activities

Very American!

What a waste of time.

Fine. Go forth and wander.

Geeze.

Very American!

Yes, I suppose it is in your world.

Remember the HUAC? They were rather selective in their definition of "un-American" activities. When asked about the Klan, the committee's chief counsel Ernest Adamson announced that "The committee has decided that it lacks sufficient data on which to base a probe" and committee member John E. Rankin added, "After all, the KKK is an old American institution."

FISA was established to make sure that citizens are guaranteed their rights. It is the only way to ensure that both our civil liberties are protected and our country is kept safe. There is no need to have a neo-Stalinist approach in this great nation. The Constitution should be respected regardless of how frightened some weak minded folks feel about the latest bogeymen.

Broadway, maybe you should volunteer to watch those "Allah bent" folks at their places of worship for Homeland Security? I'm sure with enough prodding, they might provide you with an amateur detective kit, including binoculars and do it yourself wire taps. It’ll save taxpayers money and perhaps you’ll keep the local jihadists from attacking an area Starbucks.

No paranoya here...guess you guys would'nt report a Meth house across the street?
Where's the common sense here...sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence....ah...just did a Dictionary.com

If I lived next to Broadway and practiced a faith which was not consistent with his faith as an evangelical Christian, I would fully expect the FBI, Homeland Security, the Oregon State Police and perhaps even the local constabulary to pay me a visit -- and frequently. Too bad we don't have a theocracy police – just like in Iran.

As for the meth house, yes, I would indeed report it. It might negatively impact the value of my home.

>>I would fully expect the FBI, Homeland Security, the Oregon State Police and perhaps even the local constabulary to pay me a visit

Do I sense a little paranoya here? Naaaaahhh.

Only if I lived next to Broadway. I'm sure Broadway would be on a first name basis with the Oregon FBI Special Agent in Charge. Living next door to a house full of gracious heathens with hearts of gold; we’d be fast and lasting friends.

>>Living next door to a house full of gracious heathens with hearts of gold; we’d be fast and lasting friends.

Actually those are good neighbors to have!

>>on a first name basis with the Oregon FBI Special Agent in Charge.

Sorry...don't have any inside connections even with my local police.

...Where's the common sense here...

Common Sense does NOT exist in government. ANY of it.

I beg to disagree. Earl Blumenauer and Ron Wyden are both so full of common sense and honesty its almost embarassing.

Reporting things we find questionable is perfectly ok. We have law to handle that and we have processes to make sure it's not abused.

One of those elements is transparency and the other is that records are kept.

Transparency means we get to see the process and are, at some level, involved in how it works.

The records are there to prevent abuse.

Without these two, government has authority over us that is arbitrary, meaning that if somebody does not like you, which is not a crime, they can have you handled and you have no proof that was done.

That's not American at all.

"I'm a simple man on this issue...getting into all this law stuff gets to tedious for this old radio guy."

No freaking kidding!

I didn't know that much about law (not that I do now) before getting involved in tech advocacy and now politics. I think most people are in this situation, not really knowing why we have most of the laws we do. We also don't know all that much about how new law gets created and why either.

I've been through some of the legislative process, and have learned a ton about law following Internet / Copyfight issues.

There is a growing case for every young person to have a solid introduction to law, ethics and critical thinking that is framed in a situational context.

That would build out the core of "common sense" and go a long way toward mitigating these sorts of discussions that occur over and over throughout our history.

I see it like math proofs. When I took Geometry, for example, all of that course could be written on a scrap of paper. The devil is in the proofs, in other words, the why those key equations do what they do.

These law / ethics issues are the same way!

Being able to check your math, in other words, proving out your process and reasoning should be taught on a level by itself, not just in the context of a specific subject.

We have due process, habius corpus, post facto, etc... for very good reasons. The proof on those lies in our history. We teach that, but I think we need to do more about putting it in context and discussion.

Again, the closest analogy I can think of is applied math, vs just learning to do math.

Some greater emphasis on elementary law and civics is needed in the schools. I think we used to do more of that. At least that was my experience growing up. My kids don't see as much, and it's more selective now. Probably due to having to teach to more tests these days.

I don't know really. Wish I did.

Anyway, Broadway, thinking through those hard issues is a civic duty. If we don't really understand a current dynamic, then advocating for it to be changed to an new one we likely don't understand either, is a circle jerk that makes us feel better, but does not really get anything done.

IMHO, this is very likely why we have a Republic instead of a direct democracy. I see it as a good thing that prevents a direct rule of the majority.

A majority, common sense, view is not in and of itself a solid view, and understanding why that is happens to be a very important element of our American society. Failure to grok this means slowly making our society considerably less American, one little common sense decision at a time.

And here we are today!

It is considerably less American than it was 8 years ago and a lot of people don't / can't tell you why, but they can tell you they are pissed about it.

They then will act out and the more that tension builds, the more acting out there will be and that's all just bad news for all of us.

One really good exercise, and I've done this, is to take an issue, build your case, do the leg work and take it to your State Rep. They are there for these kinds of things and will give you a meeting and consider what you have to say.

That conversation will be productive as you both will learn something.

So for the sake of argument anything of BOOSH that Big Mac DIDN'T or DOESN'T support?

along those same lines, isn't it also a bit scary that O'bama supports NOTHING with an R attached?

Why I said too far to either side scares me. Sorry, for all the failed policies in years gone by, ANY politician that votes strict party line is one to suspect.

A little give...a little take...... I see more moderate Reps reacing out than I see in the Dems...., and will those aisle crossing dems draw the line once Mr.O is in the big Chair?

May 2009 might be a good time for China to reclaim Taiwan, that might inspire the North Koreans to action as well....... He might get that 3am call.......

When it's all over we can talk.

Guess we will see where the world goes, but damn the deck is full of wild cards!

I just hope the hand the US is playing at the time is not "Aces and Eights".

I think you should be able to fish. I remember once my son was fishing in the Green river, and the game warden made him pull his line. Said it wasn't Salmon season. Thing is there were other fish in the river, and he wasn't fishing for salmon. (that and the fact he was 0-4 years in the fish catching department. so yes, fish with out warrants, but respect size limits.

Deane_johnson:
Do all of you libs smoke your grass within the law?

Doubtful, but smoking pot doesn't impose on someone else's liberties now does it?????