You seem to be almost purposefully dense on this issue, so I'll make it simple.

There are long standing rulings that say if a government agency wishes to use a wiretap it must first obtain a warrant.

Bush admitted that he ordered the NSA to wiretap without warrants.

I'm not a judge or a lawyer, but that certainly seems to be a crime. Why do you feel it is not?

Whether or not a company was breaking the law in the name of fighting terrorism, they were still breaking the law, and profiting from it. Providing the entire industry with a blanket immunity before the fact are in, is at best irresponsible, and at worst treasonous. Business need to realize that helping the government violate the law has consequences, no matter what the reasons. Why do these companies deserve immunity if they have done nothing wrong?

Please see above. I don't doubt that the great majority of people working in Homeland Security do so out of a desire to keep this country safe. However, there must be checks and balances in place to ensure that the small few who take advantage of their position and commit unjust actions are hindered and kept accountable. A warrant is a very basic and necessary court order to balance the power of the Executive branch to spy on citizens, against the discretion of the Judicial branch to make sure they are doing so properly. This is basic civics. Why are you against this simple system of checks and balances?

You winning means what this country was founded on loses.

I'll repeat what I said above: I live in the fine state of New Hampshire, where everyday I see the motto, "Live Free, or Die." This country was based upon the idea that our rights are worth preserving, even in the face of death. Isn't that what we cite so often on Veteran's Day, that our armed forces gave their lives to ensure our freedoms? While we may be slowly becoming a nation of suburbanites afraid of of our own shadow, I'd like to fight that trend... I am going to risk the utterly slim chance that I will be killed by terrorists, against the far more likely chance that our government will abuse our rights with the ability to wiretap without warrants.
I'm glad you're so glib over the hypocritical appearance of democracy in this country. It saddens me frankly.

Oh yah, me and some boys over in Hamas are old drinking buddies. ...seriously, this retarded hyperbole just makes you look like a flailing Chicken Little.

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

well, that one.... it's kind of a "meta-concept".

They're both tyrants. The tyrant that wants to take away your Rights, is the same kind of tyrant that wants to chop your head off.

They're both trying to "impose something into your space", that you don't want there.

So from that standpoint, a tyrant is a tyrant is a tyrant, right?

You know, "what" they're trying to impose into your space (constraints on the one hand, or violence on the other) is largely irrelevant.

The meta-concept is, that they're trying to "control" you, in a way that you don't want to be "controlled".

So in politics, there are kind of "levels" of that concept, right?

For instance, we have Rights - those, are mostly considered "inviolable", or at least they're "so precious" that people yell and scream when it looks like they're about to be taken away.

But Rights aren't "whatever you believe them to be" - that would be a non-operational concept. Let me give you an example: you wouldn't drink whisky in Saudi Arabia, right? Even if you thought it was your "God-given Right" to sit there and sip on a fine 12-year-old single-malt, "wherever you are", right? 'Cause I mean, that's illegal in Saudi Arabia, they're gonna throw you in jail for that. And it's even worse than that, 'cause what's gonna happen next, is one those Islamist idiots is gonna point the finger at you and say, "affront to Islam", and then you're really in trouble - then they're gonna chop your hands off or give you forty lashes or something like that - and I mean, they DO that stuff in Saudi Arabia, right? They just gave some woman lashes 'cause SHE was raped. Imagine that.... and I mean, no matter how completely unfair those rules might seem, those are the rules, right? And I mean, if you break 'em, you take the consequences, right? "When in Rome", right? It's kinda like, a "good idea" to show respect for other peoples' belief systems - yes?

So, you see where I'm going with this? There's like, a "principle" here, that needs to be taken into account. If you're gonna trample on my space with some kinda version of "rights" that I don't agree with, I'm gonna have a problem with that, if you're on my turf. If I'm on your turf, then I'm gonna try to respect your rules. We "reciprocate" that way, we "acknowledge each other" in that manner.

But in the political (public) sphere, we deal with Rights that are "portable" - they follow you wherever you go. So, like, those Constitutional Rights, you know, I could be in my house, your house, SS's house, anywhere in the geographic United States, and those Rights would apply to me. No one can take 'em away from me, for any reason. And if they do, or try, I can sue 'em six ways from Sunday. And, I can even "fight back" in certain circumstances, and get away with it. The law "recognizes" that concept, right?

See what I'm sayin'?

So, you know, in these United States, this kinda thinking, goes all the way back to the Founding Fathers. It really does. If you check it out for yourself, I think you'll be able to verify what I just said.

This is ridiculous.

I think it's pretty reasonable that before you let the government spy on someone, the government has to demonstrate probable cause to a judge.

I mean, I really thought that was part of the deal of being an American citizen. And if that's not part of the deal, then a whole bunch of history books are gonna have to be ...

...

... you guys are changing the history books, aren't you?

The only dense one on this issue is you. There have been no laws broken, if there has post them. If there has been someone arrested and charged with breaking our surveillance laws, post it. Your ignorance on this entire topic is benign. You keep posting stuff that is merely your opinion as if it were a fact. You don't like the rules, you question the rules, but you don't make the rules.

Life's tough, get over it.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

You earlier recite your opinion about our nation sticking together in WWII, yes they did exactly, and they also trampled on peoples rights for the security of our nation. I guess you forgot about internment camps. I guess you forgot about the president having the power to most everything in the United States.

Here is president Roosevelt;

"We are now in the midst of a war, not for conquest, not for vengeance, but for a world in which this nation, and all that this nation represents, will be safe for our children." So Roosevelt told the country in his war message of Dec. 9, 1941. Congress passed the First and Second War Powers Acts and other laws to give him full authority. He had control over farming, manufacturing, labor, prices, wages, transportation, and allotment of raw materials. In turn he gave these powers to the right men, boards, or departments. Many war agencies were set up. Shifting and changing as needed, they brought nearly every activity of the country under government direction.

This is J Rockefeller on this issue;

"The companies participated at a great risk of exposure and financial ruin, for one reason and one reason only: In order to help identify terrorists and prevent follow-up terrorist attacks," said Democrat Jay Rockefeller, who chairs the Intelligence committee. "They should not be penalized for their willingness to heed the call during a time of national emergency."


You don't think that people like you would have had their shorts in a wad over WWII, and now you find our surveillance of terrorists so appalling and unconstitutional? You will never get it, you will never realize who the real enemy is until it's too late. How sad

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Bronco - read my lips:

We are not at war.

Congress has not declared war.

We are not at war just 'cause Bushie says so, or just 'cause you say so, or just 'cause that idiot Karl Rove has to create some new "spin" like the non-existent "war on terror".

We are NOT at war, Bronco.

Get it?

Tell that to all the people that have died, the 3000 that died in the world trade center, the 10's of thousands that died from the hands of al qaeda, naw, we're not at war. Yep, O' Carl and Bush just plotting away to see how many they could kill. I'll bet you are one of those that think Bush brought down the trade center building. Keep typing, your hole is getting deeper.

Please explain to us how is al qaeda any different than hitler, especially after reading what Roosevelt said?

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Bronco, you're not listening yet.

We're not at war.

We're not at war.

Bushie is lying to you.

There's no such thing as a "war" on terror.

There's no war, period. Full stop, end of story.

We're not at war.

Congress has not declared war.

Get it now?

You can parse it anyway you want to, but we are still at war, and it was supported wholly by the politicians from both sides of the aisle.

Here's some cowboy wisdom for you slick; You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I guess this war on terror occurring in all parts of the world is all Bush's fault, and oh yeah, it's not a war because you said so. The that to the Pakistanis,

http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSB647837

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

I Already did (or are you too thick to figure out how to use links?)

KATZ v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
The Government's eavesdropping activities violated the privacy upon which petitioner justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Although the surveillance in this case may have been so narrowly circumscribed that it could constitutionally have been authorized in advance, it was not in fact conducted pursuant to the warrant procedure which is a constitutional precondition of such electronic surveillance.


United States Code- TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE - CHAPTER 36 - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE - SUBCHAPTER I - ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE - Section 1809. Criminal Sanctions

(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally -
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law
except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law
by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that
the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not
authorized by statute.
(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this
section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative
officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the
electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to
a search warrant or court order of a court of competent
jurisdiction.

It is ILLEGAL to wiretap without a warrant.

There are currently dozens of cases under review.

And your ignorance on the topic is dangerously negligent. You are doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending not to hear me.

For the record thats a Supreme Court decision and the relevant text of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act. Not my opinion, a fact of our legal code.

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM