Bush: Inaction on FISA endangers US

[thegodfather]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush warned Friday the United States is in "more danger of attack" because Congress failed to extend legislation on domestic wiretapping laws allowing the government without a warrant to listen in on phone calls and intercept e-mails by foreign terrorist suspects that are transmitted through this country.


President Bush said he will not accept another temporary extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Bush's remarks came at the end of a meeting with Republican congressional leaders and Vice President Dick Cheney.

"American citizens must understand, clearly understand, that there still is a threat on the homeland," Bush said.

"There's still an enemy which would like to do us harm, and that we've got to give our professionals the tools they need to be able to figure out what the enemy is up to so we can stop it."

Temporary revisions to the 1978 law that regulates wiretapping are set to expire this weekend.

Democrats said the law as existed before a temporary revision in August will remain in effect and gives the administration all the authority it needs to spy on suspected terrorists.

Don't Miss
Senate OKs immunity for telecoms
House, Senate pass extension of surveillance law
House OKs tighter oversight of surveillance
"He knows that the underlying 'intelligence' law and the power given to him in the Protect America Act give him sufficient authority to do all of the surveillance and collecting that he needs to do in order to protect the American people," House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Thursday.

The House of Representatives and Senate are split over whether to include retroactive legal protection for telecommunications companies in a permanent overhaul. Watch Bush's comments on the FISA controversy »

After Friday's meeting, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, defended Republicans' desire to give the telecommunication companies immunity.

"This issue of the carriers that work with our government are increasingly concerned about their liability and increasingly concerned about whether they are going to continue to work with our intelligence officials," Boehner said.

Congress is in recess for a week starting Friday.

Bush had offered to put off the start of his planned trip to Africa "if it will help them complete their work on this critical bill," but White House spokeswoman Dana Perino later said the president would leave as scheduled Friday.

"The Democrats have made a decision that their higher priority -- over national security -- is taking another recess," Perino said.

The current laws are set to expire at midnight Saturday. The nation's intelligence agencies then will have to go to court for warrants to listen in on conversations between suspected terrorists overseas.

Intelligence officials said that it will cause unnecessary delays, but the government will be able to get permission to conduct eavesdropping through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.


Even without court permission, agents also can listen in on a suspect's calls without a warrant as long as an application is submitted within three days.

Additionally, any warrants already approved are good for a year from when the initial warrant was issued.

[thegodfather]

Anyone who thinks that telecoms should not be held liable for breaking the law, is living in a dream world. I said it, and I'll defend that position. If they truely have not broken the law, then let them have their day in court and prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

[Logan13]

Anyone who thinks that telecoms should not be held liable for breaking the law, is living in a dream world. I said it, and I'll defend that position. If they truely have not broken the law, then let them have their day in court and prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

Your ambulance chasing friends(John Edwards) would love that. I do not think that you have a grasp on the FISA bill. Do you not know that this has been around for the last 25 years in one form or another?

[thegodfather]

Your ambulance chasing friends(John Edwards) would love that. I do not think that you have a grasp on the FISA bill. Do you not know that this has been around for the last 25 years in one form or another?

I've read the bill itself, thank you. I'm well aware its been around since the 70s. However, it required a warrant from the secret FISA court. It also did not grant immunity to telecom companys for allowing the NSA to have a f**king free for all with every piece of electronic communication in the country, without having to abide by due process of law and obtain warrants in FISA court for each individual "suspect." Instead, it treated all 350,000,000 Americans who decided to make a phone call, instant message, e-mail, fax, text message, and any other concievable piece of electronic transmission as a suspect.

[soulstealer]

I've read the bill itself, thank you. I'm well aware its been around since the 70s. However, it required a warrant from the secret FISA court. It also did not grant immunity to telecom companys for allowing the NSA to have a f**king free for all with every piece of electronic communication in the country, without having to abide by due process of law and obtain warrants in FISA court for each individual "suspect." Instead, it treated all 350,000,000 Americans who decided to make a phone call, instant message, e-mail, fax, text message, and any other concievable piece of electronic transmission as a suspect.

x2...

[Logan13]

I've read the bill itself, thank you. I'm well aware its been around since the 70s. However, it required a warrant from the secret FISA court. It also did not grant immunity to telecom companys for allowing the NSA to have a f**king free for all with every piece of electronic communication in the country, without having to abide by due process of law and obtain warrants in FISA court for each individual "suspect." Instead, it treated all 350,000,000 Americans who decided to make a phone call, instant message, e-mail, fax, text message, and any other concievable piece of electronic transmission as a suspect.

If you are not discussing how to blow up a building, you have nothing to worry about. Can you give me an example of how someone that you know was "wronged" by the FISA bill, or the Patriot Act itself? I say that you can not....so what is your point?

[Kärnfysikern]

If you are not discussing how to blow up a building, you have nothing to worry about. Can you give me an example of how someone that you know was "wronged" by the FISA bill, or the Patriot Act itself? I say that you can not....so what is your point?

So you would not mind them watchin you right? Posting on a steroid board would probably be suscpisious enough for most people.

Should I be watched because I discuss nuclear technology on science boards and on bloggs and, that could aferall be considered "sensitive".

Who decideds what is reason enough?

[Logan13]

So you would not mind them watchin you right? Posting on a steroid board would probably be suscpisious enough for most people.

Should I be watched because I discuss nuclear technology on science boards and on bloggs and, that could aferall be considered "sensitive".

Who decideds what is reason enough?

I am not breaking the law by posting here. It does not interfere with my daily life. If you have something to hide, you thoughts on it may differ from mine.........
I'm still waiting for a personal example of how someone's rights have been infringed by FISA or the Patriot Act. With all of the rhetoric in here, you would think that someone would have an example. The fact that you are all bitching about something which has obviously not had an impact on your daily lives is just silly. Get on with living your life.

[Kärnfysikern]

I am not breaking the law by posting here. It does not interfere with my daily life. If you have something to hide, you thoughts on it may differ from mine.........
I'm still waiting for a personal example of how someone's rights have been infringed by FISA or the Patriot Act. With all of the rhetoric in here, you would think that someone would have an example. The fact that you are all bitching about something which has obviously not had an impact on your daily lives is just silly. Get on with living your life.

Obviously isnt hasnt effected my life since I am not american. But in sweden recently a law passed that allows the defense department to monitor all internet traffic going in and out of sweden. Since a big chunk of almost all traffic is routed in one way or another through other countries it means just about anything is open to them. Its pure bullshit imo.

There is another law that mandate phone companies to save and store all mobile text messages for 3 years, another piece of shit law that is a infringment upon my rights.

[Logan13]

Obviously isnt hasnt effected my life since I am not american. But in sweden recently a law passed that allows the defense department to monitor all internet traffic going in and out of sweden. Since a big chunk of almost all traffic is routed in one way or another through other countries it means just about anything is open to them. Its pure bullshit imo.

There is another law that mandate phone companies to save and store all mobile text messages for 3 years, another piece of shit law that is a infringment upon my rights.

But honestly, unless you are breaking the law, they are not going to waste their time listening to you tell your girl how much you love her........
Both of these systems rely on key-word association. So if you are in general conversation, they are not actually listening to you. If you say something like "blow up the nuke plant", the system will start to record and will be submitted for review.

[thegodfather]

But honestly, unless you are breaking the law, they are not going to waste their time listening to you tell your girl how much you love her........
Both of these systems rely on key-word association. So if you are in general conversation, they are not actually listening to you. If you say something like "blow up the nuke plant", the system will start to record and will be submitted for review.

Well we have no way of knowing in say this hypothetical situation...

Where two people are discussing a substance/drug that is illegal in the United States, and it has absolutely nothing to do what so ever with "terrorism/threats to the Homeland." And someone in the NSA or DHS, drops a phone call to the DEA and says "hey, check out these 2 guys." I have a SERIOUS problem with that, because that information was obtained in violation of both citizens inalienable rights, and it was obtained WITHOUT a warrant and under the GUISE of looking for terrorists.


I can easily see the system of warrantless wiretapping being abused in this way. And, we would have absolutely NO DOCUMENTED WAY to verify if such action had occured. It also brings such a huge temptation to agencies like the DEA, FBI, and ATF who need big busts to justify their big budgets, to call down to NSA & DHS and say "hey, look for these key words, thanks!"


You can attack my argument as purely hypothetical rhetoric, however you cant really deny that it is very possible and I would argue LIKELY, that the system would be abused in such a manner.

[Logan13]

Well we have no way of knowing in say this hypothetical situation...

Where two people are discussing a substance/drug that is illegal in the United States, and it has absolutely nothing to do what so ever with "terrorism/threats to the Homeland." And someone in the NSA or DHS, drops a phone call to the DEA and says "hey, check out these 2 guys." I have a SERIOUS problem with that, because that information was obtained in violation of both citizens inalienable rights, and it was obtained WITHOUT a warrant and under the GUISE of looking for terrorists.


I can easily see the system of warrantless wiretapping being abused in this way. And, we would have absolutely NO DOCUMENTED WAY to verify if such action had occured. It also brings such a huge temptation to agencies like the DEA, FBI, and ATF who need big busts to justify their big budgets, to call down to NSA & DHS and say "hey, look for these key words, thanks!"


You can attack my argument as purely hypothetical rhetoric, however you cant really deny that it is very possible and I would argue LIKELY, that the system would be abused in such a manner.

Your assumption is based the the idea that they have unlimited man-power. Common sense dictates otherwise.

[Kärnfysikern]

But honestly, unless you are breaking the law, they are not going to waste their time listening to you tell your girl how much you love her........
Both of these systems rely on key-word association. So if you are in general conversation, they are not actually listening to you. If you say something like "blow up the nuke plant", the system will start to record and will be submitted for review.

The problem is who decides what words are keywords. Since there is no public insight such a system can easily become corrupted and the privacy of people should not be decided by the whim of security agencies.

Do you really want to trust that no information obtained in such a way wont be used for other purposes than hunting terrorists?

[Logan13]

The problem is who decides what words are keywords. Since there is no public insight such a system can easily become corrupted and the privacy of people should not be decided by the whim of security agencies.

Do you really want to trust that no information obtained in such a way wont be used for other purposes than hunting terrorists?

common sense dictates which words.
I find it sad that you are willing to give Iran the benefit of doubt that since "they have not stated that their nuclear ambitions will be used for anything besides energy, we cannot assume that this is what it will be used for". Yet even though your gov't and the US say that these systems will only be used to target terrorists and such you do not give them any benefit of the doubt. I think that you need to be a little for consistent. What say ye? Can you explain your soft spot for a country who sponsers terrorism over your own country? Maybe you do need to be worried about these surveillance systems........

[Kärnfysikern]

common sense dictates which words.
I find it sad that you are willing to give Iran the benefit of doubt that since "they have not stated that their nuclear ambitions will be used for anything besides energy, we cannot assume that this is what it will be used for". Yet even though your gov't and the US say that these systems will only be used to target terrorists and such you do not give them any benefit of the doubt. I think that you need to be a little for consistent. What say ye? Can you explain your soft spot for a country who sponsers terrorism over your own country? Maybe you do need to be worried about these surveillance systems........

My beef with the Iran deal is that the world isnt consistent, Iran is complying with the NPT, if that isnt good enough we should change the NPT. If we are going to have a working global proliferation prevention the same rules must apply to all countries without exception and regardless of their political relations with the US.

I am all for changing the NPT btw in such a way so that situations like this doesnt happen.

When evidence is presented that shows Iran has a weapons program I will support any messure to prevent them. I am not giving Iran the benefit of a doubt, I belive they are up to something fishy. But my belife is not more important than internationall treaties.

When it comes to the surveillance it comes down to individuals. I do not trust that every individuall working with such a system is honorable, its a impossibility. Power is always abused. There is also the simple thing that anyone up to something bad will probably use encryption rendering the whole system completely and utterly useless in preventing terrorists. So the system is crap and it infringes upon individuals. The mere fact that they can read what I write is a insult towards my privacy. Its no different from opening my mail, would you agree if the post office started to open and read letters to se if anything illegal is written?

[alphaman]

The issue for me here is that even though it's likely that we can currently trust the government not to abuse these powers they've given themselves... by not standing up to this, we are allowing ourselves to become vulnerable to the abuse of these powers.

Why would we do that? It's against the Constitution and the intentions of the founders. Seems to me that this..... is common sense.

[thegodfather]

Yea...lets us not forget history... Hitler was an elected leader.

[Logan13]

My beef with the Iran deal is that the world isnt consistent, Iran is complying with the NPT, if that isnt good enough we should change the NPT. If we are going to have a working global proliferation prevention the same rules must apply to all countries without exception and regardless of their political relations with the US.

I am all for changing the NPT btw in such a way so that situations like this doesnt happen.

When evidence is presented that shows Iran has a weapons program I will support any messure to prevent them. I am not giving Iran the benefit of a doubt, I belive they are up to something fishy. But my belife is not more important than internationall treaties.

When it comes to the surveillance it comes down to individuals. I do not trust that every individuall working with such a system is honorable, its a impossibility. Power is always abused. There is also the simple thing that anyone up to something bad will probably use encryption rendering the whole system completely and utterly useless in preventing terrorists. So the system is crap and it infringes upon individuals. The mere fact that they can read what I write is a insult towards my privacy. Its no different from opening my mail, would you agree if the post office started to open and read letters to se if anything illegal is written?

all that typing and you still have not answered the question:
"Why do you give Iran more of a benfit of doubt than Sweden or the US?"

[Logan13]

Yea...lets us not forget history... Hitler was an elected leader.

And who is the "Hitler" of today that you seem so concerned about?

[Logan13]

The issue for me here is that even though it's likely that we can currently trust the government not to abuse these powers they've given themselves... by not standing up to this, we are allowing ourselves to become vulnerable to the abuse of these powers.

Why would we do that? It's against the Constitution and the intentions of the founders. Seems to me that this..... is common sense.

If anyone has read the FISA bill and Patriot Act, there would be no need to jump to conclusions. Everyone says that they have read it, perhaps it has more to do with the ability to grasp it's content in full.

[thegodfather]

If anyone has read the FISA bill and Patriot Act, there would be no need to jump to conclusions. Everyone says that they have read it, perhaps it has more to do with the ability to grasp it's content in full.

As I stated previously I have read it. Regardless of the wording used in it, it violates the 4th Amendment. There is no way around that fact. It does not matter if none of us are directly "affected" by it, meaning that we are jailed or investigated for some reason unrelated to terror. It is the principle, it violates the 4th Amendment, and therefore it is wrong. Government is supposed to be restrained so our rights are ensured. The government in this case is overstepping its boundaries. I'm having trouble comprehending why this is so hard to understand? There is no defense to violating Constitutional amendments. A law is invalid if it violates any of those 10 inalienable rights.

[Logan13]

As I stated previously I have read it. Regardless of the wording used in it, it violates the 4th Amendment. There is no way around that fact. It does not matter if none of us are directly "affected" by it, meaning that we are jailed or investigated for some reason unrelated to terror. It is the principle, it violates the 4th Amendment, and therefore it is wrong. Government is supposed to be restrained so our rights are ensured. The government in this case is overstepping its boundaries. I'm having trouble comprehending why this is so hard to understand? There is no defense to violating Constitutional amendments. A law is invalid if it violates any of those 10 inalienable rights.

You want to have the Patriot Act broken down and explained, visit the following website:
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/add_myths.htm

[Kärnfysikern]

all that typing and you still have not answered the question:
"Why do you give Iran more of a benfit of doubt than Sweden or the US?"

Its not about benifit of a doubt, it is about following the international treaties put into place. Its also that it is simply impossbible for Iran to build a bomb within a short timeframe with the equipment they have unless they are hiding huge installation somewhere, something no expert seems to belive. But if they are hiding installations the entire Iran discussion is moot because all talk is about the known installations.

When it comes to surveillande there is no doubt whatsoever that if there is no public insight the system WILL be abused. You said earlier that you break no law by posting here, well you aint breaking the law when discussing bombs either.

Yet you are willing to put anyone under surveillance because they say or write something someone higher up find suspicious and you dont have a problem with not having any insight whatsoever in that system.

Answere just this one question. Would you have no problem with the postoffice opening all your outgoing and incoming letters and packages just to make sure your not writing anything suspicious?

[RA]

This is just funny. We want our government to protect us from terrorists but we want to block any way for them to do so. Now we have security guards patting down little old ladies at the airport instead of arabs in their 30s. I completely understand not wanting the government to have too much power but we have to allow them to do their job. Otherwise the next time it might be 3 million instead of 3,000.

[Kärnfysikern]

I agree with that Roid, we just have to make sure that we focus on the right things and put the money and attention where its needed!

The internet surveillance in sweden is a prime example of a moronic thing to do. Any terrorist with half a brain cell will simply download some free encryption program and that renders the whole surveillance ineffective. Total waste of money and manpower for a infinitesimal gain in security.

Two examples in the US is the shitty harbor security, you could probably smuggle 15 nukes in containerships without anyone knowing and the shitty mexican border security. All the attention on wiretaps and monitoring phone calls just brings away attention from the BIG security gaps.

[Panzerfaust]

If you are not discussing how to blow up a building, you have nothing to worry about. Can you give me an example of how someone that you know was "wronged" by the FISA bill, or the Patriot Act itself? I say that you can not....so what is your point?

You know I honestly have to believe you just type this kind of ****ing bullshit just to piss people off. If not, you are no more an American than a ****ing Iraqi terrorist.

WTF is wrong with you? You would give away a little freedom for security, that is plain to see. People like you do not deserve either freedom or security.

Any American with goddamn common sense should be able to see what kind of freedom bills like this trample on.

The old "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I don't care" attitude is exactly what has allowed this shit to go on for years.

The principal of the idea is what is wrong, YOU can easily be considered a "terrorist" just so they can monitor your calls etc...If you believe for one second that you are exempt from this type of treatment because you are doing nothing wrong, you are a fool.

I used to have this attitude as well, but now that I have tried to educate myself on our rights as Americans, it has hit me like a ton of bricks to finally wakeup and realise just how far they have gone at destroying our civil liberties.

This "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I don't care" attitude has got to ****ing stop. Quit playing their game people. Unfortunately for them, they do need US to cooperate with them. Fortunately for us, we can stand together and with our sheer numbers change this country. One person cannot stand up and shout "Change"..but if 1 million + stand up and shout...that will get some attention.

First we need to continue to wake people up.

[Logan13]

Its not about benifit of a doubt, it is about following the international treaties put into place. Its also that it is simply impossbible for Iran to build a bomb within a short timeframe with the equipment they have unless they are hiding huge installation somewhere, something no expert seems to belive. But if they are hiding installations the entire Iran discussion is moot because all talk is about the known installations.

When it comes to surveillande there is no doubt whatsoever that if there is no public insight the system WILL be abused. You said earlier that you break no law by posting here, well you aint breaking the law when discussing bombs either.

Yet you are willing to put anyone under surveillance because they say or write something someone higher up find suspicious and you dont have a problem with not having any insight whatsoever in that system.

Answere just this one question. Would you have no problem with the postoffice opening all your outgoing and incoming letters and packages just to make sure your not writing anything suspicious?

I will not answer a "what if" theoretical question. This is not the case, so it has no bearing on the discussion. The fact that you are so concerned about all of the hypotheticals is what I find alarming.

[Panzerfaust]

This is just funny. We want our government to protect us from terrorists but we want to block any way for them to do so. Now we have security guards patting down little old ladies at the airport instead of arabs in their 30s. I completely understand not wanting the government to have too much power but we have to allow them to do their job. Otherwise the next time it might be 3 million instead of 3,000.

This makes me realise just how much work this new movement of waking people up has to do.

This is not going to be easy. *sighs*

[Logan13]

You know I honestly have to believe you just type this kind of ****ing bullshit just to piss people off. If not, you are no more an American than a ****ing Iraqi terrorist.

WTF is wrong with you? You would give away a little freedom for security, that is plain to see. People like you do not deserve either freedom or security.

Any American with goddamn common sense should be able to see what kind of freedom bills like this trample on.

The old "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I don't care" attitude is exactly what has allowed this shit to go on for years.

The principal of the idea is what is wrong, YOU can easily be considered a "terrorist" just so they can monitor your calls etc...If you believe for one second that you are exempt from this type of treatment because you are doing nothing wrong, you are a fool.

I used to have this attitude as well, but now that I have tried to educate myself on our rights as Americans, it has hit me like a ton of bricks to finally wakeup and realise just how far they have gone at destroying our civil liberties.

This "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I don't care" attitude has got to ****ing stop. Quit playing their game people. Unfortunately for them, they do need US to cooperate with them. Fortunately for us, we can stand together and with our sheer numbers change this country. One person cannot stand up and shout "Change"..but if 1 million + stand up and shout...that will get some attention.

First we need to continue to wake people up.

For some reason, you seem to believe that the gov't has thousands of people working on this surveliance. I am here to tell you that THEY DO NOT. I always wonder why some people worry so much about this, either they have something to worry about or they are simply conspiracy theorists to the end. Which one are you? Brush up on what these bills actually say on the following site.
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/add_myths.htm

[Panzerfaust]

At this rate, Logan will be first in line to get his new RFID chip. I mean they are only doing it to help us, it will be so much easier for all of our info and money to be on the chip than in a bank account somewhere etc.

I wonder if this guy was anxious to get his ID?



I'm sure he thought "Awe..they cannot do that to us"...I guess he knows now doesn't he.

[Logan13]

At this rate, Logan will be first in line to get his new RFID chip.

I wonder if this guy was anxious to get his ID?



I'm sure he thought "Awe..they cannot do that to us"...I guess he knows now doesn't he.

"Tin Foil hat area"

[RA]

Yeah, everyone talks about Mexico but harbor security is very lax.

I do think this wiretapping is very important though. As said above its been going on for a very long time and has been responsible for stopping major attacks on the US.

I agree with that Roid, we just have to make sure that we focus on the right things and put the money and attention where its needed!

The internet surveillance in sweden is a prime example of a moronic thing to do. Any terrorist with half a brain cell will simply download some free encryption program and that renders the whole surveillance ineffective. Total waste of money and manpower for a infinitesimal gain in security.

Two examples in the US is the shitty harbor security, you could probably smuggle 15 nukes in containerships without anyone knowing and the shitty mexican border security. All the attention on wiretaps and monitoring phone calls just brings away attention from the BIG security gaps.

[Kärnfysikern]

I will not answer a "what if" theoretical question. This is not the case, so it has no bearing on the discussion. The fact that you are so concerned about all of the hypotheticals is what I find alarming.

So you dont se the symmetri if the situation. What is the difference betwen a email and a posted letter. None at al. I require the same privacy with my emails that I do from my "real" mail.

The fact that you seem completely unable to answere questions about analogus situations is a bit odd.

Once again, how do you prevent a system from becoming corrupt if there is no public insight?

[Logan13]

So you dont se the symmetri if the situation. What is the difference betwen a email and a posted letter. None at al. I require the same privacy with my emails that I do from my "real" mail.

The fact that you seem completely unable to answere questions about analogus situations is a bit odd.

Once again, how do you prevent a system from becoming corrupt if there is no public insight?

Again, I have no time to debate the theoretical.

[Kärnfysikern]

This is completely ridiculous. You are more than willing to discuss the theoretical possibility that Iran might build a nuke, but you are unwilling to discuss why emails should be checked but not ordinary letters.

[thegodfather]

I will not answer a "what if" theoretical question. This is not the case, so it has no bearing on the discussion. The fact that you are so concerned about all of the hypotheticals is what I find alarming.

It is not a theoretical question really... Your ELECTRONIC MAIL is mail, no different than if it was written on paper and you put a stamp on it. You have the exact same expectation of privacy in that correspondance as you do in other correspondance. You have one intended recipient, and if any 3rd party violates that privacy, they need to do so following due process of law with a warrant, as is clearly stated in the 4th Amendment.

[RA]

If you speak in platitudes I cant really respond. Reminds me of an Obama speech.

This makes me realise just how much work this new movement of waking people up has to do.

This is not going to be easy. *sighs*

[thegodfather]

And who is the "Hitler" of today that you seem so concerned about?

That is an impossible question to answer without my crystal ball, and Miss Cleo is serving a stint in the pen right now. I'm no more able to answer that, than the people who elected Hitlers party into office were able to predict at that time. No one could forsee such a thing coming, to that magnitude at least.

[SMCengineer]

Once again, how do you prevent a system from becoming corrupt if there is no public insight?

This is what I have a problem with as well. Assuming the current administration doesn't violate any civil liberities, who will gurantee that any subsequent administration will not abuse this power especially considering we are heading into leftist territory?

This is just funny. We want our government to protect us from terrorists but we want to block any way for them to do so. Now we have security guards patting down little old ladies at the airport instead of arabs in their 30s. I completely understand not wanting the government to have too much power but we have to allow them to do their job. Otherwise the next time it might be 3 million instead of 3,000.

Your impling that we had no intelligence before 9-11, which is not true. The problem is not the lack of intelligence, but the lack of analytical capabilities.

[RA]

Your impling that we had no intelligence before 9-11, which is not true. The problem is not the lack of intelligence, but the lack of analytical capabilities.

I didnt imply that at all. I implied that the more we hamstring the govt the more likely that a terrorist plot will be successful.