Bush trying to get immunity for telecom companies wiretapping

Become a part of the TranceAddict community!

Frequently Asked Questions - Please read this if you haven't

TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Bush trying to get immunity for telecom companies wiretapping

Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Last Thread Next Thread

Author

Thread

MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City

Bush trying to get immunity for telecom companies wiretapping

So our fearless leader is pulling hard to have our spineless Democratic majority Congress to give immunity to telecom companies for their part in illegally wiretapping all these years:

quote:
Bush seeks to grant immunity
Verizon, AT&T face privacy suits for helping White House eavesdrop
The Associated Press
Updated: 3:35 p.m. CT Aug 31, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration wants the power to grant legal immunity to telecommunications companies that are slapped with privacy suits for cooperating with the White House’s controversial warrantless eavesdropping program.

The authority would effectively shut down dozens of lawsuits filed against telecommunications companies accused of helping set up the program.

The vaguely worded proposal would shield any person who allegedly provided information, infrastructure or “any other form of assistance” to the intelligence agencies after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. It covers any classified communications activity intended to protect the country from terrorism.

Republicans say immunity is necessary to protect the companies that responded to legal presidential orders to thwart terrorists in the years after 9/11. Yet some Democrats fear the administration’s proposal would do much more than advertised, potentially protecting anyone who gave broad categories of aid to the government as part of a spy program that monitors communications.

Because the administration does not want to identify which companies participated in the operations, it is asking Congress to let the attorney general intervene on behalf of any person or company accused of participating in the surveillance work, whether or not they actually did, two senior Justice Department officials said.

More than a dozen government officials interviewed for this story spoke on condition they not be identified because sensitive negotiations with Congress are ongoing.

Suits may bankrupt companies
One of the officials said the defendants in suits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union — Verizon and AT&T — would be the key beneficiaries of the proposed legislation. Both companies are a central part of the U.S. communications grid, running networks that transmit both telephone calls and e-mails.

There is a divide among Capitol Hill’s majority Democrats about whether the companies deserve any protection. Some believe they were operating in good faith, on orders that appeared to be lawful. Others believe lawyers at the companies had a responsibility to ensure the requests weren’t an abuse of presidential power.

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell considers the issue a key element of any legislation that Congress considers this fall to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA.

Trying to make his point, McConnell recently confirmed that the private sector assisted with the surveillance work — and faces lawsuits. “If you play out the suits at the value they’re claimed, it would bankrupt these companies,” McConnell told the El Paso (Texas) Times in an interview posted online last week.

The companies could face civil penalties of at least $1,000 per customer, for a total that would reach well into the billions.

Democrats say McConnell’s first draft of the immunity proposal is far too murky. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., an intelligence committee member, fears the language would go far beyond protecting private companies and their employees, also giving cover to any government officials who may have broken the law.

“I and others are going to make sure that anything that is done is done in a narrow, targeted way,” Wyden said.

Missouri Sen. Kit Bond, the intelligence committee’s top Republican, said, “The only question here is whether we should provide full liability protection to those companies that are alleged to have assisted the government in protecting the United States. The answer is a resounding ‘yes.”’

Legal battle brews
In the weeks after 9/11, the White House launched a new surveillance program that allowed the National Security Agency to monitor communications between people in the United States and others overseas when terrorism was suspected. With legal directives in hand, the government asked a narrow group of telecommunications carriers to participate in a program.

Conventional wisdom has long been that the bulk of the surveillance operations — groundbreaking because they lacked judicial oversight — involved primarily telephone calls. However, officials say the Bush administration’s program frequently went after e-mail and other Internet traffic, which al-Qaida has embraced as a key means of communication.

After the highly classified operations became public in 2005, a wave of lawsuits was filed, including cases against AT&T and Verizon, two telecommunications providers alleged to have participated. The legal battles gave the telecommunications industry pause, government officials said.

David S. Kris, former associate deputy attorney general for national security issues, said the debate over immunity raises a broad policy question: “To what extent is the private sector supposed to be a check on government power?”

Answering that question is difficult, he said, because lawmakers and the public don’t know exactly how the government crafted its request for cooperation. “If the attorney general says, ’Your country needs you to do this to save lives,’ that may generate some sympathy for a company that cooperates,” Kris said.

Congress to debate surveillance
How the government conducts surveillance during national security investigations is expected to be a leading issue when the Democratic-controlled Congress returns next week and contemplates changes to FISA.

Before leaving for an August recess lawmakers approved significant, but temporary, amendments to the law that governs when and how the government can conduct intelligence surveillance on U.S. soil. Many Democrats felt they were railroaded into a faulty law by Republicans who insisted on action because of heightened concerns about possible terror attacks.

Lawmakers will have to decide what, if any, changes to make permanent. The administration also plans to demand that telecommunications immunity is part of the debate.

Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who has been briefed on the NSA’s surveillance work, said she’s open to a provision that would protect those who in good faith believed they were complying with the law. But “just adding on more ways in which this administration can police itself and make good on whatever deals it has made with the private sector, I think will not be supported in Congress,” she said.

The temporary changes to FISA, which will remain in effect until February unless they are changed earlier, limits how often the government has to go to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to get approvals for surveillance.

They say the government doesn’t need the court’s OK to monitor foreign suspects in national security investigations when the suspects are talking to Americans. Nor does the government need a court warrant to monitor conversations between two foreigners when the eavesdropping is done on communications that use U.S. networks.

A valid security purpose?
Republicans and the Bush administration continue to argue that the changes were necessary because the law wasn’t keeping up with technology, the Justice Department was wasting precious hours on paperwork, and the secretive FISA court that oversees the law was overworked.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who presided over the 11-member FISA court from 1995 to 2002, believes judges play an important part of the process.

The value added by having judges in the process “is that we recognize the rights of the person who is not represented,” said Lamberth, who continues to follow FISA matters. “We’re ensuring there is some valid national security purpose. I don’t know why you wouldn’t want that value added.”

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20535385/

Unfortunately, this issue is a bit complicated. I mentioned here about a Democrat on the 9/11 Commission lobbying the Democrats in Congress hard as hell with her obvious ties to the telecom industries.

And it goes further down the rabbit hole than that. One of the telecom companies, Qwest, decided not to play ball with Bush on illegally wiretapping because, well, they believed it was illegal. So what did Qwest get in return?

Your typical retaliation by the well politicized DoJ:

quote:
The National Security Agency and other government agencies retaliated against Qwest because the Denver telco refused to go along with a phone spying program, documents released Wednesday suggest.

The documents indicate that likely would have been at the heart of former CEO Joe Nacchio's so-called "classified information" defense at his insider trading trial, had he been allowed to present it.

The secret contracts - worth hundreds of millions of dollars - made Nacchio optimistic about Qwest's future, even as his staff was warning him the company might not make its numbers, Nacchio's defense attorneys have maintained. But Nacchio didn't present that argument at trial.

The documents suggest U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham refused to allow Nacchio to present the argument about retaliation. Nottingham also said Nacchio would have to take the stand to raise the classified defense.

Prosecutors have said they were prepared to poke holes in Nacchio's classified defense.

Nacchio was convicted last spring on 19 counts of insider trading for $52 million of stock sales in April and May 2001, and sentenced to six years in prison. He's free pending appeal.

The partially redacted documents were filed under seal before, during and after Nacchio's trial. They were released Wednesday.

Nacchio planned to demonstrate at trial that he had a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, at NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Md., to discuss a $100 million project. According to the documents, another topic also was discussed at that meeting, one with which Nacchio refused to comply.

The topic itself is redacted each time it appears in the hundreds of pages of documents, but there is mention of Nacchio believing the request was both inappropriate and illegal, and repeatedly refusing to go along with it.

The NSA contract was awarded in July 2001 to companies other than Qwest.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr...5719566,00.html

Here's the kicker in case you missed it - all this bullshit occurred BEFORE 9/11.

That's right, kiddies. All that wonderful talk about "these wiretaps occurred because of 9/11", and "because we don't want to have another 9/11" is nothing shy of a fucking propaganda farce:

quote:
Nacchio's account, which places the NSA proposal at a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The Sept. 11 attacks have been cited by the government as the main impetus for its warrantless surveillance efforts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...101202485.html?

And if you think Qwest is the only company out there on the island depicting this shit happening before 9/11, well they weren't alone:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/20...-ceo-not-a.html

Our spineless Dems. capitulated once already back in August giving Bush everything he wanted because they have no backbone to stand up to his fearmongering bullshit:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20998206/site/newsweek/

It appears at least right now that they're showing signs of life by standing up to Bush this time around:

quote:
I’m not for blanket immunity until we understand what the program has been about. The day will come, maybe in my lifetime or later, when we’ll finally figure out what the Bush administration has been up to these years with this secret program.

I don’t want the embarrassment of history coming back saying what were they thinking of in Congress to give blanket immunity when they didn’t even know the circumstances.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...5mVo&refer=home

In all likelihood, they'll probably cave again because, let's face it, that's what they do best. But here's to hoping......

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Oct-13-2007 23:12 United States

Click here to Send MisterOpus1 a Private Message

MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City

A question continues to swirl around in my mind every time I read about this situation:

If no one did anything wrong, why seek retroactive immunity?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Oct-13-2007 23:26 United States

LatinLover
Bad Boy 4 Life

Registered: Oct 2006
Location: Medellin, Colombia/ Miami, FL

I have been posing this question for sometime. The 9/11 hijackers communicated with fellow al qaeda members, especially in Germany before they arrived to the US, via telephone, internet or any other high tech communication system to plot the 9/11 attacks and to obtain info.

Now, its illegal in this country to trace these terrorist and disrupt their communication system because is a privacy concern
I mean if you are not calling a jihadist group you shouldnt be worried Im sure MisterOpus1, every time makes a call is worried that the FBI or CIA is hearing his conversation over how many men he had the previous night.

This congress must get work on real issues and let the agencies use these tools to trace down terrorist. How can we possibly protect America if we dont have the tools to obtain crucial information? Someone please answer that one

___________________

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton

College tuition should be free, so should healthcare.

Oct-14-2007 01:13 United States

Click here to Send LatinLover a Private Message

Trancer-X
mutatis mutandis

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Shambhala

Oct-14-2007 01:19 United States

Click here to Send Trancer-X a Private Message

eROs.au
Chuck Bass

Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Upper East Side

If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about!

___________________

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
dont argue with the yanks nutter, they know best!

Oct-14-2007 01:29 Australia

Click here to Send eROs.au a Private Message

Trancer-X
mutatis mutandis

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Shambhala

quote:
Originally posted by eROs.au
If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about!

I thought that they already came up with another Godwin type of law regarding that naively uttered, hackneyed phrase but I guess I was wrong.

I'm happy that I found this, though:

quote:
If You're Not Doing Something Wrong, You Still Have Something To Worry About
from the good-answer dept

We're still waiting for a good answer to the question we asked a few months ago for a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law]Godwin's Law[/url]-like name for the assertion that in any discussion about expansions of government surveillance, the longer the discussion goes, the more likely it is that someone will say "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." While the concept still doesn't have a name, Bruce Schneier has written up a scathing rebuttal to anyone who utters the phrase, noting that privacy is not about hiding a "wrong," but about the basic human concept of liberty. In a world where your every movement is watched, it's always easy for the watchers to abuse that info, either by defining what's wrong (which can change rapidly), or simply by using that info to embarrass or blackmail a person -- even if the actions are perfectly legitimate. With that in mind, people act very differently under constant surveillance. They are not free to be themselves -- even if they're not doing anything "wrong." So, the answer to the question of what are you worried about is simple. It's the loss of basic human freedom and liberty.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060518/1129253.shtml

quote:
Security Matters

Politics : Security
The Eternal Value of Privacy
Bruce Schneier 05.18.06 | 2:00 AM

The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.

Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." Watch someone long enough, and you'll find something to arrest -- or just blackmail -- with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies -- whoever they happen to be at the time.

Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.

We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need.

A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call out privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of their being and their cause. Of course being watched in your own home was unreasonable. Watching at all was an act so unseemly as to be inconceivable among gentlemen in their day. You watched convicted criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It's intrinsic to the concept of liberty.

For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable.

How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered.

This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And it's our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives.

Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.

- - -
Bruce Schneier is the CTO of Counterpane Internet Security and the author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World. You can contact him through his website

http://www.wired.com/politics/secur...s/2006/05/70886

Last edited by Trancer-X on Oct-14-2007 at 01:54

Oct-14-2007 01:48 United States

Krypton
83.798 g/6.022x10^23

Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Texas

quote:
Originally posted by eROs.au & latinlover
If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about!

WRONG!

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security." Ben Franklin

You people need to study the constitution, and seriously study on the views of the founding fathers. Equal rights for life, liberty, and private property. You people need to get these concepts into your heads. And then watch as these concepts slowly evaporate under increasingly larger and larger government, contrary to the views of the founding fathers.

___________________

Oct-14-2007 04:52 Korea-Democratic Peoples Republic

Click here to Send Krypton a Private Message

MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City

quote:
Originally posted by LatinLover
I have been posing this question for sometime. The 9/11 hijackers communicated with fellow al qaeda members, especially in Germany before they arrived to the US, via telephone, internet or any other high tech communication system to plot the 9/11 attacks and to obtain info.

Now, its illegal in this country to trace these terrorist and disrupt their communication system because is a privacy concern

Actually that's not illegal at all, nor has it ever been illegal to trace calls of suspected terrorists making calls overseas, INCLUDING non-citizens like the ones you describe.

quote:
I mean if you are not calling a jihadist group you shouldnt be worried

The principles of our country's Constitution and the framing of our forefathers would tend to highly disagree with you, specifically regarding the 4th Amendment. You might try and read up on it every now and then.

quote:
I'm sure MisterOpus1, every time makes a call is worried that the FBI or CIA is hearing his conversation over how many men he had the previous night.

Is this supposed to be an insult to homosexuality? Or is it that darn superior intellect on full display?

I wonder why you think it's appropriate to insult homosexuality? Is that supposed to show how much of a REAL man you are? Pretty unfortunate to see your insecurities out like that. You know what the statistics are of individuals like yourself who try to bash gays are actually tend to have homosexual tendencies of their own, don't you?

In any case, I doubt too many individuals here would consider your deliberate slander of gays to really support your quick return to this board.

quote:
This congress must get work on real issues and let the agencies use these tools to trace down terrorist.

The agencies (NSA) and the Administration never had a problem with FISA up until they got caught circumventing it.

quote:
How can we possibly protect America if we dont have the tools to obtain crucial information? Someone please answer that one

Sure thing, champ. Here's an example of just how much you're talking right out of your asscrack. In June, 2002, Republican Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio introduced a bill (S.2659) that would have eliminated a barrier of "probable cause" within the current FISA laws to a "reasonable suspicion":

quote:
to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to modify the standard of proof for issuance of orders regarding non-United States persons from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. . . .

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s2659.html

This is a pretty substantial change because it would have moved the rationale to wiretap to a mere suspicion of a terrorist over the phone. And yet when given this gift by a REPUBLICAN lawmaker, what did Bush's Dept. of Justice lawyer say about the current laws back then in 2002?:

quote:
The reforms in those measures (the PATRIOT Act) have affected every single application made by the Department for electronic surveillance or physical search of suspected terrorists and have enabled the government to become quicker, more flexible, and more focused in going "up" on those suspected terrorists in the United States.

One simple but important change that Congress made was to lengthen the time period for us to bring to court applications in support of Attorney General-authorized emergency FISAs. This modification has allowed us to make full and effective use of FISA's pre-existing emergency provisions to ensure that the government acts swiftly to respond to terrorist threats. Again, we are grateful for the tools Congress provided us last fall for the fight against terrorism. Thank you.

And how about what he said SPECIFICALLY in regards to the gift that DeWine was going to give this Administration?:

quote:
The Department of Justice has been studying Sen. DeWine's proposed legislation. Because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues, the Administration at this time is not prepared to support it.

Well how about that, gay-basher? The Administration really kinda liked the FISA laws as they were, huh? Strange that.

What else did they have to say about it?

quote:
The practical concern involves an assessment of whether the current "probable cause" standard has hamstrung our ability to use FISA surveillance to protect our nation. We have been aggressive in seeking FISA warrants and, thanks to Congress's passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, we have been able to use our expanded FISA tools more effectively to combat terrorist activities. It may not be the case that the probable cause standard has caused any difficulties in our ability to seek the FISA warrants we require, and we will need to engage in a significant review to determine the effect a change in the standard would have on our ongoing operations. If the current standard has not posed an obstacle, then there may be little to gain from the lower standard and, as I previously stated, perhaps much to lose.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/200...73102baker.html

What was that?:

quote:
It may not be the case that the probable cause standard has caused any difficulties in our ability to seek the FISA warrants we require,

Oh.

So, wait, you mean to tell me that this Administration claimed that they actually DID have the tools they needed to fight terrorists and didn't need to amend the FISA laws when they had the chance?

Well how 'bout that?

Not only that, but the Republican-led Congress refused to pass that legislation of DeWine's amendment as well.

How 'bout that also?

And just in case you don't know (it's a pretty good guess you don't), we actually DID amend FISA after 9/11 via the Patriot Act in Section 218 which made it easier to introduce evidence obtained through a FISA warrant. More can be read here:

http://www.patriotdebates.com/act-section-218/

and here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2088106/

So to summarize:

1. We made it easier for Bush to obtain warrants through FISA courts via the Patriot Act, and he STILL circumvented the FISA courts

2. DeWine a Republican Senator tried to make it easier still for Bush, but Bush's Dept. of Justice turned that down as did DeWine's Republican-led Congress

FISA laws are made heavily in favor for an Administration to obtain their warrants. Historically few warrants have been denied because of this reason. Furthermore, a 72-hr retroactive time period is given to the Administration so they can start the tap and have up to 3-days to later justify why they're tapping.

Yet with all this, Bush decided to circumvent.

Your argument falls flat on your face. Here's your opportunity to show us all your incredible debating skills you've talked about for so long. Address these counterarguments made to your bullshit, Latin. And try to do so without insulting those individuals who have a same-sex sexual orientation between two consenting adults.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Oct-14-2007 05:39 United States

eROs.au
Chuck Bass

Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Upper East Side

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
WRONG!

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security." Ben Franklin

You people need to study the constitution, and seriously study on the views of the founding fathers. Equal rights for life, liberty, and private property. You people need to get these concepts into your heads. And then watch as these concepts slowly evaporate under increasingly larger and larger government, contrary to the views of the founding fathers.

Whoops, I was being sarcastic

___________________

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
dont argue with the yanks nutter, they know best!

Oct-14-2007 05:50 Australia

MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City

quote:
Originally posted by eROs.au
If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about!

So, you're assuming that we should take the government at it's word, then? If we take your argument further, then why have the Bill of Rights at all? We need nothing written down in stated laws - rather, we just need to trust that all of our rights are protected.

Here, try reading one of our forefathers in Federalist #48:

quote:
"power is of an encroaching nature, and ... it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it."

.....[A] mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands,"

http://elsinore.cis.yale.edu/lawweb...deral/fed48.htm

I'm sorry, but I tend to want evidence that the government is NOT infringing on our civil liberties before I starting trusting them with it, ESPECIALLY when their asses just got caught fucking with them.

And when has it ever been okay for you to have a government break laws? Funny, I could have sworn that our President put his hand on the Bible and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution?

Out of curiousity, would you ever want someone like Hillary wiretapping your phones? If not, why not?

Added in Edit: Just caught your prior post about your sarcasm. My apologies for not catching that. I'll leave this post not so much to address you personally, but to address the common sentiment from Bush supporters.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Oct-14-2007 05:51 United States