In Defense of Obama Keeping Domestic Wiretapping Capabilities.

[Blue State Bandit]

Now I know that this will not be popular here, but I feel that the situation demands it.

Early on, in the winter of 2007, when it became public knowledge that the Bush administration had set up a domestic eavesdropping program, many here were not surprised. I for one had been pulling my punches, choosing my words very carefully, out of a justified fear that I could become a target of political prosecution or persecution.

Does anyone else see a correlation between the political capabilities of the republican party before and after the public disclosure of the warrantless wiretapping programs? They have been off message ever since that bombshell.

In my critiques of these programs, I have always felt, and occasionally expressed, that I would have less of a problem with such programs if I felt that I could trust my government not to missus such capabilities. Such programs, buttressed with proper oversight and durable safeguards, are an unfortunate necessity in my eyes considering the security challenges America faces.

But the threats that I see today are far greater that simply just the external threat posed by Al-Qaeda; the Bushies "justification" for these programs.

Since the election of Barack Obama, there has been a growing internal threat to this country. From financial crimes costing us trillions of dollars, and war profiteering, to right-wing militias and vague threats of violent uprisings by sore losers and media pundits, we (and by we, I mean factions within our own communities) have become just a much of a threat to ourselves as could any other external force; be they state or non-state actors.

Who here thinks that a traditional wiretap warrant could be kept secret from any target of the former PNAC? How about keeping it from Karl Rove?

When you have Glen Beck reading from the same script as Newt Gingrich, and Bush/Cheney moles roaming the halls of the DoD and the DoJ, how do we propose saving our republic from the barbarians who are already past the gates?

If anyone here ever wants to see these people frog marched for crimes like treason, domestic propaganda, political prosecutions, perjury, torture, blackmail, ect... we need to give Obama some leeway here.

They call us commie. They call us socialists. They call us totalitarians. They call us fascists. Many of the reasons promoted by these crazies are the laundry list of projects and policies put in place by their beloved Bush administration and the republican party leadership, and promoted by the think tanks and pundits that now proclaim that they are all doomed to be the victims of "our fascist tendencies".

Disagree with me if you like, I'm man enough to take the heat. But I'm not ready for Obama to give up these capabilities... yet.

[JuniperLea]

1. Funny you should mention...

The SO and I were just discussing this. Slow and easy does it, and Obama is known for his slow and easy. We know what BushCo did on the surface, but that's it. Who knows what lurks. I hope he uses it to spy on the BushCo alumni before he pulls the plug.

He has a lot on his plate. I'm learning to be patient whilst keeping my eyes open.

[peace13]

2. You will never convince me.

The spying is bull. We have a Constitution. We have time to get warrants after the taps if necessary. * was a thief and a thug. Nothing good will come of this continued invasion of the American people.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. +1!

[omega minimo]

5. +2 seems the OP doesn't understand the "the warrantless wiretapping programs"

and how they weren't necessary -- except for criminal behavior by those charged with upholding the law of the land.


:evilfrown:

[Blue State Bandit]

50. Capabilities... not programs. Read article.

Does anyone give a shit about reading anymore?

[Blue State Bandit]

12. I understand.

I'm more concerned with the actual capabilities. I'm all for finding a legal use for the infrastructure already in place. Then slowly pulling the plug.

What you describe is a FISA warrant. That's a legit use. If it's use in a case against non-state actors against the U.S. Constitution, say, KBR, or Citi Group, or even FOX, who's "news" outlet act's as if it were a sovereign state, could not a FISA warrant be issued?

[MadHound]

15. You can't take out a warrant against a group, only individuals

Dude, give it the fuck up, you don't even know the law that you're wanting to break. Give it up, and frankly let me have my Constitution back.

[Blue State Bandit]

49. And you don't understand my argument.

If you look at what were up against, like the recruiting of Ron Paul supporters by groups like resistance(dot)org, or TARP money being used to organize "Tea Parties" like the one in Cleavland, where the protesters stayed at the Westin Hotel, or the black mailing of the President over the release of torture memos, you will realize that somebody already shredded our constitution. We can put it back together again, but you can't wave a magic wand and put it back together again in one stroke. It will take time. Time that is threatened by the same people who brought you Bush Inc.

President Obama has enough real trouble in the world without the "wing nuts" being spoon fed pablum by "patriotic Americans" being whipped into a frenzy by people like these from the back rooms of Washington DC and New York, these are the same people pushing the idea that "President Obama is going to confiscate their guns" and put everyone into "Fema detention camps" etc.

They also push the "Tea Party" idea quite fervently on this http://www.sbpublicaffairs.com/">site. At what point does "free speech" become "incite to riot" where does the line get drawn? They are not yelling the "building is on fire" but this comes awfully close.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/8/717787/-Who-is-behind-the-hannity-and-friends-resistance-movement">Who is behind the hannity and friends resistance movement?

Friends, some former Ron Paul supporters are now being courted by "radicals" stressing a new revolution of working class Americans against Obama and his big business supporters. www.resistnet(dot)org is one of their biggest voices. In truth, our heroic gun totin' woodsmen are actually following Washington DC public relations firm Shirley & Bannister public affairs, a front group for the Bush family and the insurance industry.

The "tough guys" being organized into Milita units to march on Washington DC are being led by a front group funded by Westinghouse Corporation, Prudential Insurance, AETNA Insurance, the DuPont family, the Forbes family, McDonald Douglas, nuclear power plant builders and about a hundred groups made up of Washington lawyers and lobbyists.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5745">veteranstoday.com

These guys are not fellow travelers, they are the hanging chads of the American Dream, dooming us to hell.

I'm sorry, but if you want to catch the snake, you might have to get down in the dirt. If ya hadn't let it out in the first place, we wouldn't have a problem, would we?

Edited to remove link to resistince(dot)org.

And try reading my other responses.

[EFerrari]

4. When you break the law to save the law, you've already lost.

[slipslidingaway]

6. knr :) n/t

[fascisthunter]

14. +4

[ixion]

7. "Those who would trade Liberty for security deserve neither"

It is unconstitutional, and it needs to go, like so many other unconstitutional things our government is doing these days.

[MadHound]

8. I don't know how to put this one in a kind or gentle manner, so I'll just let it rip

You sir, are an anti-American fascist who is just as bad as the loonies you profess to hate. There is no, none, zip, zero, nada justification for warrantless wiretapping, and the fact that you try to use the Republicans and the right wing to try and gin up one simply goes to show how far fucking out there you are.

You state that you held your punches when Bushco is in office, well just what, I can guaran goddamn tee you that another Republican is going to be in office within eight years. You state that since you believe that a wiretap warrant is worthless anyway, why bother. BECAUSE IT SAYS SO IN THE GODDAMN CONSTITUTION, WHAT, DO WANT TO THROW THAT ENTIRE DOCUMENT IN THE SHITCAN ALSO? You imply that you trust the Obama administration with this extra-legal power. Frankly anybody who trusts any government to not abuse such power is a fool and an idiot.

We have a Constitution for a reason, to protect us from the excesses of government. The fact that you are so willing to give those away says lots about you, and none of it good. There is absolutely no justification, especially in light of how easy it is to get a FISA warant, to condone any warrantless wiretapping, especially by doing so you are advancing us further down a slippery slope that we've already slid way too far down anyway. Your sentiments are an anathema to the values that this country was founded on, and frankly you should be ashamed of yourself. There are many fine countries out there that enjoy none of the Constitutional guarantees that we have in this country. I suggest that you go find one to live in while the rest of us attempt to salvage our country and Constitution from the wreck of the past eight years because "help" like yours we can do without.

[G_j]

17. unless, of course,

the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

[MadHound]

20. The thing is, the Constitution isn't "just a piece of paper"

It is the bedrock upon which this country is built.

[G_j]

23. just quoting W

yes, the Constitution represents our highest ideals, and embodies the optimism that the people can continually evolve to live up to those ideals. I love the Constitution for it's fairness and innate optimism.

[MadHound]

24. I know that, I'm just making that point perfectly clear for people like the OP

Who seem to think that it's OK for us to give up our Constitutional rights, just so long as a Democrat is in charge.

[Blue State Bandit]

27. People like me? You sound like Glen Beck.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5417153&mesg_id=5417686">CAPABILITIES!

When surrounded by international corporations who respect no state, little law, other than those they paid for, and their benefactors are raving and plotting to bring down said democrat in charge, I can only see one face. John F. Kennedy.

So you go ahead and flame at the mouth, but I'm willing to throw down my 1000th post accumulated since the summer of 2005 on something that has riped me apart enough...

[G_j]

28. why bother?

what is a Democrat without the Constitution?

[MadHound]

29. Is that the best defense of your vile proposition that you can offer, compare me to Beck

You sir are full of it. You come waltzing in here stating that it's just fine to trample the Constitution because *gasp* we've got to protect ourselves from internal enemies (talk about souding like a right wing mouthfrother:eyes:), and besides, it's a Democrat, we can trust him.

I said my full piece to you in my OP above, but I will repeat this with relish. If you don't like living in a country that has the full rights and protections that the Constitution offers, there are many fine countries that you can move to where they will happily trample all over them for you, I suggest you start packing, because it is idiot views like yours that slow down our efforts to repair the damage done by Bushco and restore the Constitution to its rightful place.

[Blue State Bandit]

35. So multi-national organizations...

acting against the state while hiding behind the tax code equivalent of an American citizen could not be enough reason for Obama to have some time to understand what was taking place before pulling the plug?

While you and your budds were busy taring up my birth certificate, Roger Ailes, and Rupert Murdock, an Aussie no less (and no disrespect) have raised an army of ill-informed zealots --and yes, comprised of our fellow countrymen-- that are threatening more than just our democracy, or our freedoms, but the very fabric of society at-large!

It's more than just the country, but the world, you blind fool!

How safe will our Constitution be when the nation is in flames?

WE NEED THESE BASTARDS ON FUCKING TAPE!!!

How else do we deny them their lies?

[MadHound]

40. It's official, you've become that which you hate

Your vile defense of a clearly unconstitutional practice, born out of some dreaded fear of "them" and "they" sounds remarkably like those you profess to hate, Beck, Hannity, et. al.

Your willingness to shred the Constitution in pursuit of this paranoid nightmare of yours is despicable, and again reminiscent of those on the right that you profess to hate.

My suggestion to you is this, first off, back away from the computer, radio, television and any other such source of information for a few weeks, because your overexposure to these mediums has warped your thinking. While you are away take the time to read the Constitution, read some constitutional law vis-a-vis wiretaps, and read up on the FISA courts and FISA warrants. Hopefully this will put your mind at ease.

But seriously, take a break, you're starting to become that which you hate.

[Blue State Bandit]

43. I appreciate the 3rd grade civics lesson...

with the drunken college color commentary, but what part of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5417153&mesg_id=5417686">"not the flagrant missus of the FISA structure, fixed court cases, and non-existent oversight, as in the Bush administration" did you not understand?

And if you keep insisting that I am not an anti-American for speaking my mind, then I will insist that you change your tag line to...



A.K.A. Glen Beck

[G_j]

42. so your premise is Obama would have the means to use this apparatus

to spy on the multi-national corps who want to overthrow the "Democratic" president?

First of all, the multi-corps have been entrenched all along. They pretty much ARE the government.
If you are talking about Republicans, there is no way Obama could use this spying apparatus to spy on Republicans.
Or did you forget Nixon?

[Blue State Bandit]

45. NewsCorp would be a good example.

And if a FISA judge is presented a tape of Ailes and a congressional republican speaking of coordinated propaganda, or another Morgan/FDR Coup, then maybe we could turn off the lights on this project and not live through another Kennedy incident.

[JonLP24]

67. So you agree

We aren't allowed to sue the government unless they publicly disclose the information? You want these guys on tape, get a warrant with PC.

[JonLP24]

66. Kennedy is not so innocent regarding this issue

The Kennedy Administration had the FBI wiretap a Congressional staff member , 48 three executive officials, 49 a lobbyist, 50 and a, Washington law firm. 51 Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy received the fruits of a FBI "tap" on Martin Luther King, Jr. 52 and a "bug" on a Congressman both of which yielded information of a political nature. 53
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIa.htm

[Mari333]

30. what you said. nt

[kiva]

44. Yes!!!!!!!

:applause:

[Blue State Bandit]

53. "You state... wiretap warrant is worthless..."? Where?

Are you revoking my American privileges? And FISA is such a PROGRAM, not a CAPABILITY, that I clearly reference in this ACCURATE quote:

In my critiques of these programs, I have always felt, and occasionally expressed, that I would have less of a problem with such programs if I felt that I could trust my government not to missus such capabilities. Such programs, buttressed with proper oversight and durable safeguards, are an unfortunate necessity in my eyes considering the security challenges America faces.

FISA, as you say yourself, "especially in light of how easy it is to get a FISA warant", is a proper use of the Capabilities, much of which you or I don't even know the depth or breadth of.

So when you can stop seeing red, and realize the difference between capability and program, maybe I'll forget about your Glen Beck Tourettes fit.

[nashville_brook]

60. word.

[JonLP24]

65. The idea to target political figures smells alot like COINTELPRO

[leftstreet]

9. FFS. Where is this shit coming from?

:shrug:

This CANNOT be defended. Law breaking is law breaking, no matter which administration is doing it.

Talking Point Central needs to update its memos.

[EFerrari]

13. I don't think some folks know how to disagree with one of Obama's policies yet

without feeling that they are betraying some kind of trust altogether. Creepy.

[datasuspect]

18. but marketing is THAT effective.

they cannot face the prospect that the elation of winning the election was primarily a marketing-driven illusion.

there was never going to be any change, there was never going to be a rollback of the unitary executive.

i said it when bush was still in office: the owners, once they can acquire certain powers, will never relinquish them once they have them.

[EFerrari]

21. I fear you are right and hope you're wrong.

:(

[SammyWinstonJack]

62. !

they cannot face the prospect that the elation of winning the election was primarily a marketing-driven illusion. :thumbsup:

[JonLP24]

68. I knew there wouldn't be much change because politicians are ultimately

compromised. Pretty much all of us are compromised to whatever institution you belong to no matter what it is.

[Blue State Bandit]

54. It's called my prerogative to have an opinion and express it.

Forget this, I'm done explaining.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5417153&mesg_id=5417686

Talking Point Central will be back in a moment,
receiving revelations update.


Would you care to read the OP while you are waiting?

[biopowertoday]

10. Chenny et al IS SO PROUD TO HAVE YOU IN THIEIR GROUPIE.

[Vincardog]

11. You are not ready for Obama to give up using Illegal wiretaps on Americans? Fuck that

I favored Obama over Hillary because I did not want to crimes of the W cabal to be swept under the rug AGAIN. Now he not only protects the BCrime Family but he wants to expand upon their crimes!
We need to push hard for trial and justice in the war crimes and an end to the deluson of the imperial (p)Residency.

[datasuspect]

16. all the rationalizations you can offer, all the hero worship that warms your heart

can never justify the abrogation of our fundamental civil rights.

[Blue State Bandit]

58. Tell me when we get them back.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. disgusting

[Blue State Bandit]

57. Blind.

[Autumn]

22. "Those who would give up essential liberty

to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin. I agree with him.

[rucky]

25. The threats are nothing a FISA warrant can't address. n/t

[Blue State Bandit]

26. CAPABILITIES!

Not the flagrant missus of the FISA structure, fixed court cases, and non-existent oversight, as in the Bush administration.

Seems a few didn't read past the intro?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5417153&mesg_id=5417428">12 I'm more concerned with the actual capabilities. I'm all for finding a legal use for the infrastructure already in place. Then slowly pulling the plug.

What you describe is a FISA warrant. That's a legit use. If it's use in a case against non-state actors against the U.S. Constitution, say, KBR, or Citi Group, or even FOX, who's "news" outlet act's as if it were a sovereign state, could not a FISA warrant be issued?

Most of this stuff is just mountains of hard drives that is storing the past few years in back-up. What do we do about that?

I know this is a messy subject, I wouldn't have brought it up if it wern't, but some of these responses...

[EFerrari]

33. There is no proven utility for these "capabilities" except to intimidate the public.

And the claim is that not only can the Feds spy on us but that they are immune from damages unless they reveal something publicly that they have gotten from their spying.

I also want Obama to use every tool at his disposal to safeguard the public. However, there is no proof whatsoever that illegally spying on us in anyway keeps us safe. On the contrary, this tactic has resulted in bogus harassment of peace grannies, vegans, and Quakers against the war.

This program was started BEFORE 9/11 and it was clearly meant not to keep us safe but to add to the power of the Executive, at that time George Bush.

No good has ever come of this program and no good will come from this claim. It's unconstitutional and it's really a measure of how f@cked we really are that the administration is even taking this position.

I don't mean to attack you but only to point out that when we trust politicians or the Federal bureaucracy with our liberties, we are making a mistake -- even if the incumbent is someone as attractive as our president.

[Blue State Bandit]

37. It's not that I'm unconcerned...

with the legal structure built around the technology, and I wonder if some others here caught the yet I closed the op with. Thank you for your response.

I agree with most conclusions, that it was a dangerous step to take, that it's a threat to privacy, that it has been used for ill, but we are now teetering on the brink here.

There is an assertive, and active campaign threatening to take up arms, implicitly, and occasionally, explicitly, against our duly elected president, one that many here worked to elect.

So I'm going to give him some deference on this, for now.

[ima_sinnic]

39. he can get warrants, EASILY, to eavesdrop on those "threatening to take up arms"

what is so hard about that?

or do you think those threats have to be intercepted "randomly," just things heard by eavesdropping on every American in hopes of finding a threat? that is ridiculous.

[Blue State Bandit]

46. The real fight is not the tech, but it's use.

It's all about how you use it. Bush just swept it all up. The past few years are all sitting on hard drives somewhere. My point is how quickly we stop the mass collection. Giving Obama time to assess the full program before he throws it to the wolves. The capability to "sweep it all up" and all of the other Bush policies created the need for this. They caused this mess.

We all know how close we came to the brink under Bush, and we are still hanging on by a thread. All I'm saying is that we give him some time to understand it before he tares it apart.

Most of the capabilities of the NSA and the eavesdropping programs are still not known to the world at large. It's mostly educated speculation. We don't know how far the rabbit hole goes.

I have been against it's creation from the moment I thought it possible, but now that it's here, it needs to retired usefully. So I'm willing to give him some time with it.

[LooseWilly]

52. I think you're over-estimating the likely arms up-taking...

... and it's leading you to make the same mistake that the previous administration tried to make people make.

The FBI, ATF, etc. already monitor all of those liable to "take up arms"... at least those liable to do so in the sort of numbers so as to be the sort of threat you seem to be imagining is present. They already have broad and sweeping powers for wiretapping. There may be more random loonies coming out of the woodwork... or it may just be that they're getting more press... probably because it has become a story that can be dove tailed into the right wing calls... and thusly can be made into a national story line.

There have been over 100 homicides per year in Oakland for as long back as I can remember. Often as many as 120. That comes out to one every 3 days. Year in and year out. These don't make city news half the time, let alone national news.
Unless there's a "national storyline" or "narrative" that the news "choosers" or producers think they can tell that makes it more than just another murder.

Using that self-fulfilling storytelling to justify a blatantly illegal expansion of police powers is simply a Democratic version of pushing the Patriot Act. It is a bad idea. It will produce nothing worth the cost.

And if you are making references to a Kennedy scenario... remember that if the law enforcement agencies have even a shred of proof, or reasonable suspicion, they can get the taps. If they don't even have that... they'd have to be using data mining and assorted other computational algorithms and just hope that those methods caught whatever tid bit... then have to hope that someone was able to get to that tid bit and act upon it in time. Likely it would just burn up lots of man hours fruitlessly.
And if it's a case of spying on the Bushies and Bushie loyalists... you gotta remember that a lot of those would be spies are themselves Bushie loyalists... so that portion of the program is doomed to failure.

All in all.. I say scrap it. And prosecute, so no one will feel like they can get away with it with impunity in the future.

[Blue State Bandit]

56. Thank you for your thoughtful disagreement.

And I see your points. But in the case of stuff like TALON, were talking about pre-recorded data, covering the past possibly 8 years of telephony and digital cashes... and the other caps and progs that we still don't know exist according to Bamford.

I say he keeps the lights on, only for a short period until before the 2012 elections. By then, FISA can have time to hear cases, and the DoJ will be prepared to start building cases that clear the decks of those who have brought our country so far down that I'd even conceder such drastic action.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5745">Read this and you might have second thoughts about my fears.

[malaise]

31. We were talking about this last night

but the war criminals can be wired without violating the rights of citizens.

[walldude]

32. I disagree

the fact is that when Bush did something like this (exactly like this actually) DU was universally ready to put his head on the chopping block. Now that it's Obama well, there may be a good reason for it? Bullshit. Republican or Democrat this is a violation of the Constitution. If this is "our" government then why do they feel the need to keep "state secrets"? I understand the need to protect certain information to protect individuals but boy I hear the words "state secrets" and my fucking bullshit detector goes on red alert.

[ima_sinnic]

34. Obama is engaging in unconstitutional activity in order to bust Bush & Cheney? riiiiight!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

I can picture this: big and little dick discussing, over the phone, how they got away with war crimes, treason, plundering of the public treasury, and orchestrating a global economic meltdown! And Obama is soooo EAGER to bust them!

[Blue State Bandit]

41. Bush and Cheney in Irons Would Be Nice...

Maybe he'd like to keep it to keep from getting shot by a member of Storm Front?

Or maybe, he could use it like http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5417153&mesg_id=5417686">this?





For my 1000'th post!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Trusting the government with our rights is undemocratic and a fool's errand.

We're not supposed to "trust" our leaders, of whatever political stripe, in a democracy. Particularly, when they seek to "protect" our freedoms by denying them. See Lord Acton's axiom for the reason why.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

38. Obama controls the military... why not just bomb them instead?

[EFerrari]

51. Asia's crowded, Europe's too old

Africa is far too hot and Canada's too cold
South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one -- there'll be no one left to blame us!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGO42gvCSPI

[goforit]

47. Cheney/Bush wiretapped all and Now Obama can return the favor... KARMA

As much as I hate our rights taken away.

We have been at war with these asses for so long.

Will we become the monsters they are???

[rug]

There may even be times they will need to use torture.

[Karmadillo]

48. In defense of drinking from cesspools.

nt

[Iggo]

55. Get.A.Fucking.Warrant.

[snot]

59. I couldn't disagree more.

Long experience has established the following:

Knowledge is power. -- Francis Bacon (http://testserver.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Knowledge_is_power )

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. -- John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton )

Don't leave the foxes to guard the hen house -- (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hebraic_proverbs )

The Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ). As Wikipedia explains, "{The Fourth Amendment} was ratified as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. The amendment specifically requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it."

Since our nation was founded, these principles have been violated many times, only to be abused. Please provide a list, anyone??? of instances in which such abuse turned out to have been worth it? Because I am not aware of one single instance.

On the other hand, I am aware of many instances in which the violation of these principles was abused, to all our detriment and shame.

As Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin )

I don't care who's violating my rights; it's unacceptable. We were meant to be a government "of laws, not of men." (http://www.bartleby.com/73/991.html )

I want my f'ing rights back.

The enemy is not Republicans, or terrorists, or etc. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and he is US." (http://www.igopogo.com/we_have_met.htm )

[Blue State Bandit]

63. We do agree on one point... almost.

"The enemy is not Republicans, or terrorists, or etc. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and he is US."

[endarkenment]

61. fascism == security

The constitution is clear. if you have probably cause, go to a judge and get a warrant. Freedom decreases security - that is a given, and that is a price we must be willing to pay.

[JonLP24]

64. So who will be monitoring the monitors?

If we need to resort to warrantless wiretapping out of fear of leaks then the leaks are the bigger problem and we should focus on controlling leaks.