Clinton ignored terrorism, BHD told me so.

Why do you hate BHD?

I saving more for later;) I think what spells out the real truth is that these guys refuse to accept the idea that their hero did it, but since Bush used the privilege they only want to nail him.

They're going after dip$h!t, cuz he got caught with his hand in the civil liberties jar. Would giving up our cherished civil rights have prevented any of those incidents...dunno, but law enforcement just needs to try that much harder with the tools they've already got available, and leave the rest of us alone. If previous dip$h!ts did indeed abrogate civil liberties, then they should be publicly castrated as well.

Wrong. What Bush is doing differs from what Clinton and Carter did.It's not a matter of proof. Bush admits the facts. In fact, he brags about them. It's a matter of whether his administration's actions violate the law. Unlike you, I don't claim to know all the details of FISA, but the legal arguments I have heard in support of Bush's position are silly, while the arguments that he violated the law sound quite persuasive.

Here's a link to a Q&A with a right-leaning Constitutional expert explaining why Bush is violating the law: http://www.fed-soc.org/pdf/domesticsurveillance.pdf

Here's an admittedly left-wing website talking about the differences between what Clinton did and what Bush is doing: http://www.thinkprogress.org/index.php?s=clinton+fisa

Do you have any facts to support your claim that Clinton and Carter did the same thing Bush is doing?

Your idea is fine and dandy, but do you have any facts to support your claim that Clinton and Carter did the same thing Bush is doing? Have you given those facts a critical look?

Do you have any facts concerning what you allege Bush maybe doing?

B

Bush authorized agents to tap into phone calls between US citizens and foreigners who the administration says have ties to terrorism. When asked why they didn't get warrants, various reasons have been cited. Perhaps the silliest of those reasons is the need to move quickly to intercept the phone calls. Unexplained by the administration is how their efforts would be impeded by complying with the FISA requirement that warrantless taps be reported to the court within 72 hours AFTER the tap.

Alberto Gonzales, our second consecutive sociopathic Attorney General, said that they couldn't go to Congress to get the law changed because Congress probably would have refused their request.

I believe all of those facts have been admitted by the administration. I will be happy to find you some links, but I don't think any of this is disputed.

I mean the part where the wiretaps were illegal.

Bot

google it, we've done this round robin before.

I'm happy for them to pick up on that stuff also. They can do all of that under the law, under the FISA restraints and rules.

What they're much less likely to do if'n they follow the letter of the law, is to surveil and or harass quaker peace groups and the like, as they've alledgedly done. This is vintage Nixon: go after them damn peaceniks.

Some evidence of that:

http://www.nonviolence.org/

December 22, 2005
Pass the hummus, please, and by the way: are you a fed?
It seems that every day brings new revelations from mainstream media about governmental spying on Americans.

MS-NBC started the ball rolling on the 14th when they informed us that the Pentagon had a database of protesters including the Raging Grannies and a dozen or so Quakers in Florida. This must have prompted the New York Times to publish a story they had been sitting on for a year: the scoop that Bush had ordered the super-secret National Security Agency to start evesdropping on Americans following the 9/11 terror attacks. It’s revelation was an FBI agent’s email complaining about radical militant librarians [who] kick us around. Trying to outdo the DHS in ridiculous, we learned on the 20th that the FBI has been infiltrating vegan potlucks. Today it turns out the New York City Police Department has been doing its own extensive investigations into protesters. They even apparently staged mock arrests in an attempt to incite violence (their contribution to the self-parody has been to send officers undercover on bicycle protests).

Dissent is getting disrespected more and more in our land. Dubbers don't brook no lack of uninaminimity.

Well knock me over with a feather.

You mean only weak nations are held to account for violations of international law whereas either of the top two remaining superpowers (top 1 and 1/2 maybe) can pretty much do whatever they want??

Say it ain't so....

What freedom is worth protecting, if that same freedom is yanked from under our feet in the name of our safety and security? Government should not be making these blanket decisions for us. Yet, talk to some teenagers and find out how willingly they will give up their rights so somebody else can negotiate the dirty work. This is the future we are creating for ourselves, since we are handing the government unprecedented control over our everyday lives.

You asked for the facts, which I gave you. Whether the wiretaps are illegal is a legal question, not a factual question. There are many links to articles explaining why Bush's wiretaps are illegal. The one I gave in response to mikemover is pretty good. Here it is again: http://www.fed-soc.org/pdf/domesticsurveillance.pdf

BTW, did I say that what Bush is doing is doing is illegal? The arguments in favor of that position are strong, but unlike mikemover, I am not a FISA expert. I tend to think Bush is breaking the law, in part because the law and the facts both seem clear and in part because I keep hearing and reading the same weak, phony arguments from his supporters in the media. On the other hand, at least those supporters try to offer arguments in support of their positions. All we're getting on this thread are conclusions, no arguments.

And another thing, your post refers to the wiretaps in the past tense. AFAIK, the wiretaps continue.