Bush proudly governs by instinct, gut feeling and the every-puzzling, "I know what's in his/her heart." Why bother with wiretapping? With his extraordinary talents, he should just attach an antennae to his head and listen.

Folks, we are at war. Period. You can pretend "not so" all day long, but we still are and will for years to come be at war with terrorists, now to include a variety of terrorists inside Iraq.

WE have family members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.

Cut out the unpatriotic, defeatist, and in fact disloyal attitude and support the war our President, and our troops who are in harm's way. The President, as was President Clinton back to President Carter is absolutely legal in his international intelligence gathering when he intercepts e-mails and phone communications one side of which is overseas, not inside the USA.

Get the facts straight and understand this is no time for politics as usual. Otherwise, you will find at the polls both in 2006 and in 2008 your views and attitude will be kicked from here to kingdom come by the vast silent majority today of American voters.

Terrorists have no rights, get over it!

George Singleton,
1963-1965 US Embassy, Karachi, Pakistan
Wounded 1965, Rann of Kutch, India-Pakistan War
Volunteered back on active duty to run the airlift fm Charleston AFB, SC in Dec. 1990-into 1991 for Desert Storm I
Retired reserve augmentee to the Assistant Chief of Staff, J4 and J5, HQ US Special Operations Command, McDill AFB, FL
Retired National Disaster Medical System (VA; US Public Health Service' FEMA) for all VA hospitals and outpatient clinics in Alabama
Retired US Civill Service
Retired active and reserve USAF (06)
And darn tired of misconstrued, falsehoods and stupid slander which aids and abets our mortal enemies, who are deadly serious and intent on killing as many of us as they can!

As I remeber the words form a childhood patriotic song, "Let Freedom Ring!" How can freedom ring if we are ruled by fear? I am a U.S.American and support our Constitution as the most brilliant political prose intellectual minds ever created it is worth my death to DEFEND not destroy! This administration has taken a dump on our freedom and that is not American. I support his impeachment since he has admitted to breaking the laws of our land.

Most of us who are old enough to remember Watergate remember that the key lesson from that crisis is that, in the United States, no one -- not even the President of the United States-- is above the law. President Bush's willful decision to approve spying on U.S. citizens without a court order indicates that he has forgotten that crucial lesson. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) sets up clear and simple procedures whereby the President can gain approval to engage in surveillance of U.S. citizens. FISA judges are available to the President on a 24/7 basis. In case of dire emergency, the President can engage in surveillance first, and then notify the court within 72 hours. President Bush has apparently decided that these clear and simple procedures are inconvenient and that, as Commander-in-Chief, he can ignore them. He has done so for more than four years and now that his act has been discovered he shows no remorse.

This is not the first time that the Bush Administration has asserted that the President has broad powers that cannot be reviewed by any court. The Administration previously asserted that United States citizens can be detained by the military in the United States or anywhere in the world, labeled enemy combatants, and held indefinitely without any charge in either civilian or military courts, and that this action cannot be challenged by the detainee an American citizen! in any court. The Supreme Court has ruled (in the Hamdi case) that these broad claims of Presidential power are unfounded. In the Hamdi case, in fact, Justice Sandra Day O'Conner reminded the President that he is not above the law. She wrote: We have long since made it clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens.

In addition to these two cases in which President Bush clearly believes that he is above the law, I do have doubts about the legality of the torture that his Administration has engaged in as well as the secretprisons in Eastern Europe.

By the way, this President who has such a cavalier attitude about the civil liberties of United States citizens is the same President who facilitated the departure of 142 Saudi citizens, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, within days after September 11, 2001 before the FBI had a chance to interview these Saudis to determine whether any of them had information that might lead to the apprehension of Osama bin Laden. (I don't think the President broke the law in doing this; he merely exercised poor judgment in giving greater weight to the concerns of his friends, the Saudis, than he did to the national security interest of the United States.)

President Bush and Administration officials claim that the Constitution gives the President broad powers. While they do not argue that the Constitution gives the President unlimitedor uncheckedpowers, they do argue that the Constitution gives the President any powers that he asserts that it gives. I think this is an area where true liberals and true conservatives can agree as well as strict constructionists. The framers of the Constitution had recently emerged from a long and bloody war against King George III. As school children know, they created a system of checks and balances that involves the three branches of government. FISA is an excellent example of these checks and balances. The Legislative branch created the law, which is carried out by the Executive branch, under the supervision of the Judicial branch. The framers of the Constitution did not create a system in which King George W. can legitimately claim to have the broad powers that he claims to have.

I urge both houses of Congress to immediately censure President Bush for abuse of power and further urge that the House of Representatives begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

Concerning the Daschel editorial. Unless it is in the congressional record I have my doubts about the truthfulness of the editorial. It is apparent from PL 107-40 that the executive was authorized to do what ever was necessary to protect the nation. It does not specify limiting the action to overseas locations. If congress wanted that action limited to oversea the argument could be reversed and the law would have limited the action of the executive to those location. I particularly doubt the congressional intent expressed by former Senator Daschle since the attacks orginated in the United States.

Contrary to what Bush has stated, there were specific lawful procedures in place for exactly this type of circumstance, because when FISA was passed in 1978, the reason that one had to go through the court was because in order to physically connect to this year 1978-type telephone circuit, it was necessary to do so through the telephone company. Hence the necessity of getting a court warrant rather than breaking into telephone company property and installing bugs on a mainframe switch. Therefore, it would be possible to make a reading of the law that what Bush had the military do is illegal, because FISA would have required them to get a warrant to go through the phone companies rather than "breaking-in" electronically as they did in 2002-2005. A second problem is that a military agency (NSA) is probably in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which states that the military may not perform military operations on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens. The reason that the National Guard can be used against looters, etc., in a law enforcement role is that state governors control the Guard, not the Federal Government, which exempts the Guard from the Posse Comitatus Act. So, I would say that Bush and his people are in trouble in two counts if a proper reading of the law is made.

A follow-up thought. Another reason why Bush is probably so upset about this is that in addition to monitoring Al Qaeda, he was probably ordering the NSA to monitor people contacting Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Hamas in order to help Israel win against the Palestinian Intifada. Bush doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between groups which threaten Israel and groups which threaten the continental U.S., which I think was their real reason for invading Iraq, but that's another subject. The last time I checked, our Government was supposed to work for American citizens not Israeli citizens. Would we wiretap the Tamil Tigers or the Basque ETA? I doubt it. I rest my case. I guess this will all come out in about 50 years when his Executive Orders are declassified.

Before any of you write another word or make another comment about the NSA and spying, you need to research a group within the NSA code-named Echelon. A good source would be to google "pspoole/echelon. The US along with Canada, England, Australia and New Zealand monitors EVERY TRANSMISSION any where in the entire world and they do it 24/7/365. Think about it - every e-mail, telephone, fax EVERY ONE both domestic and international.
All of the information is fed into super computers where key words or numbers are used to determine if extra scrutiny is warranted. This system has been around for years but has grown exponentially under this administration. All those Sons-of-a-Bush in the White House would need to do is put in a keyword like Kerry and gather all of the information they wanted on that subject. But these people are much to ethical to do something like that, right?
So yes George we are wiretapping the Tamil Tigers and ETA. As well as the Israelis, Argentinians and Icelanders. Everyone, every day, all of the time. So, I hope you're listening Cheney - F___ Y__

I have read and reread the excuses that GW used to explain the legality of his wiretapping order. I cannot see any basis for them being legal. The FISA has a procedure to be followed and GW felt that he was above all that. What gall. How do we know it was just transmissions going to foreign countries. What was to prevent him from spying on those of us that disagree with his policies or traitors as he calls them? After all, it is so top secret that you would never know.
The one thing I don't want is an impeachment - Can you imagine this country with Cheny at the helm?

Re; Harry post: Cheney is at the helm, that's why America is in such danger.

In all the comments on the NSA "data mining" effort, there has been little to no discussion about the technical side - the "data mining" itself. There seems to be an impression that "data mining" is this wonderful, fool-proof and highly accurate scientific methodology. Data mining is a set of statistical techniques, based on associations between keys (words, names, numbers, dates, whatever). Because "data mining" is based on statistical analysis, there will be errors; that is the nature of statistics. "False postives" will be persons (U.S. citizens?) associated with a word or a phone number tagged as "suspicious" who in fact were engaging in legal and private conduct."False negatives" will be the persons we fail to identify who go on to harm us. One can calibrate the analysis to minimize one type of error, at the expense of increasing the other. "Data mining" errors in retailing (Wal-Mart is an acknowledged master of the art) and credit reporting are relatively harmless - too few or too many items are stocked on an end-cap, a person is denied credit. But errors in data mining on this scale, with these stakes, can have tremendous impact on both individuals and our nation. On one hand, if "false positives" are minimized in the name of civil liberties, then "false negatives" will be higher - and more terrorist activity will go undetected. If "false negatives" are minimized, then a substantially higher burden is placed on civil liberties. How we strike a balance between the two - security and liberty -with all our technical prowess and sophistication, should be a proper matter for public debate in the Congress, the press, and in the courts. While that debate may give "hope" to the deluded fundamentalists, it makes us stronger in the eyes of the world and maintains that bright shining light of freedom that, in the end, is what will dispell the darkness. To abandon and prevent that debate in the name of "security" is to give up what makes us a free republic and a free people.

According to Arnold Ahlert in the
"New York Post" 2 past presidents allowed warrentless physical searches in domestic situations. In 1993, CIA did warrentless searches of the home & office of Aldrich H. Ames...pleased guilty of spying for USSR. In 1994, Clinton authorized warrantless searches to fight crime in public housing projects. In 1978, Carter's A.G. Griffin Bell, testified about warrantless searches OK'd against 2 men suspected of spying for Vietnam.
ARE THESE TRUE STATEMENTS ???

Here is an excellent Op-Ed from the Miami Herald that certainly expresses my feelings. I hope that like me, the rest of you are also sharpening your pitchforks.
AFTER 9/11
Fear destroys what bin Laden could not

ROBERT STEINBACK
rsteinback@MiamiHerald.com

One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.

If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.

If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.

If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.

That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.

What is there to say now?

All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appears more concerned that saying ''Happy Holidays'' could be a disguised attack on Christianity.

I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke -- speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.

Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''

President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.

Is that America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, ``What's wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?''

Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the ''war on terror'' -- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know where tomorrow's first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fighting infection -- even when it's beaten, you must continue the fight or it will strike again.

Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?

Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.

Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built. Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/.../printstory.jsp

The administration defends domestic spying and going around the established judicial mechanisms by saying that what they did was "limited" and necessary to defend America against "terrorism." Problem is who decides what "limited" means or what constituted terrorism. The administration's judgement has proven flawed in such estimations--even if we normally would allow an executive such license.

We now know that State's Bureau of Inteligence and Research asserted, forcefully, that reports of Iraq involvement with Al Queda and pursuing the purchase of Uranium were bogus, and did so prior to Secretary Powell's speach the UN. We find ourselves, nevertheless, engaged in a "war agains terrorism" in Iraq, led by an administration that still refuses to admit its mistakes in this regard.

Moreover, there is an American citizen now in prison, without having had the benefit of a trial, for alleged violations of the patriot act. Susan Lindauer was remanded by a federal judge to prison at Carswell FMC. The court waived her right to a speedy trial and sent her there for "observation." Aparently anyone who claims innocence in the face of such charges may be declared delusional and sent to an insane asylum--something our tyrants have learned from Soviet tyrants, perhaps.

WE'RE GOOD AMERICANS AND WE MUST BE RIGHT!
The patriotic bell has rung so loud and so often that we've all gone deaf. We know our president and his gang are stupid, selfish, pathetic and mean. But we don't want to see just how evil these ignorant amateurs are. The bullies have taken over the schoolyard and maybe it's better to just ignore them so they don't pick on us and beat us up. Perhaps, so many genocides ago, we needed to put stars and stripes over our eyes and ears. Perhaps it's better not to acknowledge their malevolence because then we might just be guilty ourselves. However with our fear, our silence and just a couple of news cycles as their only enemies before they figure out the next way to scare us some more, things aren't getting better.

The problem with fighting this particular group of warriors is that they manage to make so many stupid, illegal and deadly blunders on a daily basis that it's hard to remember every monstrous thing they did wrong, even from yesterday. They are so consistently incompetent, arrogant, and busy ruining the world that it's truly hard to keep up with their last evil doing. America has almost totally accepted that things are bad and going to get worse and in order to survive we have developed a comfortable and convenient mass amnesia.

Can we change that? Can we start way back when they were just madmen planning to take over the world with military and economic force and track their radical plans for their New American Century to it's source and prove that maniacal tyrants have, year after year, put their absurd plans to conquer America and the world into action and that they've won? Of course they are only screwing it up because they can't do anything right except say that bad is good and failure is progress and our mass murder is god's work. Sunday's football games and barbecues seem to have wiped out our collective memories and we now live with a few vague rules for self-protection like...

" I just hope it somehow doesn't keep getting worse and what can I do about it anyway?" "Rag heads and cockroaches deserve to be tortured and killed." "An Arab child killed by white phosphorus is just one less future terrorist that didn't get to grow up and kill us." "It's kind of sad that young Americans are getting killed but it's really not all that many and well.... at least it's not my kid getting road bombed."

Better to just get on with our lives best we can. It'd be almost like admitting that we too must he stupid if we don't find a way to pretend W's not a spoiled, stubborn, rich and perhaps clinically insane mass murdering tyrant who only wants what's best for him and his friends and screw the rest of us. That would make us weak cowards or even worse... ashamed.

There are those who say we need to infringe on constitutional rights in times of war. I don't believe that's true. Yet, consider the kind of "war" we are in. This "war" is a never ending conflict because it involves terrorists. We've been living with the threat of terrorism since the founding of the Republic, and we will be living with it as long as there is a United States. Do we cede constitutional guarantees because we will always be under threat? Is that the answer? I hardly think so. And, no reasonable person can take this position.

George Bush says: "I didn't know about the UAE Dubai sale until congress objected." Excuse me, this sounds a lot like Mr. Nixon saying he didn't know about Watergate. Mr. Bush says his NSA spying on Americans is legal. He is also saying that secret closed door negotiations by his administraton to sell our ports is legal. Just what would it take for Mr. Bush to find something that is illegal? I always thought that ours was an "Open" society, not to be governed by policies made secretly behind closed doors! We no longer have a president, we have a dictator.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.