president authorized spying without a warrent in U.S.Follow

That's it, i'm moving to Austrailia.

This is like the Plame defense of "It wasn't possibly illegal because..."

If it was completely legal to do, despite every story and key members of Congress pointing out that it very possibly was not, then it's a ten second matter for the administration to point to the relevant bit of legal code and close the matter. In the past four days or so since this broke, you're the first person I've heard this defense from, including the White House, Congress and the NSA; any of whom are infinitely more qualified to say than you. If anything, you may want to call them and let them know.

Rather than Gbaji's novel "You only need a warrant if you're going to use it as evidence" defense, it seems Bush is going with the "We did the wiretaps outside the US so it doesn't count as tapping domestic calls" approach.

"These calls are not intercepted within the country, they are from outside the country to in the country or vice versa," Bush said. "So in other words, if you're calling from Houston to L.A., that call is not monitored. And if there was ever any need to monitor, there would be a process to do that."

-- CNN/AP (emphasis mine)

And it's a very good question. Where do you draw the line, and why?

I'm not sure I've gotten enough of a picture of that.

I just don't like Bush.


I get a bad vibe from him. That's it. nothing more. I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Libertarian. I have looked at my views and it puts me somewhere in between them all.

If I really thought in my heart that there was no other way to do things than the way that they are being done now, i would have nothing to say about this.

I just see the endless layers after layers of this administration bending rules and doing a HORRIBLE job of covering anything up. I mean, it's no big secret that politians are usually seen as corrupt, but at least most of them don't get caught or are so blatent about it.

While I am an idealist, I also don't expect miracles from people anymore. In actuality, it is my belief that ALL OF THIS WAR/BUSH stuff is a simple matter of opinion.

I personaly feel that the reason that the Bush family started all of this was to make themselves and their friends even more Rich. Same old cliche' ? yes, but there is a reason that it is a cliche', and that would be that is reality, and it always happens.

NOW, there is a positive bi-product of the Bush family'r war-mongering pillaging... and that is waht is pushed into the public's faces to drown out the fact that a family/group is using their country and the lives of it's citizens to achieve is own gains.

Some may be hapy with that and choose not to ask questions.... but only chose to look at that "bi-product". It's complacentcy as I see it. People come to accept that as long as they can find some GOOD in waht they are doing, that they can bring themselves to ignore anything WRONG with the situation.

This is why I push the notion of exploitation of patriotism. Some may think that they should have no place to ask questions and should only accept and trust waht they are doing because the gov. tells them so, but that's not really waht I see this country being all about.

Does anyone even care that this "spying" was only allowed to be done on those who were on Al Qaeda watch lists, and whom were making international calls (domestic calls are not monitored)?

How the hell are any of you even biching about this? We pretty much do the same thing to sex offenders.

that's the thing, it wasn't "allowed" to be done by anyone except the Bush House.

which indicates that they are above the law and goes against the American system of government.


Bush is saying that American laws do not suit his agenda, so he shall go around them.

Okee dokee then...so I suppose it makes no difference to you whether or not members of Congress were involved? How many members of Congress would have to have been involved for you to be happy and this to be "OK" in your eyes.

And if members of Congress aren't enough, what would have been. Senators? Judges? Who's the one who can make this call in the end? Who would make you happy?

I don't think it's about the process to you, it's about the decision, and it's a decision you disagree with. That's fine, but this is being blown way out of proportion. The fact remains that this was a very specific program targetting very specific individuals with strict limitations on it's use. That is the truth, everything in the headlines is a fraction of the story.

I don't, but if you're not I don't care about anything you have to say anyway. Though I am on the fence about *some* statutory rape cases in which people have to deal with the same treatment as a violent rapist.