At this point in the game, if you honestly think you are not in a computer database somewhere along with thousands of others then you are just simply living in the past.

I like the NSA for kids site, it has cartoon chars. talking about wiretaps and data mining. Kinda like the old 50's war propaganda.

http://cryptome.org/nsa-ussid18.htm

? - is this really something new to you - ?

Ever heard of "Echelon"?

Come on guys and girls - this is going on since the 60s of the last century . . . (smothering a yawn)

Extremely Well, if you believe that torture is OK, you really need to move to another country. Our founding fathers based this country in the belief that things like that were entirely wrong. John McCain and even many government agencies will tell you that torture has little intelligence value. If you have never been a prisoner of war, or some similar situation you are looking from the outside as a mere observer without any real understanding of the situation. If you don't understand the importance of civil liberties, then you have no concept of what this nation is or why it was formed in the first place. As some one that gave many years to the defending this country and having been in two wars I would like to think that those principles are worth dieing for. If you are so afraid of dieing that you would give up these rights you do not know just how precious they truely are.

First, I don't particularly care about what our founding fathers have said, since when they said "all men are created equal", they really meant "all white men, women excluded". What I care about is how this country is functioning right this moment and where it is headed in the next few years (I don't care what'll happen in 200 years).

As for moving to another country, hit ctrl+f and type: why should I -- to see my address to this point.

As for the usefulness of torture - neither you or I are privy to that information. Moral individuals would not use torture if it was not effective, unless they are sadistic (and I already stated numerous times I believe the NSA is ran by Federal/Army/Supreme judges and purple-heart-honorees).

However, even the holiest of men, the Pope himself, if faced with the option of torturing a suspect-terrorist or risking an entire city to be wiped off the face of the planet - would tell you that he would HAVE TO use torture.

So frankly, it doesn't matter whether international law allows torture or not. The assumption for that law is that by torturing one man you may possibly save a few individuals, not thousands of people. Torturing a simple El-Qaida soldier is not the same as torturing Bin Laden/deputies, you see...

Personally I would probably take the law into my own hands and be willing to sit in jail/executed for torturing someone that I KNOW is going to cause massive damage. It's the same thing I'd do if I were Ron Goldman's dad seeing that the criminal system has failed him - I would take the law in my hands, kill OJ Simpson, and happily pay the price for doing so. Anything else to me seems IMMORAL.

Civil liberties are indeed important which is why if the NSA/FBI/president cross the line I'll be the first to resist, if needed forcefully (this country already had a civil war). I simply DO NOT see any liberties hindered by someone knowing who I talk to and about what, but keeping it PRIVATE. When I start seeing people being afraid to discuss these delicate matters on public forums such as this, that's when I'll start fearing my government. At this time they get my 110% support.

This issue has already been beaten to death with 185+ comments, but if you haven't seen it, all of you should go watch the movie Good Night, and Good Luck. It's an amazing take on Edward R. Murrow's coverage of McCarthy's red scare and it is disturbingly appropriate to this subject.

In the 1950s we discovered how important our civil liberties are and how quickly they can disappear if we are not careful. Secret judgements and hidden evidence, lack of trials, verdicts based on hearsay and rumor -- these are all things that are upon us once again. No matter what your beliefs or what you think of Bush, you must agree that in order to promote freedom elsewhere, we cannot sacrifice our own freedoms at home (even if you personally feel you have nothng to hide). We need to learn from our history books and the McCarthy era, or else terrorism will become the next communism in the United States.

Nate,
You are absolutely right. Unfortunately, we have no where to stand and be heard anymore. Broadcast news is filled with events favoring the right or left... radio is owned by one or two conglomerates, the internet was bought by media execs. How can we be heard in the age of "free" information?

This boils down to what I termed earlier in my comments THE STATISTICS OF FAIRNESS AND MORALITY. There is NOTHING we can do to avoid INNOCENT people getting hurt, whichever system you choose. We can, however, minimize the amount of innocent people getting hurt IN the LONG RUN and that would be the MOST FAIR AND MORAL behavior.

How many innocent Americans do you think were SERIOUSLY hurt by the McCarthy witch-hunts? Not talking about them being watched (and as some liberal here said "being surprised to see their names on a watchlist" - being 'surprised' means you WERE NOT HURT ONE BIT), but actually put in jail/killed...

Now if this number is less than ohh 2 million people, who I claim, and fully believe could easily have died in a war with Russia based on the knowledge we had at the time AND HAVE NOW - well then it was WORTH DOING.

Likewise Vietnam - that war WAS WON simply because just like the war in Iraq it accomplished one main point: deterrence. Even if it did not completely stop, it certainly has (in my belief) significantly reduced the expansion of communism in certain areas of the world, and has proved ONCE AGAIN that the USA is not going to be afraid to SACRIFICE ITS BEST in order to be SAFE for their families back home.

So I will repeat my stance although it may annoy you to no end: torturing suspect-terrorists is a MUST (and IS being used since the NSA is beyond criminal+known_federal+military law) even though it may yield to SOME innocents getting tortured. If, let's say, in the 20-year history of using that method its proven to be USELESS and NOT to have saved the same amount of lives as those innocent suspects being tortured, then FINE STOP USING THE TECHNIQUE.

That means, my friend, that I am for the usage of torture in extreme cases where you actually have a pretty good knowledge that this guy in front of you is not "innocent" and by torturing him you will SAVE THOUSANDS OF LIVES.

I am comfortable in my belief that at the apex of the NSA pyramid sit some highly moral individuals - even more than you and me whose morality has not been tested as much as those army/judicial individuals. If they use torture - it's justified. If not - then it's not.

Now go on and continue talking about poor people being "watched" by our government as being the greatest tragedy in mankind's existence...

If you're willing to live in a country that forsakes its own rules to keep order and safety, and then you suggest we beat communism in Vietnam by containing it, I think your penchant for safety overshadows what the point was and is. While well written ;) you're glazing over McCarthyism as "not so bad". While there is certainly the idea of safety as a premise for expansion of state powers, the retention of those investigative powers is a hallmark of a police state. In fact, your logic fails specifically on that point. You are saying that it is effectively ok by you to use police-state tactics to prevent danger by another police-state, since police-states are evil.

"Now if this number is less than ohh 2 million people, who I claim, and fully believe could easily have died in a war with Russia based on the knowledge we had at the time AND HAVE NOW - well then it was WORTH DOING."

I think casualties would have been closer to 150 million Americans - like all of us. But that's not the point. Do you act like the Soviets to protect yourself from them? If you think so, I will respectfully disagree with you. But minimizing what our government does when spying on its own citizens is itself tragic. It's not that they shouldn't survey bad guys -- it's that they should GET A F***ING WARRANT. If bad guys are doing the least bit of bad stuff, it cannot be that hard to get a warrant by a court that is built for just the occasion.

Amen, Nate. I think Terrorism has already become the "new Communism". We just need to remind everyone the danger of allowing it to continue to spread.

I don't think the NSA is breaking the law. Their laws are (probably) simply higher than the usual civil/criminal laws. Nobody knows how they operate, but my assumption (and hope) is that if they act contradictory to the constitution, it is still within their own ultimate law, dictated to them directly by some kind of a fair mechanism (majority rules in favor of torturing high-profile prisoner X, killing American citizen Y, etc).

If that governing body is composed of high-ranking judges and military personnel (or other loyal experts), it needs NOT get any approval from ANYONE - not the president, not congress, not the constitution, certainly not UN resolutions.

It is perfectly fine to use police-state tactics when necessary, as necessary, for as long as necessary. I'm sure the NSA can prove to whomever is privy to this information that without access to X they would have not prevented would-be attack Y. They can probably also prove had they had access to Z (which they asked for but were denied so to protect privacy of ABC or not to cause public panic/uproar) they could have prevented 9/11. I don't think too many rational folks believe 9/11 could have been prevented by simply "working harder" "being more alert" and the other catchy phrases that mean nothing really in practical terms.

Police-state tactics have worked great in NYC, and cameras mounted on poles in crime-stricken hellholes elsewhere in this country continuously save lives. Myself - after seeing some individuals performing (for all intents and purposes) attempted murders/bike-suicides on the roads, and hearing some (black) persons claiming police brutality (which I never experienced), well I have seriously considered installing a permanent camcorder in my car and pressing charges against some anonymous drivers WITH EVIDENCE (and being prepared for that bad cop). It's called SAVING LIVES. Now my methods may seem radical today, but in 50 years or so would be everyday behavior which would reduce accidents and crime to the closest it could ever get to zero without resorting to capital punishment for shoplifting. ;)

As far as getting warrants - again, you are speaking with the assumption it doesn't get done. Nobody knows what is done and what is not. If the NSA is composed of judges, then clearly you can see that warrants are not needed. And you can't tell how they select who needs to be watched closer. Perhaps those judges pre-approved certain criteria for folks who deserve special monitoring, based on your communications patterns. Say a guy who uses very strong encryption, calling certain cities/businesses, buying certain stuff, donating to certain causes, expressing certain opinions in PRIVATE, etc. You think they shouldn't watch this guy carefully even if 9 out of 10 times he will turn out to be as innocent as a newborn baby? Well I think they SHOULD.

Plain and simple... that muppet is nuts, and should be impeached out before he sends someone in to take our cookies or rubber duckies to fight "The War on Terrorism".

Before you condemn me for the comment.... realize I voted for him. Never in my life have I been more ashamed...

I did a quick scan through the replies to this article and saw no reference to a the excesses of the Nixon administration (forgive me if I overlooked such a reference). Back then the enemy was Communism, Vietnam was underway, and frameworks such as FISA did not exist. I remember hearing people saying that wiretaps were okay, that the FBI, et al, had to do whatever was required to keep America safe.

Little did they know that a paranoid administration was watching not only "valid" spies, but also anti-war demonstrators, dissident columnists, and even average citizens. Based in part on these surveillance activities enemies lists were drawn up. Average people were shocked to find their names on those lists for having done nothing more than exercising their rights as Americans.

It would be naive to think that no other administration has engaged in illegal spying. But, did those administrations turn those resources upon its own citizens? We may never know. Given the Bush administration's obsession with secrecy, and its "get even" mentality (see the Plame affair), I'm very concerned that we are seeing a repeat of Nixonian tactics.

As I post this, I'll probably get a knock on my front door... ;-)

FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - '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.'

'An essential purpose of a warrant requirement is to protect privacy interests by assuring citizens subject to a search or seizure that such intrusions are not the random or arbitrary acts of government agents.' Skinner, 489 U.S. at 421-2 (holding that a warrant was not required in part because 'in light of the standardized nature of the tests and the minimal discretion vested in those charged with administering the program, there are virtually no facts for a neutral magistrate to evaluate'). The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed and expanded the principle first enunciated in Skinner, stating that, in some contexts, 'testing based on `suspicion' of [wrongful activity] would not be better, but worse' than suspicionless testing. Acton, 1995 WL 373274, at *8.

Yes, this confirms what I have said. They require a court order or warrant, albiet ex parte (only the government appears before the court). They must take it before a judge/magistrate/panel who will make a decision despite the limited data upon which that decision must be made. It does not give permission for the NSA or other federal, state, or local agency to act independantly without due process. Thank you, Drumcat.

Yep, and that's what the FISA court is for.

Rijp, why do you think that monitoring communications is at the discretion of the government? Legally it is not. This excerpt from SecurityFocus will explain the seriouness of the problem.
"The real problem here is that the cell phone providers have the ability to collect, store, collate and aggregate location data on hundreds of millions of people. These records then become a commodity: subject to use, sale, transfer, subpoena or other discovery. In past cases, the government (with a warrant) has turned on people's On*Star GPS tracking and telephones to track them and listen in on their conversations. Technically, the government isn't "installing" a tracking device on you - it is merely retrieving the records of a tracking device you didn't know you already had. What this means is that Congress needs to step in and establish guidelines for both private, public, law enforcement and intelligence acquisition and use of this passive tracking information."

Mark D. Rasch, J.D., is a former head of the Justice Department's computer crime unit, and now serves as Senior Vice President and Chief
Security Counsel at Solutionary Inc.

Article Three of the Constitution defines treason as only levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. At this time cell records are not concidered "witnesses".

I love how you people argue with me. Its not only at the discretion of the government, its written into the constitution. Why do you think you can't sue the government? Because they have everyones best interest at heart?

A cell phone provider is a publicly held company, but they aren't the government, which has the right to do whatever to protect the citizens.

As someone else said "look it up". I am not giving my opinion, its a fact. The government has and will use whatever discretion at their will to protect the country. Its not only the empowerment to do so, it MUST be given to the government to continue to protect the country.

It is easy to say that the government has it at it's discretion and that it is written into the Constitution, but I personally have not seen that and doubt that you can tell us exactly what part of the Constitution specifically permits this. Even the President's legal advisors have been unable to explain what part of the Constitution, it's ammendments, or statutes allowed him to bypass the need for a court order. Without checks and balances you have a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise. Oh yeah, you actually can sue the government and it has been done many times. Just two examples.
http://www.customscorruption.com/potcar.htm http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr072004.html

So you really think that they have our best interests in heart?? What bridge can I sell you?? They manipulate facts and twist them to justify illegal actions againist it's citizen. Hey look at what Bush did with Iraq and 9/11, no connection but now when people think Iraq they equate 9/11

you can sue the govt
ever hear of a "person vs united states" supreme court case? yeh, there's been a few...

I can see there are a lot of comments, but one thing everyone should be aware of, the CIA, FBI, and Several Federal Organizations have been monitoring communications for YEARS! They are making an announcement in hopes that terrorists will be disuaded from causing trouble or making it easy for them to organize terror.

Communications are NEVER private with respect to the Goverment, it has, will, and ALWAYS will be the discretion of the USA government to monitor our communications, regardless of whatever everyone thinks. They are not looking to spy on your personal or private conversations, they are trying to prevent treason and conspiracy against this country.

They aren't interested in your bank card, SSN, or your mother's bowel movements. They are only interested in preventing crime. Keep in mind, its not YOUR phone. Its only private from OTHER citizens, its never private when you use Public telephone lines. And your HOME phone IS public. Its regulated and controlled by the Fed's.

Thats bull I personaly know 3 people who have had visits from the feds for nothing more then opinions stated in a chat room that was neither a threat to any person nor to this country.,...It's outta control and you neocons who support trampling our constitution spew the battlecry..in the name of freedom...what a croc

Bourgeoisdude,
It doesn't matter who did it in the past and got away with it. It is a matter of not ignoring it when the government (or others) breaks the law. We have not heard of any instances when others failed to get the necessary court order. They had the time and the opportunity to get that court order, but apparently did not have enough facts or evidenciary material to make a case for it. They (NSA) simply put themselves above the law and the President condoned them breaking the law by giving the approval. If you have all the time to track down the President, going through his advisors and staff, get his review of it with the and get a signed document, you have time to get a court approval. I don;t believe the court has ever turned down a request yet.

The NSA _IS_ above the law. Have you ever heard of military law? Why is it so difficult for people to comprehend the NSA is ABOVE both criminal/civil and military legal systems. They can KILL citizens anywhere in the world, hopefully even certain Americans (if they need to prove some point, manipulate circumstances, you know spy games, so A will believe B did it so B goes and does it to C).

It's a good thing the NSA is doing this, because clearly any terrorist with half a brain won't bother to encrypt his traffic using special proxy servers. Clearly. </sarcasm>

It's the same story no matter what they try to do. The innocent people lose out and the terrorists, ASSUMING they're worth caring about (car accidents cause far more deaths a year than terrorism), find some way around the new safeguards or just choose another target (we keep our airports locked down, and yet you've all heard the stories about people who've easily bypassed them. Thinking as a terrorist might, I've come up with a couple of ideas that a theoretical group could implement to bypass airport security. As for other targets, many people frequently walk through my local Boston subway station with luggage (and there's no security stuff).

The point I'm trying to make is, we can't stop anyone who is determined enough, and if we try we only hurt ourselves. We need an alternate strategy.

You are wrong. We can stop over 95% of attempted/planned attacks with very little inconvenience to the average citizen. A person who one day "out of the blue" decides he's gonna do something nasty has to perform many steps first: associate with people, buy materials, make some calls, send some emails...

Even if he is the most careful person in the world he will never be able to truly know if the religious leader he trusts (or whomever) is not on the FBI/NSA's payroll, or just being followed by them. IMing friends in special countries? Seeking information and location to certain materials on google (perhaps in Arabic)? Using very strong encryption that only 0.05% of ordinary folks use (and apparently not to evade taxes or hiding your fetishes)? Tsk tsk.. Raising big red flags and being put on personal surveillance.

There is absolutely no doubt that with more cash spent on security, the higher the chances are for catching this guy before he does any damage.

I got here late--and I'm glad. I'm not going to read all the comments in this forum, so don't expect me to. I will say this (having mread the article):

1. NY Times news reports are "murky at best" on good days. No offense to them but they're so full of themselves they could not make a story that wasn't bias if they got a billion dollars for it.

2. Should that be correct, the Clinton Administration did the same thing, and even broadened the surveilence. Don't ask me details--look it up yourself.

3. If you think Bush would willfully start all this "illegal" surveilence, you need to reconsider. This started during the Cold War. Again look it up yourself.

Disagree with me all you want. You're wrong. I ain't no Bush lover either--used to be, but recently not so much. This is not Bush though. I'm outta here. Don't expect replies.

Wow! :/ Well, I live in the EU, so it's not very important and dangerous for me, but for those, who live in the USA... :/ Well guys, not a very good thing :/

Funny guy. The NSA is designed to primarily spy on YOU!

Extremely Well, what hat did you pull the 3/4 of generals or judges out of? The NSA does not ask for a 3/4 majority of anything. You are relying on the judgement of a few top members and information that is slanted which ever way the boss wants it. (They compete for promotions too.) The fact that you don't mind a few people being killed is very sad and I might add very un-American. Have you concidered moving to, say China. where they don't mind breaking laws or killing people to keep the status quo?

I was just guestimating of course, based on similar rules for passing laws or amending the constitution. Killing an American would probably similarly require an across-the-border total agreement that it is NECESSARY. And no, I don't mind at all if a few suspect-spies and suspect-terrorists get killed even though they are American. That is what national security means. This is not different one iota from war. These individuals are WORST than the average enemy soldier in your average war... The damage they can do is far greater than what a simple enemy soldier could ever do.

But I'm not that worried. Even if the NSA is FORCED to stop using certain anti-terrorism activities, in NO TIME another HUGE ATTACK will occur that'll sway public opinion to give the NSA even MORE power than what they have today. If people are dumb, well people will have to learn the hard way now won't they?

You're not worried because there will be a huge attack that will scare everyone into giving up their rights? You're not worried? You're looking forward to us being attacked so your government can resume spying on us? That has to be the most retarded statement ever posted in the history of this site. If we all chip in and buy you a one way ticket to China will you please take it and go? That way the government can spy on you and kill citizens all you like; I'm sure you'll be very happy there.

By the way do you really believe this war on terror garbage? If so explain what the h8ll invading Iraq had to do with anything? Why did Bush say he doesn't care where Osama is, that he's not important? How about all the lying that went on to justify invading Iraq and all the flip flopping when those reasons were revealed to be BS. Saddam has WMD's! No wait, we didn't mean that. We are there to deliver democracy! We've always been at war with eurasia!

You're such a sheep.

I'm not looking forward for an attack, but rather expecting an attack if the liberals have their way. Hopefully it'll be a relatively minor attack with only a few thousand people dead rather than an entire city wiped out.

Understand one thing, we were very lucky that Bin Ladin was so stupid and didn't wait a few years to buy some juicy WMD from Iraq/Iran/Syria/Libia. Note that 3 of the 4 these days are trembling from US wrath, with one (Libia) admitting full-mouth they've deserted their nuclear ambitions because of Bush's trigger happiness...

Tell me again why we stopped going after Bin Ladin and invaded Iraq again? Why there are thousands of dead American soldiers and tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians? What has all that accomplished again? Besides making us the laughing stock of most of the world and making the rest of the world hate us? If we are attacked it will be because of the warmongers going around like we are the world police torturing people and invading soverign nations, not because of any liberals. You admit that Bush is trigger happy yet you seem to support that as any good warmonger would. Let's just bring back the Gestapo while were at it, keep those citizens in line. This is my last reply, spew forth whatever garbage you will.

Seig Heil!

Pay no attention to the war pigs who believes illegal spying and torture are okie-dokie as long as it is done in the name of fighting "turra" (aka the War for Haliburton). Most fortunately their facist ideas are not shared by most Americans and there will be investigations into all the crimes that have gone on. Personally I'm very much looking forward to the impeachment.

What was accomplished is making sure no sane country in the world would dare finance or otherwise support terrorists. They can hate all they want but EVERYONE loves themselves and their family more than they hate their worst enemy. If we get attacked again you can be certain the solution a vast majority of the population would ask for is going to ANOTHER WAR and MORE WORLD POLICING and MORE SPYING ON "AMERICANS", not opening dialogue with terrorists/deserting military bases.

PS Bin Ladin is dead or being tortured for intel as we speak. He hadn't been making his usual quarter-yearly appearances in quite a while.

Oh you are going to be so surprised when we find ourselves at war with Iran under a Democrat president within the next few years. Sadly, it is inevitable.

No I'm not going to be surprised because if we do go to war it's going to be Bush's doing. Even if a Democrat was elected they'd be dealing with the last 8 years of disaster, and unless you have a crystal ball you don't know who's going to be elected. Besides enough with the stupid party BS. That's one of the things destroying this country. The stupid mouth breathers don't care who they vote for as long as it's their "party".

"What was accomplished is making sure no sane country in the world would dare finance or otherwise support terrorists."

*cough bullsh*t cough*

"PS Bin Ladin is dead or being tortured for intel as we speak."

Right, because you know all about it. Also there you go with the torture crap again. You should have lived in the middle ages, you would have loved it. Anyway you think if we had Bin Laden that Bush wouldn't be all over the news strutting like a rooster? Try living in reality for a while, you may like it.

I cannot disclose my sources, but Usama says hi.

Or was it AAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

hahahahahaha

Well, I for one will be very surprised if the NSA will allow their most favorite president ever (trigger happy, signs off on whatever he's told to, has no clue, extremely hateful of foreigners, loves to spend, still an alcoholic which can be used against him) to get impeached.

Boys, unfortunately, Republics and Democrats are the same now. Exactly the same corporations corrupt, erh, sorry, sponsor them. It's doesn't matter who wins, the entities behind them are allways the same. People have to find other alternatives to protect their souls.

Paraphrasing Ben Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"

Thank God this has been leaked, King George's power grab may be stopped

Ben Franklin also said "fear not death for the sooner we die the longer shall we be immortal."

We should stop all airport security checks and procedures for they hinder our liberty and destroy our privacy by checking the content of our bags. Let us all just pray to the Lord that we die in a suicide attack on that flight so that way we'll get to heaven real-quick.

Luckily, most Americans understand the essential need to monitor those few bad apples in our midst which is why with/without Bush, the spy game will carry on...

The problem with "if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" is that what the .gov defines as wrong is mutable. Licit acts today become the crimes of tomorrow.

I've never heard of a shoplifter who claimed the NSA contributed to his capture...

Do you actually think you would hear about it, or that the shoplifter would know? Besides you seem to have missed his point entirely, but then you're so blinded by unquestioning loyalty it's no wonder.

It's called patriotism. Give the guns to the right people and trust them fully to use it AS THEY SEE FIT.

I'm reading the comments here and I find it amusing that much debate is about the legality of NSA's activities. Nobody even knows who stands at the very top of the NSA. It could be army generals, it could be Supreme Court judges, but as long as it's not POLITICIANS - I'll be happy.

I don't care if they have their own laws which contradict the constitution at times (say - times of war). My opinion is very clear - if 3/4th of Supre Court judges, or 3/4th of army generals debate among themselves [relying on massive collected evidence] then say that a specific American needs to DIE (not just spied upon) because he is a threat to national security - I have enough trust in them that this guy really does need to die.

No need to hear his "counsel".

You should just move to Iran then. That's how things work there. A couple of guys decide someone should die, and bullets fly. In fact, that's how Iraq worked, too, and North Korea.

But in the United States we have this thing called the Bill of Rights and freedom. Sorry to disappoint.

Here in Australia we have a constitution (sp?)... I believe America has one to... that governs how the country it run. And Guess what? Spying is illegal.

If you can prove that I'm involved in criminal activities, then sure, monitor all you like. If you can't, you have no right to monitor me.

And if the government can do it, how many hackers can do it? ten, twenty... a hundred? Thousand? In otherwords... my personal information could be all over the net... and the world... by the end of the year.

Why should I move from a country where I TRUST the government to KILL THOSE WHO DESERVES TO DIE to a country where I PERSONALLY COULD BE KILLED FOR NO JUST CAUSE?

Yes, we have slightly more freedom than we need to protect ourselves right now. It's a very known fact to every schoolkid that a GOOD BIG BROTHER is a wonderful thing.

Hopefully the NSA keeps a realll close eye on every frequent mosque "visitor". They'll know that because the exact location of cellphones today is readily available. I bet they have a huge red X on mosques. Mind you, nearly all terrorists were very religious Muslims who did just what I just said (visited mosques MUCH MORE than the average visitor).

Hopefully a few feds wearing some wires and minicameras will take real good shots of all the usual prime suspects for the next would-be attack.

Welcome to reality, my friend. The "little" freedom you have is there because there are folks out there who know the difference between those who deserve to be left alone (folks like you and me) and those "Americans" that MUST be very closely monitored.

BTW Iran is next to be "conquered into democracy". This time it'll be done slightly differently - some "drug dealers" or "mafia figures" or "student terrorists" will start pouring money into that country in order to arm to the teeth those who oppose the Ahmadinejad regime. The Iranian government will know who is the sponsor, who will deny, thus Iran will be the one to strike us first. Naturally, they'll lose very quickly.

If you trust any government that decides to kill any of it's own citizens you need serious help. So if they came and told you that someone in your family must die you'd just say ok then and be all fine with it right. You're the very definition of a sheep, the very reason our rights are being trampled on because people like you are so gullible and trusting. The founding fathers would have been SO proud of you...yeah right.

Newsflash, my freedom-loving friend... Our government kills every year roughly 60 Americans. Yeah, most of them succeeded in killing one or two folks before they actually got caught, but I guess they're much bigger threat to society in your opinion than, say, an American pilot who is 98% complete with his plan to kill 50,000 people during the Superbowl.

If you read the article, the NSA had to work with backbone networks in order to place the taps at the switch level.

A hacker won't be able to exploit it...

The internet is public. Your ISP is public. The telephone lines between the countries is public. Your home phone is public. You don't own the communications, only the phone that its attached to. Australia, England, France, USA, Canada, they ALL have standing to do whatever they feel is necessary to protect the country. You have NO legal standing with respect to communications, to converse with anyone outside of your home using PUBLIC communications electronics. Its public, because its government controlled, and its not owned by private citizens, its public information. I can get information about you from your phone, very easily.

And if you have nothing to hide, what difference does it make if they listen in or not? We don't have to prove you are criminal, you should conduct yourself in a manner that's consistent with a good little citizen. They aren't listening for EVERY word, or listen in on EVERY communication, they are looking for key phrases and information, and should they have a NEED to further investigate someone, they have WARNED everyone that its going on. That's all this is. They have been monitoring your phone, yes even in Australia, for years. ITs extremely easy to listen in on your call, visit your local Telcom someday. I can walk into any switch room, pick up a receiver, choose the line to listen to, and listen, and that's without high level equipment to record and trigger events.

You can argue all you want, but your phone is not YOURS. Never has been. So you may as well get over it and deal with it.

They have a right to monitor you all they want, and if you are not conducting criminal activities, don't worry about it. What is it doing to you? Nothing, so quit stressing about it.

Hackers are not the government. Hackers are private citizens, but if they did work for an ISP that is unscrupulous, then I suppose they could do the same thing, but they can go to jail for doing it.. The government can and will monitor as they see fit, and until you form your own private phone company, you are subject to monitoring. If you don't want to be watched, monitored, or subject to surveillance, don't leave your house. They have a right to watch you, tape you, record you, follow you.. if they dont' interefere or manipulate you, who cares?

If you aren't a criminal, you have nothing to worry about. Those that have a problem with it have something to hide, its as simple as that.

People seriously wake up. If your argument is "I've done nothing wrong...Spy all you want" That's a great attitude to have and I agree so let's just bring everybody back from Iraq and everywhere else, and let's go spray paint the tombstones of every American that has ever died in the name of "freedom" with the words vain cause that's exactly what they died in. Your doing nothing wrong that's terrific good for you, but here's the thing who decides that for you. America is not a dictatorship and being the president or any other person in government does not give you the right to trample on anyone's rights. Most everyone here I'm sure is non-arab-american, probably middle to upper class, majority probably white with some education if of age...And your right the government doesn't want you so have your movie talk, but it's up to you as an American to stand up for those who are the minority because one day they may be searching for someone that fits your profile and I hope their is someone out there that cares enough about calling themselves American and singing "Let freedom ring" that stands up for your rights.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
-Abraham Lincoln

Even Albert Einstein admitted he was wrong on some key issues, so I'm definitely not gonna go by slogans/quotes of ANYONE.

9/11 proved that there's no need to worry about things until you need to start worry about them AND THEN WORRY ABOUT THEM UNTIL YOU CAN STOP WORRYING ABOUT THEM. Freedom was fun while it lasted, now it's time to make sure LIFE is preserved by ALL MEANS POSSIBLE. I wish the NSA the best of luck in monitoring every fart of every American.

Only once I PERSONALLY feel they've crossed the line and ABUSED their power by putting "petty-criminals" behind bars will I be against their methods. Not to say you/I can do much if you're against them. A change in president or senate is probably not sufficient... They're most likely as a-political as possible in order to prevent inside abuse, and every major action they take has to be agreed upon by multiple very smart, PROVABLY HONEST (judges, generals), & fair individuals.

Violance that is delt with violence is not a solution at all.

Earth is at peace, and at peace it should remain.

All the sensible nations in the world are actively spending more than HALF of their budget on army/intelligence. The next world war is just around the corner unless the WHOLE WORLD sees that the USA ain't shy about using its power to the max when just one Saudi millionaire thinks he can make them "go away" from "his country" so that he could continue to abuse women, children, and plan on expanding that wonderful way of life to his neighbors.

Ah, I see now. You're a Bush War Monger. You really think they have made the world more safe? BS, they've made the world hate us and put us at more risk than any time in history. They can't even catch one man hiding in a cave, but they're going to protect me from turr. Give me a break. I'll keep my civil liberties instead thanks.

Well ya know criminals too hate cops, judges, and even ordinary citizens who carry concealed weapons.

Those countries who hate us would continue to hate us REGARDLESS until we all speak Arabic...or send them just a lil' more foreign aid...

Exactly what freedom are they taking away? The freedom from spying? I have news for you, this "spying" is EXACTLY how they afforded you the freedom in the first place. They are protecting your so called freedom by making sure EVERYONE complies with proper conduct, and instead of arguing with the rules of whether or not they have the right to do this or not, you should be volunteering to help to catch terrorists.

They aren't preventing you from walking down the street, going anyplace you like, eating whatever you like, coming and going whenver you want, then exactly what freedom are you losing? What exactly are they doing to YOU?

I don't want to hear "spying is wrong".. Tell me what intereference its causing to your life? Tell me what its keeping you from doing that is so bad? How exactly is listening to a few conversations by monitoring equipment to ensure you aren't plotting an attack on the USA government is taking away your freedom?

They can only use it against you, if you give them something to use. If this is not the case, then don't worry about.

Please tell me your kidding. What freedoms are they taking away? Gee I don't know how about you go back and read the Bill of Rights particularly # 3 and # 6 (Just minimize this window and check google). The government is not your mommy, and instead of sitting at the dinner table eating another huge helping of propaganda pie try thinking for yourself. If you think for one second the governemnt is open and honest about the info they collect, MLK and Malcolm X said they would like to have a word with you. The "freedoms" they are taking away are deciding what you can and cannot say, cause I would think Bin Laden calls his boys on his cell so he can give this weeks orders, yeah the Talaban has the new RAZR.

But seriously go back to google and find one government in history that wasn't given an inch by it's citizens like you that just follow, and ended up taking a mile.

Now go back to bed, and sleep well cause the NSA and your government are on the case nothing to worry about, matter of fact they just got a call from some guy in Pakistan looking for a low grade nuclear weapon, whew cingular they really are raising the bar.

Freedom was fun while it lasted, now it's time to make sure LIFE is preserved by ALL MEANS POSSIBLE.
-----------------------
Makes you a sniveling little PUNK.

The whole "agree with us or you are the enemy" thing is pathetic. I hate when I get into a good conversation with someone and they throw that crap in your face.

I wonder if Bush supports ID :P

Not sure why this was addressed to me. I don't think liberals are the enemy - I think they are just a naive bunch who live in la la land.

Yeah, it's extremely important for gays to be able to legally have intercourse (major Supreme Court decision of recent years), and hopefully get married (but NOT to adopt children - raise their own biologicals only through insemination of a lesbian couple or something).

But I think it's slightly more important to prevent AS MANY future terrorist attacks as possible while PHYSICALLY hurting as few individuals as possible. Unfortunately, people get used to not being blown up at work, so they feel we can let go on some security measures. And maybe you can! (not enough data to decide.) But I'm not willing to give THAT a try, especially if the NSA can prove (to whomever they need to) that you CANNOT. That means that those hated domestic spying methods can actually be proven as essential for averting attacks. Essential means that without them you would experience an attack.

The alternative of course would be outlawing encryption and forcing every citizen to carry a GPS-enabled device bolted to their ankle. I think I'll go with the NSA compromise...

"The Times says that the American government has been pushing the telecommunications industry to urge international phone companies to route calls through U.S. networks. That way, the NSA can eavesdrop on conversations by simply capturing packets on a switch."

"In addition, with foreign calls being routed through American soil, the Times reports that some judges and law enforcement officials regard eavesdropping on those calls as a possible violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court-approved warrants for domestic surveillance."

This is Bush and AMerica trying to rule the world. I vote, NO.

OK, I've said all I'm saying on this thread, because it's time to put politics aside and enjoy the holidays.

Merry Christmas to everyone! And if you don't celebrate it, too bad... have a great day anyway! :)

Happy Holidays everyone :-)

Its not a "Holiday" its Christmas!

Christmas, people, Christmas. 77% of this Country (USA) is Christian. Therefore the majority wants Christmas.

Whether you believe in religion or not, Jesus is the reason for the season. Without Christianity there is no "Holiday"

Its Christmas!

Who cares if 77% of the country is Christian, that doesn't give them the right to step on anyone elses beliefs.

Happy Holidays rijp. Hope your holiday was as enjoyable as mine. :-)

Well, it's about time someone spied on everyone! Maybe this will get all you flaky dope-smoking file-sharing people to see the light and start being good little citizens, now that you know they are watching. Now go have a glass of flouride and relax.

You might have a point, but the information gathered is only being used for one very specific purpose: to uncover terrorist plots.

You'll notice no one has been prosecuted for minor crimes that were discovered from this information.

Does anyone care?!?!
unless its some stupid paranoid american that cares if the NSA can hear his "AMAZINGLY PRIVATE" conversations ...

for anyone who just uses these things because they are cheaper than real telephones...
it wont change ur life

Yes, people care. At least those few who are not brain dead idiots. Though I see you're one of those people who type "ur" instead of "your" so I'm not surprised by your lack of support for the rights our founders fought and died for. What are you 12 or something? As for your comment about real telephones as opposed to "these things" I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. This does affect real telephones too by the way, whatever "real" is supposed to mean.

What do you have to hide? If your doing something illegal then yes this may step on your toes but if your not involved in illegal activity then what's your problem? The court systems today have become slow and clogged. I think the way that the current Administration is proceding while it may not be the best way with our current setting I'd like to see you do something better. I personally would rather the government spy on me and my family then have more attacks kill american citizens. Now if you'd like to base your argument on how a person spells 'ur' or 'your' then obviously you dont have a clue of what your talking about and your just trying to bash someone you dont agree with, my suggestion is you find out why you dont agree. Dont resort to bashing and have an intelligent conversation which it seems alot of people on this site have moved away from.

Just because one has nothing to hide doesn't make it ok.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin.

By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.
- Benjamin Franklin

Distrust and caution are the parents of security.
- Benjamin Franklin

Difference being my quote was actually in context unless you think illegally spying on US citizens is somehow related to either of those two quotes. If it makes you feel all warm, cozy and protected though by all means enjoy yourself. Say hi to Big Brother for me at the next sheep meeting.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Your quote was absolutely out of context. If you are not a terrorist or otherwise a criminal then you have nothing to worry with.

You have lost no liberty unless you intend to harm Americans in which case you deserve none.

No it wasn't out of context at all. To say that it is ok for our civil liberties to be violated and for illegal spying and other activities that violate the constitution are fine and dandy as long as they are protecting us from them scary terrorists is exactly what the quote was talking about. The whole "if you not a criminal you don't need to worry about it" argument is lame BS. I'm not going to bother discussing it anymore because you'll just keep spewing nonsense trying to defend your beloved Bush. It wouldn't matter if he used the constitution as toilet paper or broadened his torture campaign to include citizens, you'd still love and defend him. Whatever, enjoy your impending police state. At least you'll think you're safe from "turr" and that's all that matters.

Even the greatest of liberals, faced with this scenario will admit he'll use torture:
Your family is going to be blown to pieces, but you can save them if the criminal handcuffed in front of you gives you the exact location and disengaging code for said bomb. You are 90% sure he has that information.

I say torture is fine to use whenever there's a reasonable chance of saving the life of one single other individual (using statistics to prove morallity and fairness - one innocent man in jail/tortured is better than one dead victim). Police should use it too. If you turn out to be innocent - no biggie - get $5mil in compensation for the inconvenience and go on your merry way.

Back to NSA's activities...If your illegal activities will put you in jail for upto 10 years, you have nothing to worry about someone in the government "knowing" about it, cuz they won't reveal their secret actions for such minor crimes. If on the other hand they know you are a serial killer, terrorist, international drug-dealer/spy, I guess/hope they'll do the right thing(TM) and jump in. They will of course still try to cover reality by producing "eye-witnesses" (experienced spies) to fool even the court systems. You do what you gotta do.

In 10 or 20 years we'll be constantly monitored anyway BY CHOICE (of ourselves or other INDIVIDUALS we have no control over). With 4th+ generation wireless technologies, cars will have multiple built-in cameras (initially to allow you to uncover blind spots) which will broadcast road-rage and accidents live. So when you'll be chatting to wify while both of you are driving to work, the NSA will be able to "follow" cars around you, "borrowing" your equipment.

You will also obviously have masses of people always recording street action on their handheld wireless devices - so when a crime occurs, the police (maybe..) and definitely the NSA will be able to "watch around" what you're "taping".

So Big Brother is actually gonna be your real actual blood & flesh big brother Robert.

(Don't ask me how I knew.)

Torture is NOT fine, information obtained from torturing is NOT reliable, but hey enjoy your Kool-Aid. Anyone that would support torturing any human being makes me sick.

Of course the intel will be reliable - cuz it'll be verified or the torture would INCREASE otherwise.

Go ahead and watch your family die (or someone else's family die). I hope seeing that happening would sooth your sickness, you sensitive man you.

You are justifying torture by saying those who oppose it are going to have their family die. I think hell has a special place reserved for you.

I can see how you can believe in heaven and hell. You have no respect for human life so you leave it up to God to sort it out. So what if millions will die in a nuclear war? The bad guys will go to hell and the good guys to heaven - how convenient.

Sorry, my friend, I'm not going to hell regardless of whether it exists or not. You, on the other hand, for not doing the most you can to save the lives of the MOST AMERICANS, just might experience hell in this very earthly life.

Your thinking is flawed because you assume there can always be a peaceful resolution. News flash: that's not always possible.

There are sick bas****s out there that wouldn't lose a minute of sleep over blowing up an entire city.

I don't approve of torture at all, but I believe it should be used as a last resort if all else has failed.

Again you haven't based your side on more then a single quote (out of context at that) and your bush bashing when this argument isn't about bush but about the methods of the government as a whole (As much as you would love to blame bush he can't do it all himself) but back on track since this isn't an argument about bush. Our government is doing what they feel is the best way of retaliating to the terrorism we have seen. If you have better ideas then go through the proper channels and voice your opinion but as you will soon find out our system has completely changed from that originally created. Things have to be done and sometimes actions have to be done to circumvent slow processes. I've voiced my opinion previously and you still have yet to address what I've said so for now I say give me facts and logic and reality and I will consider your opinion. Be civilized and quit bashing people for there beliefs when you can't even defend yours reasonably.

People only care because they are paranoid. It would have been better if the NSA would have simply done it, and not told you they were doing it, because this is only 1 more step in a situation they have been spying on your conversations for years.

So what does it matter if they listen? What impact does it have on your conversations? You going to quit using the phone? You think they care about your piddly family or problems with your personal life? NO! Are you plotting an attack on American soil? NOW you are getting their attention, you are not a terrorist, get over it.

I think you are brain dead if you think this is new. Its only a method to warn those that think the USA is complacent.

Alright, let's say that everyone is a straight edge and not breaking any laws...

What about that feeling of someone breathing down your neck? That fear of someone watching your every move like a pawn on a chess board...the fear that if you **** up they are going to be there waiting for you and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

In related news, it turns out that nobody on the Internet has ever really typed LOL. After suspecting that LOL was actually a trackable "tag" added to messages processed by the NSA, the Electronic Freedom Foundation spent days on intensive cryptanalysis to decode the secret meaning of LOL: "Inspected by 12."

no affiliation with NSA here, i've known about this for many many years, teachers talked about it etc. this is no surprise. and wha ya think carnivore was people?

Carnivore was a lot more simplistic than this :) Carnivore was designed to allow specific eavesdropping by the FBI and usually with a court order. It wasn't capturing streams of packets from a switch at a major POP.

yeah but somehow people are still surprised. for every decomissioned aircraft they have 5 classified surprises. same goes for bout any technology made by the government (if it works... refer to pentagon wars)

At this point, you're right. People shouldn't be surprised. But they can be upset I suppose :)

Is this whole thing really a big surprise? My parents worked at the NSA in Maryland. Maybe that's why I find no surprise in it, but the government is spying on people, and I'm pretty sure everybody knew, from the wacko conspiracy theorist to the average citizen.

Yes, well, we may feel this way, but as long as the average citizen remains unaware of the totality of that which transpires, and the full reasoning behind it, there will always be an outcry against it.

Usually, those directly involved with the IC have the clearance and deductive logic to accept that, since we open our borders to nearly everyone, then even those that consider themselves to be archenemies of the United States can operate within our own borders, and thus the functionality of communications intelligence within our own borders, directed to our own citizens. Not, mind you, with the prevailing thought that *every* US citizen is a member of a terrorist group, but that by monitoring the communications of every person, can we isolate those that are. And thereby, take the preemptive actions that the average US citizen demand we take.

Bear in mind that many that believe this is a massive crime are also of the opinion that they can download some cryptosystem to safeguard their "private" conversations against the government. After all, it's not as though the NSA specializes in applied cryptography, or anything of such a nature. Mind you, if you are a highly gifted theoretical mathematician that can also write your own code, it may be a different story. However, given the massively parallel computer systems designed outright to break even the most sophisticated non-reverseable fractal crypto algorythm, breach of said code, at some point, would seem inevitable.

In another vein, we must also consider the fact that those Americans outraged at such an age-old occurence are also aware of activities of our very own Central Intelligence Agency, and have no qualms about our sending operatives out to other countries to collect intelligence, thereby effectively violating the "privacy" of other countries. As long as no country, including our own, does it to the average American citizen, they are amenable to such a concept.

The depletion of common sense, rationality and lotgic in current American society, and the resultant ramifications, is truly an amazing phenomenon to behold.

I'm a wacko conspiracy theorist from Canada, and I must agree that everyone knew except people that worship Bush as their saviour.

Bush has a lot of s*** burried that will probably come out in the future. Also, didn't this start right after 9/11? They're a couple years slow reporting this stuff...

I don't think the NSA may be able to crack some encryption methods, especially those that will encode your crap using multiple-algorithms (with diff keys obviously) in multi-layer style - so even if NSA broke ONE of them, they did not break ALL OF THEM (the NSA does not have a monopoly on brilliant mathematicians). Diff algorithms which were invented work on diff assumptions of difficulty (factoring large numbers, finding discrete logarithms, etc).

My guess of what the NSA probably does, though, is something closer to this: they pay special attention to encrypted data, and profile those who use it, and for what purposes. They compile a list of "prime suspects". Then they wait for the right moment and JUMP IN to grab your encryption key using yet-to-be-discovered holes in the LOOOONG chain of software you use/trust, or do what the FBI did to that Mafia guy - break-in and install a physical keylogger. So they just need to find a hole in the OS, or Skype, or Browser, or Anti-Virus, or whatever else you are running so they can inject a key-logging trojan and grab your key somewhat more easily than breaking the cipher. This is of course assuming they did not force the major software companies to install those backdoors with the understanding that if it ever gets discovered they will: a. go to jail for a really really long time (national security issue). b. lose much much business. These types of conversations would be recorded with all participants understanding that they've reached a point where regular law ends and the NSA laws begin. Probably only 2-3 individuals per company need to be in the know. From that point the NSA will be a welcome (or non-welcome, doesn't matter) guest of every board meeting and email communication inside that company - encrypted or not. You wanna enjoy this great country's capitalism and build an empire? No problem! But.. Time to pay with intel.

This is why China wants their own software and HARDWARE. I say HARDWARE because nobody today can actually verify there's no backdoor in his CPU/motherboard/printer. Some things are, well, self-descructive upon inspection.

I sleep VERY WELL at night knowing the NSA is protecting me, and they've proved how GOOD THEY ARE. I was pretty sure 9/11 would be the first of a string of such activities. Luckily (or rather THANKS TO THOSE GUYS), I was wrong.

Merry Christmas

naming the telecom companies would be nice so one can atleast file a suit :)

That's a pretty ignorant statement. Then again, the New York Times is both felonious and ignorant for thinking this was "newsworthy."

Knowing that your government is spying on its own citizens isn't newsworthy? Then why is it on the front of CNN, New York Times, AP, Reuters, etc. Obviously the news organizations disagree with you.

I suppose Saddam torturing people in Iraq and persecuting people for being against his regime is also not newsworthy? Or is that news because he's Arab?

There's a line between spying and surveillance for the sake of national security. I don't believe that line has been crossed.

What I was trying to say was:

1) This has been going on for a looong time. You're telling me you're surprised by this?

2) The New York Times printed information that was supposed to be classified. That's a felony.

Saddam? Iraq? You're comparing this with a genocidal dictator torturing his own people?

1) This hasn't been going on for a long time. Intercepting traffic at the switch level is completely different than what was going on 5-10 years ago. Technology has improved to the point where now this can be done. Plus, telephone traffic was NOT done using IP even 5 years ago.

2) No, it's not a felony at all. The person with first hand knowledge could possibly be prosecuted, but not the journalists. If it was a felony, the president could just start killing American citizens and call it classified. Was it a felony for the Washington Post to expose Watergate? No, it was heroic.

At number 1, I meant surveillance of citizens' communication has been going on for a long time. Of course the methods of surveillance will change as the methods of communication change. That's common sense to me.

Watergate was a scandal. There's no evidence to suggest a scandal here. Making that comparison is irresponsible journalism in my opinion.

By the same token, if those same news agencies were to reprot on their front pages that "2 + 2 = 4!", then this commonly accepted, age-old mathematical fact would be newsworthy as well, just because they reported it.

A given topic is not newsworthy merely by the fact that a news agency has reported it. A given topic is newsworth relative to the reporting agencies based on the sensationalism of it, and by how much it will get people to buy the paper, or read the article. I'd think this would be reasonably obvious.

1) This *has* been going on a long time... as far back as FDR, in fact. Carter and Clinton have done it. Nevermind if it was right or wrong, the point is that it has been done. Don't fool yourself into thinking that switch level monitoring somehow makes it worse. In fact, considering the volume of data involved, I suspect a lot of time was wasted filtering results to get what they wanted... you know, those hot, steamy phone sex calls made to that girl in Phoenix! ;)

2) The leaking of classified information is illegal. Whether it is prosecuted or not makes no difference. Just because of Simpson got away with it, doesn't mean he wasn't guilty of a crime; just because Clinton is still married does mean he's not an adulterer. Enough of this, however, the issue here is that you want something against the Bush administration, and this is the best any obstructionist can come up with.

1) What was going on 80 years ago is nothing like what's going on today. We didn't have even 1% of the capability we do today for spying. We must use it responsibly.

2) Nobody said Simpson was innocent or that Clinton didn't get a blow job. If the Bush administration wasn't breaking the law and sending 150,000 Americans into a country that never attacked us, perhaps people wouldn't be so upset?

Umm, Watergate was about illegaly spying on the Democratic party using wire taps and other methods. It was a scandal because it was illegal.

This is a lot bigger than Watergate. Except this time it's being done in the name of stopping terrorism. Time will tell whether it's a scandal or not, but for now, it's important news that people should know about.

"If the Bush administration wasn't breaking the law and sending 150,000 Americans into a country that never attacked us, perhaps people wouldn't be so upset?"

Indeed, thousands would be dying at the hands, or rather explosives, of a people who actually value their beliefs, while people sit around complaining about whether its offensive to say "Merry Christmas" or not.

News... yes. Cause for concern or conspiracy paranoia? Hardly.

Very well put.

This is supposed to be news? I hope everyone knew this was happening anyway. I would expect nothing less.

As for the leak, the New York Times is trash and should face felony charges for printing it.

You expected the government to violate the Bill of Rights and laws that are put into place to protect the citizens of the United States? Wow, your expectations are quite low these days.

There is a difference between a dictator and a democratic leader, and this is one of them. Our President is elected to do what's in the best interest of the people. And if he was trying to do that, why did he skirt legality and violate laws?

We don't have all the facts yet. The New York Times was irresponsible to report on partial information.

There's no concrete evidence that says laws have been avoided. There has to be something to this that we don't know. And likely there will be yet *another* "Special conference" where President Bush will tell the news even more information that the public should never have known - for its own good.

Nobody will ever have all the facts about anything. The purpose of reporting something like this is to learn more. A Congressional inquiry will surely take place and people WILL learn more about what was going on.

When Watergate was first reported, they didn't have all the facts. But it started an investigation which ultimately resulted in Nixon's resignation.

I doubt very seriously we'll see anything like that. I still think the Watergate comparison is way off.

But time will tell.

If there was any proof that such an operation was happening, then why is there no proof that it has had actual results other than to infringe on privacy?

As far as I can tell its fear mongering, and truth be told -as with any lock on any thing- all its really going to do is keep honest people honest wrather than catch actual terrorists.

As far as fear mongering voyeuristic money wasting associations go, I'd say if NSA is actually doing this they take the top of the list. But at least they are giving a nice, false sense of security for all that money and rights infringement. What a great job, above the law and the results arent really answerable to anyone publically since its -gasp- *top secret* (the secret being, of course, that they dont want their own populace to know they can and do spy on them)

"hy is there no proof that it has had actual results"

What part of classified did you miss?

Yeah.....like this is the first time the NSA has done this.

Come on people.........they've been doing this for 50+ years.

Exactly.

Whomever leaked information about this highly classified program should be shot.

Bush is doing his job in protecting our citizens, the NY times did America a great injustice by publishing information about a classified operation and they should be thrown in jail for life over it.

My opinion of course.

Everyone has a right to their opinion... and sometimes we're Right and sometimes we're left. *grin*

In which case, that means Karl Rove, who revealed the name of a top-secret American Intelligence Agent, thereby placing the entire covert operation, as well as her life, in jeaopardy, should be arrested for treason and shot as well.

Works both ways pal.

I absolutely agree, provided he is found guilty "pal".

The reporters in my opinion shouldn't have ever have been let out of jail either.

No...

This time, the US has gone too far. I'm allowed to have my instant messages with my friends/family/loved ones/partner remain PRIVATE.

It's my communications, not theirs... and I hope Yahoo (my IM provider) puts a stop to it. If not, I'll start using Zone Alarm encryption to encrypt my IMs to my close friends and family.

and you sound brainwashed

Yes, you twit, but you are in Australia, and they're only interested in militant extremists, not love affairs.

You know, the reporters are just as guilty for irresponsible journalism. The problem is, the NT is not responsible. They publish this rubbish w/o concern for consequences.

Why? Because I read the information and came to a conclusion on my own that doesn't match yours? Because I actually support my country and my leaders whether I agree with them or not?

Disseminating classified information is a felony, AND it puts the entire country in some form of jeopardy based on whatever data said leaked information contained. It makes me sick to my stomach to know that a pair of reporters were released from jail when they published the information.

Hopefully when all is said and done everyone responsible will be behind bars, including the editors etc.

AGREE!!

If Bush was doing a great thing, why did he not go through proper channels? Why not get court orders and monitor people legally?

Nobody is saying spying is a bad thing, but there has to be a line drawn between what is beneficial and what is overboard. There are laws in this country for a reason, and if the President starts flaunting them, that is VERY dangerous.

Everyone always makes excuses until it affects them. The war in Iraq is great, until your child gets sent over and shot. Tourturing terrorism suspects is great, until an innocent person is tortured. Hiring an incompetant FEMA director is all fine and dandy until a major hurricane hits.

Remember innocent until proven guilty and trial by jury and the Bill of Rights? Did we all forget about the very reason why these thing exist?

"until your child gets sent over and shot."

I dunno about you, but I expect my children to join the military and if necessary defend our country. Should one of them be shot it would be a very tough time, however I would not dishonor them or my country by changing my opinion should something happen to them in the process. As a matter of fact, 1 of 3 has already been told that he is expected to join the military and serve his country. He only has a few short years left before the time comes as well.

Who said he didn't go through the proper channels? The whole thing is classified and as such we should never know that answer nor should the senate release that information for us to hear about.

Agreed on everything.

The second you give up your rights, including privacy, you give up your freedom. I'd much rather be bombed by a terrorist then live in fear of the government or surveillance.

That's the thing: You assume that by the government having the information, you will be "living in fear." If so, then you must have something to hide.

I couldn't care less if the government knows what my friends and I chat about. If they really want to know what movie we're going to see on Friday, more power to 'em.

I do, however, care if the government knows about terrorists making plans against our country. If they had the chance to gain that information, and didn't take it, they would fail every U.S. citizen for it.

That's the whole point. He didn't go through proper channels, which is why he had to shamefully admit the executive order previously. There are laws against domestic spying on just anyone and having a secret executive order saying it's okay is flaunting the law by invoking special powers.

I feel sorry for your children if you want to send them to the desert to battle crazy insurgents. In fact, that's borderline child abuse. There is nothing wrong with supporting our troops (I do and always will), but if they are sent somewhere to defend against an enemy who never attacked us, how is that honoring our country? It is our duty to make sure the sons and daughters are actually doing their intended job, not being sent to fight because we want cheap oil (Iraq attacked us...when?). It's a sham and your children will be simple pawns sent to die while Bush sits back and enjoys his pretzels.

"borderline child abuse"

OMFG LOL!

No, it's the American way. There is no evidence to support the assumption that he did not go through the proper channels when he authorized it. Any information pertaining to the subject is classified according to the President of the United States and it should remain classified. The information made public was done so illegally and as such it should be disgarded because we don't have all the facts.

Now that is a small-minded statement. Sure, it's okay until it affects you. What happens when someone you care about is picked up and thrown into Guantanamo because their computer was mistaken for someone suspicious?

It's not about the government knowing what movies your friends are seeing, it's about principal. If there are no checks and balances, where does it stop? Why not just let the government stick a video camera in your house so they know what you're doing at all times?

This very thing is what makes us different than countries like China, Iran, North Korea, and even Iraq. If we keep blurring the line of legality, how long until a crazy dictator decides that everyone who dissents should be thrown in jail?

No one should wish pain, or potential pain, on their children. That IS child abuse.

And blatantly sending our sons and daughters to war because someone says they should go is not the American way. Protecting our country is the American way and I ask again, when did Iraq attack us?

And yes, there is evidence. That's the whole point. Bush made a secret executive order that allowed him to wire tap WITHOUT court orders. If he was doing it in the best interest of the people, then why not go through the proper process that was established to protect American citizens?

What did I say?

"I expect my children to join the military and if necessary defend our country."

I guess we are probably just going to agree that we disagree LOL. I don't think we have all the facts, so I'm not going to pass judgement that he did anything wrong.

I agree with you completely, but I don't see that line being anywhere near crossed yet. Phone conversations have been monitored for decades. How come no one gets upset about that? Of course we don't have any concrete proof that it is happening, but everyone knows it is (or at least I hope it is). This is the same thing. It's for our own safety, and as long as the information is not used maliciously (which there is no evidence to suggest it is), I am glad the government is protecting us in this way.

Sifting through trillions of conversations for suspicious plans is not the same as the government knowing exactly what *I'm* doing at any given moment. I used a bad example I guess.

"What happens when someone you care about is picked up and thrown into Guantanamo because their computer was mistaken for someone suspicious?"

Well that would be a *mistake* then wouldn't it? That already happens daily in our legal system, and sure I'm upset about that.

"I guess we are probably just going to agree that we disagree"

Granted. Although I still think anyone who wants to send their sons and daughters to fight in Iraq right now, where they are dying painfully by roadside bombs and crazy a** insurgents, is absolutely insane :)

Well, if he dies, you can tell your other kids that your child fought hard honoring his country by protecting... Basra??

My son is 12, so I suspect the war will be over by the time he is old enough to enlist. LOL

I have never met anyone that regretted joining the military and serving their country. ;-)

It's not like I'd be sending a child off to die, however if no one enlists because they are afraid their child might die how are we going to maintain our military?

I guess that's the question. When does is the line crossed and when does it invade our privacy? If we keep moving the line, how long until the line doesn't even exist.

If this report is found accurate and these things have been going on, I think skirting the laws is crossing the line. Nobody is saying spying is bad, but it has to be controlled.

Then we agree. But no one knows for sure that laws have been ignored.

"...to fight in Iraq right now, where they are dying painfully by roadside bombs and crazy a** insurgents..."

You make it sound like a massacre over there. Granted, there is pain and death, and every loss is tragic, but the sensationalist media is making every U.S. citizen think it's 1,000,000 times worse than it really is.

"Well, if he dies, you can tell your other kids that your child fought hard honoring his country by protecting... Basra??"

I know two people serving in Iraq right now. That is an extremely dishonoring statement against them.

This is exactly what I mean when I call left-wingers "obstructionists"... You're all so stuck on the past and so busy resisting reality that you all obstruct progress and solutions. You know what? You all made your case about the war, but it happened anyway because more people thought you were wrong than right. Get over it, And either provide solutions or Shut up.

You are entitled to your opinions, but those opinions got you nowhere. So either be part of a solution, or let it go. Just stop obstructing progress just because you disagree.

I don't remember anyone telling me growing up that I was going to love everything in life. I do recall several people telling me to deal with it. All of you obstructionists sound like a big group of two year olds throwing a tantrum over not getting that toy you wanted.

We don't have to send them to Iraq now... did you miss that headline? Rumsfeld said yesterday that we will not send more over and troops will begin pulling out in the coming months now that the elections have happened. Apparently you had your head buried in the NYT and missed all the good news. Merry Christmas Nate... enjoy the good times and leave the paranoia to the tabloids and ACLU.

One more thing... defending our country doesn't always mean land... more often, it means our freedoms and way of life. I, for one, don't have short-term memory loss. I remember what happened when we followed the obstructionist plan and ignored the warnings... 9/11 happened. I would rather keep the suicide bombers out of our country, thank you very much. I would gladly listen to an alternative plan, but there isn't one. The only thing obstructionists offer is criticism, and I'm sorry, but it doesn't help anyone.

There were no suicide bombers in Iraq until the war started. You're getting pretty good at rewriting history!

It's not about dying, its about being responsible with where and when we send our troops into battle. War to protect our country is completely different than being stationed for a year in some far off land protecting the people of Basra and oil pipelines from sabotage.

"So either be part of a solution, or let it go."

What solution? What has been solved in the past 4 years? We've lost 2000 American lives and the price of oil is still higher than ever.

There is nothing wrong with questioning our government and decisions they made. Thomas Jefferson, a founder of our country said it best:

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

Keep spewing the right-wing propoganda, but I've never said anything about being left-wing. I'm simply talking about responsiblity and following the laws of our country.

What glass station have you buyingfrom? Because all the ones I've been to are down to around $2.08 and I'm pretty damn sure they've been a lot higher in the past.

What's been solved is that a tyrant is out of power, and millions are now free! You can disagree all you want about how it happened, but I know millions who will laugh at you for saying that they are not better off.

What's been solved is that we have, for now, put a stop to terrorists. Maybe you don't have a clue how to protect as, but if you do make abettor suggestion rather than cry about the one we have that is supported by a majority.

Yes, question all you want... but do so constructively by convincing as there is a better way. Don't do it by crying about it and being a whiney, self-centered obstructionist.

I do not spew out propaganda, nor do I spew forth paranoia I listened to your complaints, I read the stories on the news, and then I concluded for myself that your opinion was ignorant!!

The only history I rewrite is that which you and those like you rewrote in an effort to ignore and hide the truth. There is not a country in the middle east that hasn't experienced bombings or other forms of terrorism and oppression. If you would like some documentation, I will gladly be a GOOD journalist and creditsources to document it.

lol.. the US Government is only taking out 20,000 troops (or it could be 2000, not sure.. its early in the morning here). its all over the news even here in aus. but they are putting more in so they can train up more iraqie military, police, n all that law type stuff.

Oh yes! It's always about oil. *eyeroll*

Terrorism is real and it is serious. But the citizen's have rights set up and granted by the Constitution. Politicians and power tripping administrators in high positions must not be allowed to trample on them. We could easily become the next repressive society, like China or North Korea. If you don't actively stand up and defend you rights, they will surely be taken away. I say citizen's get full rights while non-citizens do not. Illegals should be treated as law breakers. With citizenship come the duty of defending the Constitution and individual rights. The government has shown it's contempt for the Constitution by not even asking a search warrant. They now believe they no longer need to follow the laws or the Constitution. This is wrong.

Tell me something, when was the last time you were oppressed? Not offended... oppressed. It's pretty pathetic and insensitive that you would call yourself or others in this country oppressed, when you likely have NO understanding of the countless people oppressed by nations in the world throughout history.

Terrorism is real and it is serious. Yes, sir! And we have no idea what it takes to secure an entire nation. The only rights I've had violated is my freedom of speech in favor of political correctness, which is something obstructionists have created because they're so offended by truth and reality. I'm not doing anything wrong, so if the government has the time and resources to spy on my conversations with family and friends, well, I guess they're not doing their jobs efficiently.

Fact of the matter is... analyzing patterns could mean anything. Advertisers are analyzing our web traffic patterns to serve us ads. Where's the outrage in that? They're doing exactly the same thing. Analyzing the patterns could simply mean obtaining lists of calls and identifying who calls internationally, and how often? Then, they get that list and monitor only those specific calls.

You paranoid obstructionists need to get a clue and realize that It's Not About You! Nobody cares about you unless you do something amazing or do something wrong.

If advertisers put a computer in your house to monitor what Web sites you went to and served up related ads, I gaurantee you would be upset.

It doesn't matter if you're not doing anything wrong. The point is that we have laws in place to protect American citizens from persecution and an invasion of privacy. And if those laws are simply ignored, that is very, very dangerous.

Sure, you may not care that a police officer is allowed to search without a warrant. But what happens if you're pulled over and the cop things you gave him an nasty look? What happens when you're taken out of your car, strip searched as the cops tear up your automobile? You will be humiliated and what was the probable cause?

These laws exist to protect us, and just because you haven't personally been affected, that doesn't mean they aren't good laws.

"If advertisers put a computer in your house to monitor what Web sites you went to and served up related ads, I gaurantee you would be upset."

I definitely would be. But an ad company isn't using the information to protect me, nor do they have any governing responsibility over me whatsoever. The government, being the government, obviously does.

That's why I'm not upset by this news, which really wasn't new to me anyway. I assume the government is monitoring just about every form of communication.

Well, I was referring to their use of Cookies and Spyware, but obviously you were oblivious to that. So bottom line, they already do, but I haven't exactly seen any liberal agencies launching outrage protests about it.

It does matter if I'm doing something wrong... if I do no wrong, then I am not giving them reason to watch me. Absolutely we have these laws, but obviously your paranoia is preventing you from looking at the issue objectively... Even Hilary Clinton said on Thursday from New Orleans that this program is not only necessary but outrageous that the NYT would leak the story. The simple truth is that they're not watching us, no matter how much you want to say there are.

Laws are great, but no law was being violated here. These are not everyday citizens like you and I, these are foreign, militant extremists who are plotting attacks. They ane the ones being watched, and suite frankly, if the government-- Democrats & Republicans alike-- need to track phone calls and patterns to identify the terrorists, then so be it... I'd much rather have the potential to lose a small amount of privacy than lose my life to some jackass with a bomb attached their chest.

When intelligence meets communication, both are exposed.
We are definetly in the era of virtual reality.

The only virtual reality I see is the one these obstructionists create as a means of avoiding truth and reality in life.

The law as misinterpreted by President Bush: American citizens have no right to privacy of any kind.

Oh please.. Clinton did it for years in the late 90's. If your not a working with terrorists you dont have anything to worry about. Its not like he is arresting people for downloading doom 3. Get over yourself. You want to make it an issue because you dont like Bush. Nothing is going to happen to the man, get over it, move on.. Republicans own the congress and trust me.. will continue to own it in 06. This is a dead issue, he wins. Why do you think most media and democrats are tap dancing around this issue so much? They know he has the ACE in is pocket.

Why dont you google "Project Echelon" what Bill Clinton was doing back in the 90's.

It's still wrong. It doesn't matter if it's republicans, democrats or whoever else doing these things. It's illegal!

The: "You're either with us or you're a terrorist!" argument hey!? Te-hee.

If you sincerely believe that, I'd suggest that you stay out of the State of Ohio, or you could be jerked back to a state of reality.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/5580743/detail.html

While Googling, also check "Carnivore" and "Magic Lantern."

Blah blah blah Clinton blah blah...

Retracted statement.

No what I'm saying is who cares. It doesn't matter what Clinton did becaues it's over and done with, we're talking about the here and now. Not something that happened almost a decade ago. Still every time something like this comes up the Bush Bots start whining "Well Clinton did it!" as if that makes it all fine and dandy.

There is a lot more to that law than what that article reports. The article gives no facts about the article at all. They just claim its controversial and "expected to pass". They don't even cite or identify their sources. Yet, you trust it like it's the Gospel? So let me ask, if I post info on my Blog that Tom Daschle is gay, would you believe it? Of course not... so why do you believe an unproven / incomplete article from a pathetic news source?Do you even line in Ohio? I do, and I've heard very little controversy over this except from paranoid obstructionists.

You assume that a biased report from the NYT that is uncited is absolutely true with any regard to fact. You ignore the fact that they are illegally violating classified info *laws* and that they won't even credit their articles.

I merely gave one link for the proposed law. Anyone can certainly Google and find several sources and most likely a lot more information on the topic. No, I wouldn't trust one source, nor a blog. No more than I would trust a report from Faux News. Having been in the news business most of my life, I would not trust any single source. Just as I trust no single government "spokesman," nor a three branch government which has turned into a one branch government.

Please cite your sources that they are "illegally violating classified info laws."

No, technically you don't. The moment you step outside your home, you are a member of the public world. There is no such thing as a "private world" unless you own crater-front property on Mars. If so, then you can cry about the rovers spying on you.

If you want privacy, stay at home and limit the information you give to others about yourself. As I said in another post, if you really believe that the government has the time and resources to do the type of spying that the NYT is reporting, then you need to discover that you are NOT that important.

Didn't President Bush say so just the other day?

"President Bush acknowledged on Saturday that he had ordered the National Security Agency to conduct an electronic eavesdropping program in the United States without first obtaining warrants, and said he would continue the highly classified program because it was "a vital tool in our war against the terrorists.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2...94&partner=homepage

Whomever leaked this information needs to rot in jail for eternity.

Clinton, Carter, and even FDR was doing this stuff. If it was illegal then, why hasn't anyone said something sooner? Oh, wait, I know why... because it's popular to hate Bush. Obstructionists are still bitter about impeaching Clinton, and losing 2 elections, so they're determined to undermine our entire political system to get back at him. They filibuster because they can't give the winners of a vote the satisfaction of winning since it means realizing the truth of what most people want. They can't accept losing.

I miss the days when liberals and democrats were known as being supporters of progressive change and for the people. Instead, the only thing they're for is obstructionism... blocking any and every thing that annoys them.

Indeed, and thanks for posting that.

I see... sorry for the misunderstanding.

I don't speak for others, only myself, but you're either with us or worthless. Nothing personal, but we have a responsibility, and we're doing what we can. Everyone else is sitting around complaining instead of offering better solutions.

You say that and offer the least helpful article. Moreover a Google search on it only returns known liberal sites, including the ACLU and the Lantern along with some blogs. I will try to find something informative and post in a short while.

Ultimately, is will not be liberal nor conservative press, nor the Executive branch of federal government which should, nor will, determine the legality of this proposal, nor the spying issues, but rather Congress and the courts. We have a three branch federal system, so there are checks and balances. This is not a nation where the Executive branch determines the legality nor illegality of laws and actions. Until such time as the challenge is heard and ruled upon by these bodies, I will continue to have reservations. Such is the system of American government.

I dunno about America, but over here in Australia, we have a right to privacy. Telecommunication companies can not spy on us without a warrent (not easy to get!). And even then, they need a very good reason.

As for terrorism. I believe it's blown way out of proportion. Maybe (or maybe not, I dunno) there was attacks on the US. Maybe they faked them. But the rest of the terrorist outfit is just... criminal. I haven't heard anything about attacks on America since 2001. I've heard attacks on Bali twice, and supposed attacks on Australia... But I don't know what to believe any more. I'm sure some degree of what I heard is real, maybe a lot of it... but I'm sure some of it is complete trash.

And if I were a terrorist (I'm not :P), I wouldn't use open networks like Yahoo or MSN, email, phone, or anything like that... I would encrypt my stuff with high, very high, encryption, and send it off... and I sure as hell wouldn't use the same PC twice for my terrorist schemes.

"Whomever leaked this information needs to rot in jail for eternity."

Bush needs to rot in jail. 'Nuff said.

OK your lesson of American Politics is great but irrelevant for the discussion, but thank you anyway Captain Obvious.

http://www.legislature.s...s/bills.cfm?ID=126_SB_9

This link is to the proposed legislation. Sec. 1547.80 details exactly what the law is going to require.

The only thing it says is that port security will have the stated requirements. Frankly, I don't know the last time you visited a port, but when my parents registered their house boat this summer they had to provide almost all of those things. I fail to see what's new or controversial about any of it. I mean seriously, OMG I have to show my ID to prove who I am. Big Deal!

Yes, their is a section after that outlining potential consequences for failing to comply, but you have to realize that those are options not absolutes. After all, in the U.S. the punishment must match the "crime" and cannot be excessive. Most places are just going to send you away and tell you to buzz off.

Umm, I don't think a group of extremists flying planes into buildings is fake.

Yes, there are laws that are meant to prevent that sort of forced intrusion, however, this only applies to U.S. Citizens, not international extremists plotting against us, and there is a clause called "probable cause". Furthermore, there is NO evidence beyond a NYT article proving that spying on actual citizens has taken place. I say again, no one has the time, resources; or interest in listening to a person's personal calls or reading e-mails.

I don't see any definite evidence tying Bush to the leaking of classified information.I have seen a lot of evidence placing blame, but that's just from bitter obstructionists.

"Whomever leaked this information needs to rot in jail for eternity."

Yes!

Nobody said it was fake.

But tell me, how many terrorist attacks have been stopped since 9/11? You can't. Nobody can, because it's top secret.

Why would it be secret to tell us how many times we've been saved by these new laws and domestic spying?

Actually, if you pulled your head out of the NYT long enough to read a real news source, you would have had the opportunity to listen to the defense reports given by Donald Rumsfeld, who has cited multiple instances of stopping planned or attempted attacks.I'm sure it's documented on the DOD web site if you're interested in being a responsible journalist.

Your attitude is like the whole Y2K conspiracy. Obviously it didn't happen, so it wasn't real.Please... it's the work of countless people busting their butts off to prevent these things that makes us safe... it sure as Hell isn't luck.

Here is a better solution, let's close all of our foreign bases and stop giving out foreign aid. Let's "speak softly and carry a big stick". If we stop interfering with the rest of the world, no one will hate us. There will be no reason to want to do us harm. When was the last time you heard of a terrorist bombing in Switzerland? Let's focus (spend money) on military technology that can be used to defend our nation, instead of spending billions trying to "help" other nations by bombing / trying to run their governments. Let's worry about the United States and its citizens first. The billions upon billions saved by not trying to run the world, could be used to provide universal healthcare for all LEGAL U.S. citizens or even better given back via Tax cuts. This is not a liberal argument, but a true conservative way to run the U.S.. My dislike for Clinton was nearly as strong as my current abhorrence for W. As far as foreign aid goes, if people want to give money to another nations government, let them do it as individuals. I hate the idea that even a penny of my hard earned money goes to fund the governments of other nations such as Egypt, Russia, etc. I don't even think the U.S. gov should be in the business of humanitarian aid. That is what private charities are for. People are dying of Aids in Africa you say? If you really want to help, open your wallet and give to a charitable foundation that can actually supply these people with the medicines that they need. The people of the U.S. are unbelievably generous when it comes to helping people in need (See Tsunami relief efforts), giving them back the money they've earned would allow them to individually help out the causes which they believe in, or spend it on the things they’ve always wanted (thereby creating jobs). We are a capitalistic democracy yet our gov. tends to act independently of the will of its citizens. I think it is time that we take some of our power (money) back and start using the money we earn for the things/causes we care about.

The thing is, I only have their word that the world trade center was destroyed. How do I know America isn't trying to attract attention...

and besides, I don't like the way Bush forced MY country to join the "war" on oil, Oops... I mean terrorism. It's his "your either with or against us" policy that has me steaming.

I meant, Bush needs to rot in jail for leading the world into a war.

Although I suspect you were being sarcastic, there are a couple noteworthy problems with your proposal...

1) America already tried isolationism pre-WWI. Unfortunately, the enemy came for us in spite of ignoring them. There was a repeat of that going into WWII, but the Japanese attacked anyway, and Hitler made it clear we were his next target after he took control of Europe. Nevermind that at this point we have a lot of countries who depend on us for their economic, political, and literal survival... we'd make a lot more enemies by breaking those ties, a lot of countries would be left to fend for themselves even though they can't, and still enemies would come. I don't know about you, but I very much care about the welfare of other people. I will not turn my back on them even if they do so to us.

2) America is a Capitalist nation, not a Socialist or Communist nation... we do not want the government controlling all aspects of our society. We = the majority of Americans. Government regulation might sound good in theory for mindless individuals, but anyone with a brain knows that it doesn't work in reality and only kills productivity and innovation. Only the lazy and mindless believe socialism and communism is to the benefit of a society. Case in point, China. The people of China are very hard workers and very intelligent, which forces the government to oppress them just to control their society, and still they have serious problems in their society. The same applied to the Russians. Eventually that oppression didn't work, and they had to change to a democracy. It was a very difficult transition, but in time, they've done fairly well, and in time they will vastly improve.

If you are a government nothing is illegal. Why aren't you outraged that the government forced hotels to give victims of katrina a room? If theres a law and theres no one enforcing it than its just as good as no law. There is no one above a country's government. I hate bush but this was not neccessarily his idea. Its the NSA. Some people beleive that the CIA killed JFK and covered it up because he was planning to break up their power. They are putting this friggin thing in increase your safety and security. Stop complaining. Let me put this in the opposite scenario... If a terrorist successfully made an attack on the U.S. and planned it through unencrypted e-mails and telephone service I bet all of you would be compaining that they werent checking communications. In the first place, unless all of you are terrorists, why do you care if the government listens to your conversation?

First of all, I was totally serious. Second of all are you seriously rewriting history and trying to make anyone on this forum believe that the U.S. entered WWI because it was attacked? Come on now man get serious.

Now on to your second point. I don't even know how to respond to it. Did you even read my post? What the hell does my post have to do with the government controlling the U.S. population? My proposal would lift many current government controls which brainwashed Americans including yourself have been fooled into believing as necessary. Again, did you even read my post? It was an anti government, laissez faire capitalist type rant.

Finally, how on earth can you use Russia as an example of Capitalism/ democracy gone right? Do you even read the news of what is going on there? While you were sleeping, Putin has been slowly setting up a quasi soviet style dictatorship for Russia. He has taken away the direct voting in of many Russian Legislative posts. He has been centralizing power by transforming formally elected posts into posts selected by the executive (aka himself). He had further been systematically jailing anyone of power who disagrees with or harshly criticizes him. Taking countless privately owned businesses and making them state controlled. Yeah great capitalistic movement going on there buddy.