Comments on: House OKs Warrantless Wiretapping Bill

Senate Is Also Expected To Approve Measure Providing Protection For Telecoms

[jesterbelle]

Probably the most important article on this site and they bury it in the political section before the ink is dry.Anybody that refuses to see that there is a conspiracy in this country,and still thinks the political system is on the up and up is fooling themselves.One can only hope that the senate will do the right thing,and if not them,the supreme court.

I agree with some of the posts below that we should all start voting against incumbents no matter what their party.It''s time to dump the traitors that are selling us all down the river.

[smurfcrusher]

Hats off to Quest for obeying the law and providing an example for the other reckless telecoms.

[smurfcrusher]

What a disgrace! This is an egregious violation of the Constitution. Letting telecoms off scot-free for violating our rights is shameful, too.

This president is too stupid to realize that by gutting our Constitution, which he swore to uphold, he''s giving the terrorists a greater victory than they could have dreamed possible.

It''s outrageous!

[zerato-2009]

Waht a group of spineless dem leaders. So politically scared that the republicans would bash them for not passing a bill that "protects our citizens" they caved and pass this atrocity. What ever happened to the issues on which they ran?

[liberalme]

The Democrats control both the House of representatives and the Senate so how did this get passed? I suggest voting both Republicans and Democrats out of office and replace them all with new people. Of course, the liberals would never vote a Democrat out of office but instead blame the neocons for the problem!!!
Posted by wernet2 at 07:38 PM

Well first of all-you''re an idiot.

Secondly--we (meaning our country) wouldn''t be in this situation if Bush hadn''t broken every law in the country, destroyed our Constitution and murdered thousands.

Thirdly ANYONE running for re=election in Nov should be voted out.
Dems aren''t as stupid as Lintball, Hannity and Faux news would lead you to believe.

[wooleywews]

The Democrats control both the House of representatives and the Senate so how did this get passed? I suggest voting both Republicans and Democrats out of office and replace them all with new people. Of course, the liberals would never vote a Democrat out of office but instead blame the neocons for the problem!!!

[liberalme]

President Bush praised the bill Friday. "It will help our intelligence professionals learn enemies'' plans for new attacks," he said in a statement before television cameras a few hours before the vote.

All the more reason to spy on the White House!!

[lorinkundert]

You stinking traitors, you are not my Government, you are an enemy of the Constitution, along with the fiat judiciary.

[alphaa10-2009]

CBS reports, "The government eavesdropped on American phone and computer lines for almost six years ... without permission from (FISA)... established for that purpose under the 1978 law."
---

What is rhe reigning principle here, expediency? Why not accord this matter the weighty and probing attention it deserves, and without political pressure from certain miscreants who fear justice? Is the pressure coming also from the telecommunications giants, who contribute heavily to the fall campaign?

This could not be a more serious issue of Constititonal law, and basic questions persist--

1. Is it ever OK to violate the law, routinely and as a matter of unstated policy?
The framers of the Constitution saw this danger clearly, and provided for no suspension of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
(see "Good Cases Make Bad Law--2")

[alphaa10-2009]

Good Cases Make Bad Law--2
2. Is it now OK to enlist others in such a conspiracy, and indemnify them against criminal charges?
This is a barn-door-sized loophole enabling a wide range of criminal and/or unconstiltutional activities at the whim of any wannabe dictator.

It is also a clear (if unsound) endorsement of what Nixon claimed-- "When the president does it [something illegal], that means that it is not illegal".

3. How can a rule of law exist, if it can be declared null and void by the lawbreaker(s)?

4. Is the lawbreaker still vested with authority under the Constitution he violates to protect others from trial and punishment?
Can a lawfully constituted authority, acting unlawfully, confer such protection?

If this isn''t a container ship full of legal complications, nothing is. Another proof that "good cases make bad law."