Tug Of War Over Wiretapping

Classified Documents And Threatened Filibuster In Fight Over Immunity For Telecoms

(CBS/AP)  With legislation that would legalize President Bush's eavesdropping program entangled in a battle over the side issue of corporate immunity, the White House sought to move the process forward by acceding to requests from the Senate Judiciary Committee to view classified documents its members have long demanded.

However, the White House continued to draw a line between Senators and House members.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., had demanded that other members of the panel have the same access to the same documents before he considers giving immunity to telecommunications companies that may have tapped Americans' telephones and computers without court approval. The measure is an amendment in the Senate's version of the bill rewriting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (or FISA).

White House Counsel Fred Fielding had offered to let Chairman Patrick Leahy and ranking Republican Arlen Specter see documents that might persuade them to include liability protection for telephone companies, but initially only to them.

Later Thursday, the White House agreed to expand the documents' distribution.

"Fred Fielding's offer to Sens. Leahy and Specter extends to the other senators and staff they designate," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, adding that any such lawmakers and staff would have to be given a classified briefing first.

"The chairman and the ranking member can work this out," Fratto added.

Leahy told reporters he expected to see the documents as early as Monday.

The committee's endorsement of the immunity plan is needed for the broader legislation to move forward. Some senators refuse to consider the matter without seeing the classified documents.

"Immunity suggests that there's been a violation of the law and they want to be absolved from any liability," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told reporters. "I would like to know what happened before I absolve anyone from liability."

The documents have so far not been made available to congressional counterparts on the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

The Senate bill would direct courts to dismiss lawsuits against telecommunications companies if the attorney general certified that a company gave assistance between Sept. 11, 2001, and Jan. 17, 2007, in response to a written request authorized by the president, in trying to detect or prevent an attack on the United States.

Suits also would be dismissed if the attorney general certified that a company named in a case provided no assistance to the government. The public record would not reflect which certification was given to the court.

The House version of the FISA bill does not include immunity from lawsuits for the telecoms, after vociferous opposition from privacy and consumer advocates.

"Let the courts decide whether these companies, or some of them, were acting patriotically, with nobility and legally, or whether they were breaking the law." Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said.

In noting the difference between the two bills, Fratto told The New York Times that the White House would continue to withhold those documents from House Committees unless the provision is added.

“If the committees say they have no interest in legislating on the issue of liability protection, we have no reason to accommodate them,” he was quoted.

A Hold On Immunity

But it may not even make it into the Senate version. After the immunity clause survived the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., announced that he would place a hold on the bill, effectively keeping it from coming to the floor.

"For six years this President has used scare tactics to prevent the Congress from reining in his abuse of authority," said Dodd today, denouncing the measure.

When Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid suggested he might push the bill to a vote anyway, several other Democrats (including Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Russ Feingold) announced that they would back a filibuster to keep the provision out.

Telecoms like AT&T are facing lawsuits claiming that they willingly participated in eavesdropping of U.S. citizen's communications, including phone calls, e-mails and Internet traffic, at the request of the government, without the government providing warrants, as required.

In one lawsuit, filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, AT&T is accused of allowing the National Security Agency to monitor its customers' private communications through special equipment installed in AT&T offices across the country.

This summer, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell said that if the lawsuits were successful, "it would bankrupt these companies."

In a curious twist in the insider trading trial of Former Qwest Chief Executive Joe Nacchio, his defense introduced papers suggesting that Qwest's refusal to participate in the secret spying program cost the company government contracts.

After the program of warrantless wiretaps was revealed by The New York Times in December 2005, the White House promised to incorporate judicial oversight to its surveillance program (as had existed before September 11, 2001), while maintaining that the president's inherent authority allowed him to authorize warrantless eavesdropping. The push-pull over this authority led to the temporary Protect America Act, and the permanent version now being debated.

The current FISA program is set to expire in February. Under these rules, the government can monitor Americans' phone and computer lines outside the country if the attorney general certifies that the American is believed to be an agent of a foreign power. The new bill would require the government to get a court order to eavesdrop on Americans wherever they are in the world.

Mr. Bush emphasized that passage of a new FISA bill authorizing his eavesdropping program was vital to "staying a step ahead of the terrorists who want to attack us."

However, at the same time he suggested that passing a simple reauthorization the Protect America Act was not enough, by saying he would veto any bill which did not include immunity for the telecoms.

The government has refused to acknowledge what assistance the telecoms provided, and has invoked the "state secrets" privilege to prevent AT&T, Verizon and Qwest from either confirming or denying their participation in the program when requested by Congress.

Civil liberties advocates have strongly opposed the amnesty effort.

"Why is the president of the United States trying to get the telecommunications companies off the hook for their illegal activity?" said Caroline Frederickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union. "He is supposed to be upholding laws, not encouraging companies to break them."

[kansas1946]

With legislation that would legalize President Bush''s eavesdropping program entangled in a battle over the side issue of corporate immunity.
*********************************
Well, number one, there should be no bill legalizing illegal activity by the President, so I hope it remains "entangled" and second, those telecoms may get immunity, but I have a list, and they won''t be getting my business. I have already cancelled my account with Verizon.

[lloydbest1]

Good move Kansas; My own company is in some hot water with the Feds because they refused to play along (or at least dragged their feet as much as possible).

Running a Telecom implies the responsibility of knowing what the regulations are regarding wiretaps and eavesdropping on private conversations. We have laws that allow both and they are very liberal. All that is required is a court order and most judges - even the "libral" (sic) activists - will sign off on one, often without bothering to read the da*ned thing.

Using the excuse "The Government told me to do it" simply is not good enough. Even in the military it is appropriate to question (and even disobey) an illegal order. If more telecoms stood up to WH pressure and refused to participate in this illegal invasion of our privacy maybe GWB would have backed off. Or maybe not but then the telecom industry would have a stronger moral platform to stand on when the intestinal debris hits the fan as it appears to be doing now.

Hint to the Democrats....Sink this bill authorizing wiretaps and God knows what else. There are now enough of you in the Senate that it can die the ignominious (is that a word? It is now!) death it richly deserves.

[mediapreachr]

It is good to be a lawyer in USA today.
I see mass lawsuits against the telecom industries,records are there,because administrations change,new people come in.

[tylenol6]

I have been keeping tabs on who the phone companies were
that were spying on Americans telephones. Looks like
I will be canceling my account with AT&T for illegally spying..... Hope more of you will be doing the same thing.

[alphaa10-2009]

CBS reports, "The House version of the FISA bill does not include immunity from lawsuits for the telecoms, after vociferous opposition from privacy and consumer advocates.

"Let the courts decide whether these companies, or some of them, were acting patriotically, with nobility and legally, or whether they were breaking the law." Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said.

In noting the difference between the two bills, Fratto told The New York Times that the White House would continue to withhold those documents from House Committees unless the provision is added."
---
The NSA spying scandal is a major political crime of the Bush administration, and repeated efforts to beautify the FISA law will not change the fact Bush, Cheney and others broke the law not once, not only frequently, but as a matter of Bush policy for years.

We cannot afford a scofflaw in office who, in November, 2005, facing an assembly of party members critical of his NSA spying program, bristled like a teenager caught drinking after curfew-- "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It''s just a GD)((#@*! piece of paper!"

Is this figure, who claims to be president of the United States, the same who pledged an oath to "protect, preserve and defend" the document he calls a "GD)((#@*! piece of paper"?

[fiteit1]

I think that anything that bush has or says he will veto be pushed through and let him veto them and then rewrite it and do it again and keep doing it unit the bums term is over and we get someone more honest. Then we can change things back to protect the people of this country and make new laws that will never allow this to happen again.

Bush should be tried for crimes against humanity and breaking the laws and constitution of this country.

[p-syrus]

NO IMMUNITY!

If they violate privacy, break the law, or in any manner infringe on the rights of individuals they should be prosecuted and/or held liable under the law of the land.

It matters not who encouraged them to do it. Especially not with this gang of crooks.

[condumism]

GREAT POSTS FOLKS, cancel your plans with AT&T, Verizon, et. al. Here we have Qwest, the only telcom that refused to cooperate with the United Soviets in the White House, otherwise I would join you all in this important the boycott. But I will call my democratic congressman and senator and tell them it is past due time thy quite selling out our liberties to these Nazis in the White HOuse. Wow, Soviets and Nazis all in the same White House. This is DISGUSTING!

[jonesforch]

once again why worry I have nothing to hide BUT maybe someelse does GEE you supose Slicky Willy is behind this?

[jonesforch]

mediapreachr

Being a lawyer you would say that more $$$ for you.

[mediapreachr]

I''m not a lawyer,but I have friends who are.I''m just telling you what they say-telecom co''s will be sued,the proof cannot be just burned like years ago.

[frankly6]

Neither telecoms nor the white house deserve immunity in this. They both broke the law period. If Bush wanted to change the law he could have when he had his rubber stamp Republican Congress. He chose instead to break the law.

[trillion1]

What they did was clearly illegal and they knew it. Now they want a get out of jail free card.

[myidoncbs]

Caroline Frederickson, said, "[Bush] is supposed to be upholding laws, not encouraging companies to break them."

I the not-too-distant past, such behavior by a president of the United States would have led to immediate impeachment and removal from office. Unfortunately, the Bushies came to power through unscrupulous means, they maintain power through lies and intimidation, and they have no interest in upholding any laws. They only care about advancing the neocon agenda of world conquest, regardless of whether or not there is any world worth having when they are through with their campaign of terror.

[myidoncbs]

some re/**** said, "why worry I have nothing to hide".

With a suffienct level of inspection, I could find hundreds of ways to lock you up right now. And if, by some unbelievable stroke of luck, you have not managed to violate even one of the hundreds of thousands of laws of this country (most of which you will never know exist), then SOMETHING you have said or written will be construed to make it look like you are a dangerous enemy of the United States, an "enemy combatant", and you will be whisked away in the night by a squad of cia goons, sent off to a foreign land, and imprisoned and tortured until you die.

It doesn''t take much. Bush has ALREADY assumed the powers of a king, violating the Constitution of the United States of America. Our Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew what Bush and Cheney have done to destroy their dream of a democratic republic.

Anyone who still supports Bush, at this late stage of the destruction of our Democracy by the neo-fascist necons, deserves whatever evil that befalls them. The rest of us would like this country to return to being the "land of the free and the home of the brave".

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[cbs_oliver]

If communication companies have done nothing wrong they have nothing to fear.

They do not need or deserve immunity.

Companies have well paid and fully competent legal advisers and cannot ever be allowed to claim ignorance of the law.

[forthepeopl1]

The committee''s endorsement of the immunity plan is needed for the broader legislation to move forward. Some senators refuse to consider the matter without seeing the classified documents.

"Immunity suggests that there''s been a violation of the law and they want to be absolved from any liability," Sen. *** Durbin, D-Ill., told reporters. "I would like to know what happened before I absolve anyone from liability."

The documents have so far not been made available to congressional counterparts on the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

The Senate bill would direct courts to dismiss lawsuits against telecommunications companies if the attorney general certified that a company gave assistance between Sept. 11, 2001, and Jan. 17, 2007, in response to a written request authorized by the president, in trying to detect or prevent an attack on the United States.

Suits also would be dismissed if the attorney general certified that a company named in a case provided no assistance to the government. The public record would not reflect which certification was given to the court.

so our laws mean NOTHING to anyone that works in the GOVERNEMNT. if they dont have to follow laws then NO AMERICANS HAS TO...THIS WILL BE A BIG MISTAKE TO HAPPEN IF CONGRESS LETS THIS GET INTO LAW....

[pepperp1]

...Immunity suggests that there''s been a violation of the law .....

Exactly that would be called a CRIME Senator, investigate and refer for indictment and prosecution, forget the Presidents demand, it has every appearance that he has ordered a High Crime and has a motive to remove the threat a prosecutor will need to leverage to gain the truth, immunity for the Telcoms would throw sand in the umpires eyes again obstructing another suspected criminal act by this Administration. There is no inherent or implied power in the Constitution that has endowed the President with power to spy on Americans and he is not above the law for the same reason. More suspiciously he the President did this secretly sneakily behind Congresses and the Peoples back during an election year and I want proof that campaigns and candidates where not spied on or the outcome of any election subverted, Congress at the Presidents request revised FISA on 4 occasions he had no reason to hide this from America unless it was a crime against us. This Administration does not have the trust of the public.

Find your plums Senator Durbin fight for the People, who have placed you in office,

[cbs_oliver]

This is really about the normalization of irresponsibility.

Congress has not seen fit to do their duty and take action against obvious violations of the law.

Now those in Congress who have been most complicit in fostering and enabling illegal acts seek to absolve those outside of government who carried them out of any wrongdoing.

The rule of law is dead.

Only priviledge protects us now.

[gunnerone2]

If the companies didn''t want to be sued, then they shouldn''t have broken the law.

[trillion1]

If congress doesn''t start impeachment on this then they have proven they do not represnt our constitution or the people who live under it.

[usaprophet]

I want to report a major fire, my friends. Our Constitution is on fire. And it''s currently being burned in Congress. See H.R. 1955, a.k.a., Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. I couldn''t believe it. Apparently, activists with Web sites are really begining to anger the elite insofar as they are publically holding them accountable for their evil. Here''s a part of the bill, which passed the house on Oct 23, in spite of Congressman, Ron Paul''s opposition thereto. The right to free speech on the Internet is gone, my friends. Look it up for yourself, and weep for your country that our rights have eroded this far. Here''s a short excerpt from the bill''s DEFINITIONS statement: "The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism." Here''s another excerpt from the bill''s FINDINGS statement: "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens." And guess who get''s to decide what is "terrorist-related propaganda?" You got it! The Department of Homeland Insecurity, an agency that''s answerable ONLY to The President. If Ron Paul isn''t elected, our country is doomed!

[usaprophet]

Like Ron Paul, I believe the biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens'' personal matters. We must stop the move toward a national ID card system (e.g., The Real ID Act). Under this new law, states are currently issuing new driver''s licenses embedded with standard identifier data (RFID chips). Although, some states like Montana are refusing to comply. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we''re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. Ron Paul was one of the few members of Congess who voted against the Real ID Act. Also, under current medical privacy protection rules, which Ron Paul also opposed, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information. Finally, there''s the so-called Patriot Act, which Congressman, Ron Paul also voted against. As originally proposed, it expanded the federal government''s ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight; allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight; made it far easier for the government to monitor private Internet usage; authorized sneak and peek warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person''s home, office, or personal property without that person''s knowledge; and required libraries to turn over records of books read by their patrons. Ron Paul sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act.

[usaprophet]

Most Americans just don''t seem to care that our country, along with the Constitutional upon which it was founded, is being flushed-down the NWO toilet by our nations ruling elite. While most of Congress and the President warn and insite fear in the sheeple about the prospect of terrorism, they at the same time fund and conduct illegal wars overseas that do nothing but encite the terrorism which they say their new Draconian Laws like the Patriot Act and The Real ID Act are here to protect us from. Think about it. What would you do, if someone invaded the U.S. for no reason, and took over. You''d be mad as hell, and you''d be making trips to their country in order to give a little payback. Wake up America! It''s not about protecting you from terrorism, or saving our planet from Global Warming, or any of that fear-mongering garbage the tube feeds you 24/7. It''s about feeding the military industrial complex and facilitating the ruling elite''s ability to ratchet-down control over the American people, placing them into a total control grid where they can surveille, track and monitor (control) everywhere you go and everything you do. It''s the groundwork for totalitarianism. I weep for my country, and for those who are so distracted, dumbed-down, or outright brainwashed by mainstream media, which endlessly regurgitates scientifically-crafted streams of information aimed at keeping their eyes closed to the realities of the world around them, that they fail to recognize this. Go Ron Paul!.

[usaprophet]

Most Americans just don''t seem to care that our country, along with the Constitution upon which it was founded, is being flushed-down the NWO toilet by our nations ruling elite. Most of Congress and the President warn and insite fear in the sheeple about the prospect of terrorism, while they at the same time fund and conduct illegal wars overseas that do nothing but encite the terrorism which they say their new Draconian Laws like the Patriot Act and The Real ID Act are passed to protect us from. Think about it. What would you do, if someone invaded the U.S. for no reason, and took over. You''d be mad as hell, and you''d be making trips to their country in order to give a little payback. Wake up America! It''s not about protecting you from terrorism, or saving our planet from Global Warming, or any of that fear-mongering garbage the tube feeds you 24/7. It''s about feeding the military industrial complex and facilitating the ruling elite''s ability to ratchet-down control over the American people, placing them into a total control grid where they can surveille, track and control everywhere you go and everything you do. It''s the groundwork for totalitarianism. I weep for my country, and for those who are so distracted, dumbed-down, or outright brainwashed by mainstream media, which endlessly regurgitates scientifically-crafted streams of information aimed at keeping their eyes closed to the realities of the world around them, that they fail to recognize this. Go Ron Paul!.

[usaprophet]

Like Ron Paul, I believe the biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens'' personal matters. We must stop the move toward a national ID card system (e.g., The Real ID Act). Under this new law, states are currently issuing new driver''s licenses embedded with standard identifier data (RFID chips). Although, some states like Montana are refusing to comply. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we''re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. Ron Paul was one of the few members of Congess who voted against the Real ID Act. Also, under current medical privacy protection rules, which Ron Paul also opposed, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information. Finally, there''s the so-called Patriot Act, which Congressman, Ron Paul also voted against. As originally proposed, it expanded the federal government''s ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight; allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight; made it far easier for the government to monitor private Internet usage; authorized sneak and peek warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person''s home, office, or personal property without that person''s knowledge; and required libraries to turn over records of books read by their patrons. Ron Paul sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act.

[usaprophet]

I want to report a major fire, friends. CBS isn''t reporting it. Our Constitution is currently on fire. And it''s being burned in Congress. See H.R. 1955, a.k.a., Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. I couldn''t believe it. Apparently, activists with Web sites are really begining to anger the elite insofar as they are publically holding officials accountable for their evil. The bill passed the house on Oct 23, in spite of Congressman, Ron Paul''s opposition. The right to free speech on the Internet is gone, my friends. Look it up for yourself, and weep for your country as I have that our rights have eroded this far. Here''s a short excerpt from the bill''s DEFINITIONS statement: "The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism." Here''s another excerpt from the bill''s FINDINGS statement: "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens." And guess who get''s to decide what is "terrorist-related propaganda" is? You got it! The Department of Homeland Insecurity, an agency that''s answerable ONLY to The President. Unless Ron Paul is elected, our country is doomed!

[mudrose-2009]

If the companies didn''''t want to be sued, then they shouldn''''t have broken the law.
Posted by reaper221

They did not break the law. Sorry. You are really very misinformed.

[mudrose-2009]

If congress doesn''''t start impeachment on this then they have proven they do not represnt our constitution or the people who live under it.
Posted by trillion1

Why don''t you take a class as to what is actually in the Constitution? Wiretapping is not illegal. Article II Section I, for instance.

[mudrose-2009]

...Immunity suggests that there''''s been a violation of the law .....

Posted by pepperp1

Hey, peepee, did the passengers on the crazy Iman behavior flight commit a crime too?

[abbe91]

"Why don''''t you take a class as to what is actually in the Constitution? Wiretapping is not illegal. Article II Section I, for instance.
Posted by mudrose at 10:16 AM : Oct 29, 2007"

Really ???

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:[%u2026]"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1

Where do you see something about wiretapping in there ?

You must have been confused with ...

Amendment IV

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.

[mudrose-2009]

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.

What does the 4th Amendment have to do with wiretaping?

[mudrose-2009]

The first place to start any analysis of privacy, search, seizure and surveillance is with the U.S. Constitution itself. The Fourth Amendment provides that "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." So you would read that to mean that you would need a warrant to search for and seize things - including electronic mail messages, right? Wrong. You see, there are two independent clauses there - no unreasonable searches and seizures, and a necessity for warrants. It there is a search without a warrant, but it is reasonable, then it''s okay. In fact, there are probably more searches and seizures without warrants than with them. If the search is done with consent (and here is the tough part - maybe with just the consent of the ISP), or because of some imminent harm or exigent circumstance, or to protect the safety of the police, or for a whole host of other exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court (including because its in a car), then no warrant is necessary.

[mudrose-2009]

Balanced against this Constitutional provision is that of Article II Section 2, which designates that the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief. There are certain things that the government has historically done in wartime, which might have been otherwise illegal, but hey - as General William T. Sherman said, "War is all hell." Indeed, during his famous march on Atlanta near the close of the Civil War, he did not get court orders authorizing the seizure of southern farms, livestock or property - he just took it - cause that''s what you do in wartime. If you suspect that someone (back in the Civil war, that meant a U.S. citizen) was working with the enemy, you arrested them. We would hardly expect General Sherman''s army to follow the niceties of search warrants or special writs to be able to listen in on telegraph communications between Confederate Generals. That is the nature of the power of the government in time of war. Warrantless foreign intelligence collection has been an established practice of the Executive Branch for decades. The Supreme Court has noted that warrantless electronic surveillance "has been sanctioned more or less continuously by various Presidents and Attorneys General since July 1946. Warrantless electronic surveillance has been used by the Executive to collect intelligence information since at least the mid-1800s" .

[mudrose-2009]

Under that authority, you could lock up editors and publishers (that was, northern editors and publishers) for writing unfavorable articles, prevent newspapers from having mailing privileges, and even seize the property (slaves) of southerners (The Emancipation Proclamation) to cause hardship and economic suffering to the enemy. You can punish as seditious libel that which would otherwise be free speech (the Alien and Sedition Acts passed under President John Adams), and lock up tens of thousands of U.S. citizens based upon nothing more than their ethnicity (the Japanese detention cases during World War II.) Historically, the Courts have been reluctant to look beyond the declarations of the executive branch during time of war concerning the necessity of some acts to protect the American people. Indeed, only when President Truman attempted to use the Korean War (a conflict?) as justification for seizing the steel mills did the courts deny his assertion of Presidential war power.

[usaprophet]

Most Americans just don''t seem to care that our country, along with the Constitution upon which it was founded, is being flushed-down the NWO toilet by our nations ruling elite. Most of Congress and the President warn and insite fear in the sheeple about the prospect of terrorism, while they at the same time fund and conduct illegal wars overseas that do nothing but encite the terrorism which they say their new Draconian Laws like the Patriot Act and The Real ID Act pretend to protect us from. Think about it. What would you do, if someone invaded the U.S. for no reason, and took over. You''d be mad as hell, and you''d be making trips to their country in order to give a little payback. Wake up America! It''s not about protecting you from terrorism, or saving our planet from Global Warming, or any of that fear-mongering garbage the tube feeds you 24/7. It''s about feeding the military industrial complex and facilitating the ruling elite''s ability to ratchet-down control over the American people, placing them into a total control grid where they can surveille, track and control everywhere you go and everything you do. It''s the groundwork for totalitarianism. I weep for my country, and for those who are so distracted, dumbed-down, or outright brainwashed by mainstream media, which endlessly regurgitates scientifically-crafted streams of information aimed at keeping their eyes closed to the realities of the world around them, that they fail to recognize this. Go Ron Paul!.

[mudrose-2009]

In addition to the general war powers, the President and the Attorney General have relied on an act of Congress - the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed on September 18, 2001 - indeed while the embers of the Pentagon and World Trade Centers were still burning. This is important because the wiretapping laws make it a crime to engage in warrantless wiretaps unless otherwise authorized by statute. The administration is reading the AUMF as the "statute" that authorizes the wiretapping, even while Members of Congress are emphasizing that they intended no such thing.

The AUMF empowered the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against "nations, organizations, or persons" that he determines "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" in the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks. The President''s war powers, even during this "war on terrorism" or "war on Islamic fundamentalism" or "Global War on Terror," have traditionally trumped limiting statutes.

[mudrose-2009]

It was pursuant to this authority, for example, that the President ordered the detention of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, and the Supreme Court affirmed his authority to do so, citing in part the AUMF resolution. Similarly, the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed the authority of the government to seize U.S. citizen Jose Padilla also under the AUMF resolution, although they later rejected the government''s efforts to remove him to Florida as a potential pretext to moot a US Supreme Court review. Both courts held that the AUMF, although silent on the issue, authorized the President to detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if he designated them as combatants.

[mudrose-2009]

Prior to the enactment of FISA, domestic wiretaps were routinely done for "national security purposes" under nothing more than Presidential authority. Presidents from Roosevelt to Nixon ordered domestic wiretaps to protect national security. Indeed, prior to the enactment of the FISA statute, there used to be an exception in the wiretap criminal statute that provided, "[n]othing contained in this [statute] shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities..." The Nixon administration used this exception to conduct surveillance and interception without warrants on a host of domestic "subversive" groups. When this was revealed, Congress stepped in to limit the abuses by giving the President a mechanism for conducting foreign intelligence (and now terrorism) investigations by passing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

[usaprophet]

Like Ron Paul, I believe the biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens'' personal matters. We must stop the move toward a national ID card system (e.g., The Real ID Act). Under this new law, states are currently issuing new driver''s licenses embedded with standard identifier data (RFID chips). Although, some states like Montana are refusing to comply. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we''re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. Ron Paul was one of the few members of Congess who voted against the Real ID Act. Also, under current medical privacy protection rules, which Ron Paul also opposed, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information. Finally, there''s the so-called Patriot Act, which Congressman, Ron Paul also voted against. As originally proposed, it expanded the federal government''s ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight; allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight; made it far easier for the government to monitor private Internet usage; authorized sneak and peek warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person''s home, office, or personal property without that person''s knowledge; and required libraries to turn over records of books read by their patrons. Ron Paul sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act.

[mudrose-2009]

Posted by thefarrier

Rubbish.

[usaprophet]

What''s Ron''s message? Whatever you think Dr. Paul''s campaign is about, the main thing it has done thus far is to serve as a clearinghouse for voters like me who feel unrepresented by New World Order Fasciscts (mainstream Republicans) and their Socialist comrades in crime (mainstream Democrats). They''re actually one and the same. There is no real difference between the two parties. Most people, though, are too distracted, dumbed-down, or outright brainwashed by mainstream media, which endlessly regurgitates scientifically-crafted streams of information and entertainment aimed at imprisoning your mind and keeping your eyes closed to the realities of the world around you, to recognize this. Those currently in power, and those being groomed to take [major] political power, are the global elite, and we are their "plebs." People on the right and those on the left have many differences, maybe irreconcilable ones. But they have a lot of common beliefs too, and their numbers and anger are of a considerable magnitude. No matter what happens in 2008, I personally believe Ron Paul will influence the national conversation about what the role of the federal government is, how much power should government have over our lives, how much liberty we should give up for security. These are important issues, and frankly, no one''s talking about them as seriously and sincerely as Ron Paul. What''s for sure is that his growing army of supporters like me will be a force to be reckoned with in 2008.