At least the guy at the ISP has a green card. Apparently, you don't even have to have one of those to work for the FBI or the CIA. Just look at Nada Nadim Prouty, who worked at both organizations and is an illegal alien.
Before the FBI starts looking at what I am doing on the Internet, they should look at what THEIR EMPLOYEES are doing, both on and off the Internet.

Isn't Congress issuing a subpoena to the President basically the same as Congress issuing a subpoena to the Supreme Court? They're co-equal branches of government!

I'm so happy our Congress is making empty gestures like issuing subpoenas they have no power to enforce, instead of worrying about such trivialities as, say, actually passing a budget. This Congress is setting records for dragging their feet on any real business while they endlessly witch-hunt ... that is, investigate, their political enemies.

It's the propensity to witch-hunt political enemies that is the real danger, here. Both the Nixon and Clinton White House were caught using the FBI to spy on political enemies. No war on terror even necessary.

But the Bush Administration at least has privacy safeguards in place to ensure that the information is collected and sifted in the abstract, so that no one takes interest in you unless you've engaged in multiple highly-suspicious behaviors.

That is, if you're making phone calls to known Al Quaeda phone numbers or sending large sums of cash to known terrorist front groups, you just might draw some scrutiny.

Here's the bottom line: it's easy to wave your hands and scream in outrage, but if the Feds recover a cell phone from a known Al Quaeda member and find he's been making phone calls to someone in the US, -- which was the actual scenario you refer to with the NSA and AT&T -- it requires an idiot to complain they didn't stop to get a warrant before listening in.

Most people grasp that, which is why the American people largely shrugged their shoulders over the issue.

tom:

hmmm. last time I checked, congress had oversight over at least some parts of the executive branch and the supreme court (hence all those confirmation hearings). so congress issuing subpoenas to the executive branch is perfectly legal, even if our current government has decided to ignore them. usually congress doesn't have to resort to that extreme to get information, but apparently they do now.

"clinton using the fbi to spy on his political enemies." sorry, you're gonna have to refresh my memory on that. when was that, exactly?

I'm no fan of this congress, but this isn't a witch hunt as much as a long overdue reckoning. the bush administration has clearly broken the law (and if they hadn't, would the three top officials in the DOJ -- all bush appointees -- have threatened to resign in 2004?) you can paint it as political retribution, but it's really just congress trying to do the job they were hired to do.

as for the bush 'privacy safeguards,' do you have information about this that the rest of us don't? because I don't think the bush administration has ever revealed what these allegedly are. it's all been 'trust us, we're the government.' you know what? anyone who lies with such careless abandon doesn't deserve my or anyone else's trust.

filtering the phone and internet traffic of, say, 50 millions americans to catch the handful who might be plotting something may make sense to you, but do it without probable cause and it's illegal. plain and simple. it's the equivalent of breaking into people's homes systematically looking for evidence of crimes. you will eventually find it, but at what cost?

last polls I saw, the us public was split fairly evenly about illegal spying. if more of them had access to the facts and not fantasy, I bet the percentage against would be significantly higher.

dt

Tom,
You have your head. . . in the sand, and that's giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Not a single request for a terrorism related warrant has ever been denied - ever. Neither was there ever any delay - ever.

It's the damn law - you remember what laws are, right?

So why does this administration have such a big problem obeying the damn law?

I'm not afraid enough of terrorists to throw away the Constitution of the United States - the document that gives us and protects our freedom.

And that's the real "bottom line".

Tom says (above): "...it's easy to wave your hands and scream in outrage, but if the Feds recover a cell phone from a known Al Quaeda member and find he's been making phone calls to someone in the US, -- which was the actual scenario you refer to with the NSA and AT&T -- it requires an idiot to complain they didn't stop to get a warrant before listening in."

Tom - I realize that as a supporter of this administration, you surely must have a hatred for facts. Even so, you should get them straight.

The NSA does *not* have to get a warrant before stepping in. The FISA laws allow them to get their warrant up to 72 hours AFTER stepping in. Yet the Bush-Cheney administration insists that even this lenient requirement is too much.

In the vast majority of cases, anyway, it's possible for security agencies to get their warrant beforehand. If necessary, you send someone to the judge's house at 3 a.m. to wake him up. He or she comes to the door, hears/reads the relevant info, and signs the warrant. That happens all the time. It's part of being a judge.

You don't like that requirement? Too bad. It's in the Constitution, written there in black and white , so your opinion doesn't really matter.

See, it's not about "waving one's hands and screaming in outrage." It's about having the courage to insist that the Constitution be adhered to. If you don't like the Constitution, then what are you doing in this country - and how dare you call yourself an American?

News flash: The Bill of Rights was not written by a bunch of wimps. It was written by men of courage who had fought a war and faced the prospect of hanging for their beliefs. Their country was still weak, and still faced threats of more wars with the British Empire.

These men did not take their security for granted. They were well aware of the threats to their safety, which were far worse than anything you've experienced. In just a few short years (1812) they'd even be dealing with another invasion on U.S. soil, by foreign soldiers (the British) who even managed to set fire to the White House.

Yet STILL they insisted that the rights of the individual, as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, be preserved!

You see, Tom - the obvious difference between the Founders and you is that they were courageous heroes standing for American principles of democracy and freedom, whereas you are a sniveling coward who's willing to give up your freedom for the illusion of security.

Tom - the Founders of this country would be disgusted by the likes of you.

Move to China. That's where you belong.

Tom is the courageous one here. See what happens when you confront a Liberal with the truth? The name-calling & invective crank way up, with little or no discussion of the facts.
I'd go even further...I have no problem with Uncle knowing everything there is to know about me. Plus, I like the ideas of cameras on every corner and a National I.D. requirement. I have nothing to hide. You always have to wonder about those who protest so much about loss of privacy. What illegal/immoral activities are they trying to cover up? I'm tired of having to always protect myself against your shenanigans. Let's help the Government catch you!

Gee, Bob K. Somebody defends their position with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and our forefathers' courage and this is the best counter-argument you can come up with? And since when does wanting privacy automatically means your are trying to cover up illegal behavior. Going to the bathroom, changing one's clothes, and talking to loved ones are perfectly legal activities, etc. And most people would rather do these things in private. And the Government does not need to everything you or I do. And if there's something they need to know; they should justify having that knowledge. Besides, most conservatives say they hate the idea of "Big Government." Guess What? Giving the US Government license to spy on its citizen without restraint is a sure way to increase its size and influence. Sure, there may not be a lot of social programs but it would still be "Big Government". I really don't think you any idea of what's it like for Uncle Sam knowing everything about you. Everyday, I work with people who come from countries where the right to privacy is not guaranteed and their experiences would challenge your perceived notions of national security. It's sad that you don't know just how good you have it. And it's even sadder that you get angry when others are trying to keep this "good thing" going. That's the real shame! You say you're tired of protecting yourself against our shenanigans. Yeah, right! Don't expect any sympathy from me. Are you being put upon because somebody has an opinion you don't like? Excuse while I get out my violin and express my "sadness" over your plight.

Actualy, here are some examples of the shenanigans I resent: murder, rape, child abuse, assault, robbery, burglary, theft, cheating on taxes, cheating anyone out of anything, computer viruses/spyware/malware/spam, corporate greed, labor union thugism.

If you're involved with any of these, I truly hope you get caught. No matter how.

And, just for the record, I'm not angry at all. I'm optimistic because I think the Good Guys may be winning.

This is why, as an American Citizen, I have decided recently to apply for a green card in Canada and move/live up there for a good bit of time. :-) I really hate to see Uncle's agents (many on drugs, old narcotics records etc) watch my wife in her bathroom in the name of national security protection. May be they should make Viagra as a part of the benefit package to the compensation for Uncle's agents.

The founding Fathers had it Right they knew what they were doing when they wrote down our system of check and ballances and rights. There are no threats today greater than those which they faced as a young country. There is no justifiable reason why our current administration needs to go outside the laws of our country to protect us. The ends do not justify the means. There are already plenty of laws designed to protect us from all crimes, properly following these laws insures that the governemnt does not in turn become the criminals themselves. May America remain Free and find its way back to being Just as well. I cherish my Independance more than any illusion of saftey.

"like the ideas of cameras on every corner and a National I.D. requirement"

Our Democracy may be on its last legs when so many people like this (assuming this person is even an American citizen) can honestly believe something like that. You may want to eagerly surrender your basic freedoms, but I don't and many more in this nation regardless of party also do not.

First of all, show me 1 case where the gov't at any level (local, state, fed) has infringed on the liberties and rights of the people in the name of 'the common good' and 'protecting us on our behalf' and I'll show you a case where there have been gross abuses.

For example, in my hometown the PD prides itself for deploying cutting edge law enforcement technologies in partnership with the feds to challenge/test new technologies in the real world - a win/win right (for the fed agents & local officers anyway)?

So for the past couple of years now we have had cameras on every block of town (every corner isn't needed with the resolution, field of view and zoom of today's optics apparently). What has happened?

Well, violent crime (rape, assault, murder) in those 'protected areas' under constant surveillance has actually INCREASED. Great.

Better still, it just came out in the news that at least one of the officers assigned to monitor the feeds had from the start been using several cameras to peer into the windows of multiple high rise condos, into private residences, and notably into bathroom & bedroom windows while women were showering & dressing/undressing. Proof was on tape. Yet still it took nearly 2 years for these abuses to come to light. That officer has yet to be tried or punished, the people who were violated and humiliated have yet to see justice and in fact the officer still collects a steady paycheck at the public's expense.

So much for justice and being able to bank on the old "trust us, we're professionals... we serve only your safety & security and your best interests" line.

Who will protect you against the 'protectors' if they cross the line in a way that directly impacts your life, your family... that of your children?

So you count on safeguards that will never be worth the paper they're written on?

The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, even the CFR/Code of Fed Regs ("The Law") was put down in black & white on paper and even though each of these "safeguards" prohibit and make warrantless surveillance illegal and punishable offenses... it has still happened and continues even now unchecked.

What more will it take to open your eyes?

This shouldn't even be a matter for debate, assuming we've all been taught anything in school about the revolution, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The founding docs of our nation were written to protect ALL of us from gov't gone wrong because virtually all of human history has proven time and again that it is in man's nature (corruption, concentration of power, control of the people & strong-man gov't). America is not immune to these frailties and failings.

It is up to each & every one of us to defend our common rights as citizens or we all lose. Simple as that.

Our freedoms have been slowly eroded away the past several years and most of you don't even see it. As they say, can't see the forest for the trees. We haven't been truely "free" in a very long time, folks.

Our privacy has been gone even longer- and the problem is only getting worse. I have even seen with my own eyes that search warrants, even when issued somewhat properly, are abused to the utmost. Case in point. Some dumb kids set up my brother while he was away from home- why? They wanted the marriage split up(it was his step kids that did the deed). So, while he was 250 miles away from home, they placed stolen guns in his home and made sure the police knew about it. Of course, instant search warrant, etc, and all the fun things that go with such a "crime". Not only did they WRECK my brother's home in the middle of winter, letting his cats run out into the snow/cold, when a key was readily available next door at our parents' home, the officers also stole his coin collection, his stamp collection and other valuables, stating that he "shouldn't own such things", and they were "probably stolen", although these were things my brother had spent a lifetime collecting. (we are middle aged folks, not young kids) My brother came home to a felony hanging over his head, his home trashed, his beloved pets gone and dead in the snow and cold, and all of his belongings that actually had any value, gone, including his own personal, family heirloom gun collection, that were not part of the "stolen guns".
Needless to say, the kids involved all got off, when the guns were actually stolen from one of the kids' mother's homes, when the kids all turned "states' evidence" on my brother, who had absolutely NO defense, since he hadn't been there to begin with! My brother served 45 days in jail, for which he was CHARGED for monetarily, is now a felon and cannot own a gun in his lifetime, and has a record- for what? That plus the extra hassles ALL police officers in the area give him now, just to be jerks. Oh, and he didn't get his belongings back, even though they weren't part of the search warrant. And no, it wasn't tossed out, although legally it should have been, since they robbed my brother blind, and didn't even begin to follow procedure.
Privacy? Rights? Tell that to someone who actually HAS them in this country, as we, the general citizens, no longer have them. Our illustrious president has seen to that, and has chosen to give our country the finger, both figuratively and literally. Our Constitution is little more than a "damned piece of paper" as George Bush, Jr. so lovingly put it. And we expect what, from this man?

Take a hint from history folks- Try Germany, pre WW2. We are living it, and as they say, those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it. But see folks, our president DOES remember it- his grandfather SUPPORTED Germany in WW2. ;-) Remember that.

It's absolutely absurd that most of the folks in our jails for "drug charges" are in there for what? Mere marijuana POSSESSION, nothing more. Over 80% of them.....What a waste of resources. It's nothing more than a money making racket for the government. And how do they find this out? Invasion of privacy, once again. They have equipment to see thru walls, using heat signatures, using video technology, whatever it takes. What one does in the privacy of one's home is one's own business, as far as I'm concerned, and that's what being an American is all about.
With those freedoms have always come responsibilities, and I've always taken those seriously too. I just think it's time for the checks and balances that were built into our Constitution to come back into play, and for the folks on the "HILL" to stop playing games. If they can't get the job done, I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there who would LOVE their salaries and cushy benes, who would be MORE than willing to fill those places and DO the jobs they are sent to do, up to and including the top job. It's time they all wake up and smell the coffee. Or one of these days they will find themselves without jobs. In fact I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there who would do the job at HALF the pay.
What rights have been taken away from us now will not be gotten back without a fight. Remember that. Don't ever willingly give them up.

Peace.

Let's see what we can learn from the above.
Hmmm...conspiracy theories, twisted facts, willingness to ignore that illegal drug possession is a crime...

I guess we can't learn anything. We already knew how crazy some of you were. We'll just go about the business of normal living while you let your minds be taken over by this nonsense. I'll bet you get all excited about manmade global warming too, don't you?

Hope Sam gets lots of company in Canada.

Have a good day. Unless you're guilty. :-)

Bob K.

History has shown us that governments that do not respect the rights of the peoples, are easily corrupted by the greedy and power hungry.

I,like you, also have nothing to hide. I was arrested once (the only time) because there was an empty beer can under the seat of the truck that I was a passenger in (not my vehicle, don't know how old the can was). I was completely sober, but after not having enough cash to pay the requested bribe, I spent my night in the drunk tank and had to pay a fine before I was released. Now, I am not saying that I don't speed or run the occasional stop sign, but I am a law abiding citizen otherwise. This also highlights the corruption of power, don't you think?

We have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because the British (who governed us) did search and seize without probable cause or warrants. This is the very reason that our founding fathers saw fit to create these great documents and include the system of check and balances that have been successful for the last 232 years. This country is based on the perception that people are decent and law abiding and that our government protects those freedoms.

What will you do when the FBI or CIA agents are in your house when you get home from work? How will your react when told that someone you know had been suspected of dealing with terrorists, and they are just there to make sure that you were not involve too? Remember, you want to give them the authority to come into your home and go through all of you personal belonging, even if they destroy or confiscate some of the items that you hold dear, you have no recourse because as you have stated "I have nothing to hide". What will you do if your belongings or the actions of your friends or business partners are misinterpreted and the government prosecutes you based on an illegal search (it happens everyday, and the laws are there to protect you, for now)?

Bob, for you to think that big brother will always do the right thing is naive, plain and simple.

If we allow the degradation of our rights, as you suggest, a dictator will eventually control us or our children/grandchildren. I, obviously unlike you, hope that my children will grow up with the ability, and more importantly, the right to freely express their opinions. If they have to protect themselves from theives and murders, so has every person that has ever lived.

Furthermore, I was able to reply to your post without any name calling.

Bob K. has it right. You can live perfectly fine in a fascist society. All we have to do is find out all the things Bob K. thinks are right and wrong, and then be just like him. The "watchers" are only after those of us who don't conform... so conform, damn it!
This attitude may work for a while... as long as the thoughts and actions of "John Q. Public" continue to be considered acceptable and safe by our government. However, the pool of acceptable activities inexorably shrinks:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

~Pastor Martin Niemöller~

Thank you, Alex and Annie, for being rational. Of course, you're both right, and I'll admit now that I fully agree with you and always have.

It's just that it's SO easy and SO much fun to get the ranters & ravers wound up & watch them disintegrate in their own poppycock.

Sorry for stirring the pot unnecessarily.

The Sith strike again.

Yes I spelled my name wrong on purpose.

The white man will get what he deserves and then the country will be ours once again. You have learned nothing from 9/11. Wait until the next one happens because you treasure your privacy, you also treasure the privacy of those who will kill you.

I'm glad we haven't been deserted by the crazies. Kind of sad, though, isn't it?

As we approach Thanksgiving in this most wonderful country on earth, I have renewed gratitude that I'm not afflicted with whatever has screwed up these nut cases.

Thank you, God, for sanity.

Am I the only one struck by the irony of a Law & Order administration, breaking the law by spying on it's citizens? Oh, that's right, it's only foreigners. Of course anyone who believes a lawbreaker wouldn't lie, deserves whatever follows!

Privacy rights are not dependant upon the citizen "not having anything to hide". Privacy rights are not dependant upon the current threat colour (this week--fuschia!!). Privacy rights are not dependant upon the current holder of the Commander-in-chief's chair.

Privacy is a right of citizenship. Freedom isn't free. Ignore that at your peril.

Brian, you're obviously Canadian. Mind your own busines.
We have enough American crazies, without having Canadian Loonies joining in.

OK, that does it.

Bob K. -- I am sure deep down you have some legitimate point that you wish to make. Liberals aren't neccessarily your problem. Your problem is that you cannot carry on a conversation with someone with an opposing belief system than you without degrading them in some ways. Earlier it was the liberals-- now the canadians (btw, most English speaking countries other than the United States use colour as opposed to color, and I do it just to mess with people).

I am an American citizen. I think one of the only redeming values of this country is the intrinsic right to privacy. I dont think its a question of who is breaking the law, or who isnt-- its a question of right and wrong. As human beings we should be aforded some form of dignity, and one of those dignities should be some form of privacy. We should all have the right to be left alone and not under survailance.

I think that there is a sector of our population that is so afraid of everything that they are willing to go to some great lengths to make themselves feel safe. Thats fine. What you don't understand is that doing things like this are more likely to cause unsafeness than safeness. Why? Well look at history. People like freedom-- and they like it to such extremes that they are willing to die for it. In other words, you decrease the freedoms in this country, what you will do is increase enimies-- namely turning the population of the United States against its self. You are already seeing it-- and this forum here is a good example of it. People are becoming less and less reasonable. There are literally two factions of people internally in this country (it should be painfully obvious which one I belong to) and they are rabidly against each other. Its sad because each side in its own way has its good points -- in other words, each side has points I would tend to agree with and each ones I disagree with -- though the one side seems to agree with points that are more important to me.

In any event, here is my point. It is bad form to go against someone rabidly -- thats why I am not pointing out your blatenlty obvious personality flaws.

So here is my point. Once you remove the freedom for people to disent -- democracy dies. Pure and simple. Thats not to say that our democracy isn't at best a joke (two parties largely run by corporations -- essentially the same).

Its OK-- its a cycle. Rome was really big, it fell, Britain was too-- and now its a small percentage in size than it used to be, now its the US's turn.

I have no problem with big brother keeping an eye on things when Big Brother sits on my side of the aisle. The problem comes when the other guys get into power. They complain about "invasion of privacy" now but do you think they'll repeal any of it when they get the chance?

When I talk to my family overseas I don't care if the CIA is listening in. If they mistake my simple parents for a known terrorist threat then I pity the poor agent who would have to hear about my boring life, but I do trust that he is trying to protect me from my enemies.

I don't care if there is a camera pointed at me when I walk down the street because I do trust that the cameras are there to catch criminals.

What I worry about is the degredation of these simple concepts into a situation where the government is trying to protect me from myself.

Is it so impossible to imagine a day when Big Brother could use phone tapping and street cameras to make sure I have government-mandated medical insurance? Or to track the size of my carbon footprint?

If the cameras and phone tapping are already in place for the good of the people I fear it makes it that much easier for those tools to be used for the good of the government... to the detriment of us all.

Ron Paul 2008... he'll leave you the f#%k alone!

There is a middle ground here to be seen, and I hope some will agree with me.

First, people like Bob K. scare me. They twist things like Nazis. He is one of those "you-shouldn't-hide-behind-the-Constitution" folks. The Constitution is not something to protect criminals, it to protect us FROM criminals. Wanting privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or any other freedom does not mean anyone is hiding. It means they respect and agree with the American way of life. Bob woud, instead, prefer a governement that has absolute power over his life because he "has nothing to hide." Which is the same as saying, "I am comfortable with my endowment so a policeman should be able to walk into my shower when he wants. . . I have nothing to hide." How stupid an arguement is it to say that innocence means you should be happy to give up the life of privacy and freedom from unwarranted government intrusion.

On the other hand, if the phone records can be searched via computer program to find only those who have contacted certain groups or individuals known to be terrorists, I believe it would be prudent to have only those records automatically forwarded, through a kind of "open-ended" warrant, to investigative agencies at which point they can then listen in on the conversations of those people and monitor their other communications.

But to say we all should be subjected to the eavesdropping? Ludicrous. Bob has forgotten what it is to be a United States citizen and he, himself, gives the same arguements made by Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and yes, Saddam. Hitler and his Nazi government grabbed power after THEIR 9-11, the burning of the Reichstag, their "Congress". The changes against the people were "justified" by saying they should give up their freedoms for safety. The citizens were told nobody innocent would be hurt by it. The Germans didn't beleive their government could possible do anything bad and they not only let them, they jumped on board with Hitler's "war on terrorists" (the Reichstag was a case of arson blamed on another country). Don't think it could happen here? Neither did they! Without keeping and protecting our laws and freedoms, our Bill of Rights, why would you expect any different here?

I leave you with this to consider:
(Average German Citizen, speaking of the Nazis)

First they came for the negros. But I wasn't negro so it didn't bother me. Then they came for the artists. But I wasn't an artist so it was okay with me. Then they came for the Gypsies, metally-handicapped, and lame. But I wasn't any of those, so I went on with my life. Then they came for the Jews but I wasn't a Jew. . . no problem there. Then they came for me:

And there was nobody left to stand against them. . .

I honestly feel duped by our government.
I've learned much since 9-11.
Please don't believe everything that the government tells you. This was planned and executed by our own.
Examine things yourself instead of saying, "I'm comfortable being ignorant." I've actually heard friends say that. "I don't want to know."
9-11 was an inside job. Our own government did this to evoke terror, hatred, and allow them to push this loss and removal of freedom upon us.
Please, look into the facts of that day. No way could those 'Al-CIAda, I mean Al-Quaida ' guys done that by themselves.
No way THREE Buildings collapse (don't forget building seven) entirely to teh ground from fire, two in about an hour after being hit by planes. Airplane fuel will NOT melt steel in that time. It will bun up before melting steel.
Don't reply with 'conspiracy theory nut'. You're the ignorant one who believes everything that is told to you. EXAMINE the facts.

Why am I even replying to this post? Because I can't be tracked easily to THIS message.

I am a US Citizen. I am ashamed of our government but I've got no where to go on this earth that hasn't been corrupted.

Bob K. -think- before you speak (or write) I was there and feel like a fool for who I voted for. There is no choice in the upcoming election on either 'party' except maybe Ron Paul. But if -they- don't want him, he isn't gonna be there.

Things to examine (google or your favorite search engine before they're gone) with an open mind:
Bilderberg, NWO, 9-11 inside job. Pentalawn, infowars.com

-Spanky- name changed to keep the spooks off my back-

A few more examples of "responsible" behaviors of those who seek to keep us "safe". NO THANKS.

Warrantless surveillance-
"The Justice Department's inspector general recently estimated there were 3,000 violations of law between 2002 and 2005 in the FBI's use of the letters."

WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE WHO VIOLATED THIS LAW? NOTHING.

700,000 people on the suspect terrorist list-THIS IS RIDICULOUS WHEN YOUR WILLING TO GIVE DRIVER'S LICENCES TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS≠≠

"The Pentagon has known for years that vehicles called MRAPs could keep U.S. troops safer from most roadside bombs, but until recently it did little to deploy the vehicles to Iraq, even as hundreds of Americans died."The Defense Department could have launched a crash program as early as 2004 to build MRAPs and ship them to Iraq. It did not. Infuriatingly, officials approved construction of some MRAPs for Iraqi forces, while insisting that U.S. troops stick with armored Humvees. When Marines made an urgent request for 1,169 MRAPs in February 2005, the answer was to wait for development of a new combat vehicle — in 2012.

Dr. Richard Carmona who served as the nation's top doctor from 2002 until 2006, told a House of Representatives committee said Bush administration political appointees censored his speeches and kept him from talking out publicly about certain issues, including the science on embryonic stem cell research, contraceptives and his misgivings about the administration's embrace of "abstinence-only" sex education. Carmona said some of his predecessors told him, "We have never seen it as partisan, as malicious, as vindictive, as mean-spirited as it is today, and you clearly have worse than anyone's had."

May 24, 2007
President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.

"...two parties largely run by corporations -- essentially the same..."

Best and truest statement posted yet.

Just like Bush the 1st, Clinton & Bush II (and heaven forbid a Clinton flashback in '08) have also been essentially the same, despite "different party" labels that they wrapped themselves in.

Arkansas big business (Walmart, Tyson, etc) used power connections in the Whitehouse to expand globally while their profits went ballistic, vs Texas big businesses doing the same. Nothing changed, except which circle of well connected corporations was on top.

In the end, both "parties" serve only one master... and it isn't the voters they are supposed to "represent". I don't know about you, but the only thing that's soared in my household is the cost of just getting by (while our good paying jobs flee to asia or south of the border & while corporations "in-source" cheap labor to drive down our wages).

Must be nice to have the gov't looking out for your interests.

I don't wish to make it impossible for my government to check stuff out.

I do very much want it to do so *under proper, independent supervision" -- independent, especially, from the Executive.

I supported President Bush in both his campaigns. were he eligible to run for a third, I would campaign against him. Not so much because of Iraq or Afghanistan, but because he apparently believes the Constitution gives him trump cards to use against the Congress and the Judiciary.

Craft a law that will enable the various agencies to do decent jobs -- but with oversight. What's wrong with a FISA court?

Thanks for the link! (And isn't it amazing how anything, even the grossest of Constitutional violations, can be made to fit onto the Procrustean bed of the immigration "issue"...)

I never cease to be amazed at how people who think they know so much, know so little.

I wonder how many of the people of commented above have actually read the Constitution?

The word "privacy" does not exist in Constitution.

Both the FBI and NSA have copies of my fingerprints. The KGB has had my Social Security Number for 34 years. Sign my real name here? You got to be kidding!

What is the difference between the Feds surfing the Internet looking for bad guys and your local police officer sitting on the side of the road with a radar gun monitoring the speed of drivers?

I would argue that the Feds surfing the Internet looking for bad guys is the more Constitutional action since it clearly gives the Federal Government responsibility for defending us from foreign enemies.

The invention of a radar gun for the purpose of the monitoring the speed of drivers assumes an unconstitutional "guilty until proven innocent" attitude.

I have never seen anyone protesting the use of radar guns.

I have never seen anyone demand warrants for each use of a radar gun.

Oh man I am so on the list now. Me blog is full of stuff.... let's see now

1. They get the privacy - we don't
2. They get the guns - we don't
3. They make the rules - we don't

PS I know about the room at AT&T but I
have never heard about it being closed.

The Constitution protects us from warrantless searches. Some see no need for that in the name of terrorism.

Surely, those individuals will have no problem giving up other rights, too. Let's see, free speech. Free speech would include discussion of terrorist tactics and targets. Why not get the bad guys before they do anything. I mean, if they're even just discussing it in a cafe, they must be guilty.

Oh, and guns. People shouldn't have guns either, so that right to bear arms thing should go, too. After all, terrorists could use them to kill Americans.

That religion thing... We should be a purely Christian nation and outlaw those nasty eastern religions. After all, only Muslims are terrorists. (Just forget about Ireland, OK?) If we outlaw Islam, than we can get them before they even think about doing a nasty thing to American citizens. We can round them up in their mosques and inter them properly. We did it to the Japanese, after all.

Let's get rid of a free press while we're at it. Really, they should only report what the government wants them to know. Why confuse the masses with a variety of opinions? Let's just spoon feed it to them so they can go about their day?

I seem to remember a law about quartering soldiers. I think Bob K will agree it would be safer if we had troops living in our homes. They could make sure we don't do anything bad. I think he's compiled an adequate list of activities.

The problem comes when you concentrate this power upon one individual or small group. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and this administration is pretty absolute in their corruption.

Here is something for Bob K, and his supporters, to consider.

Right now, you agree with those in power, and see no reason to be concerned with their ability to spy and monitor the American public. Fine. You trust our President, and I don't. I think others are with me on that.

But you must be able to see the flip side. Would you allow, say, Hillary Clinton, to have the same power? Would you trust her to protect you at the expense of the Constitution? Would you allow her to spy on you? If Bush can spy without a warrant, can she violate another part of the Constitution, in a kind of tit-for-tat move?

I'm not a fan of either Hillary or W, and I don't want either of them making an arbitrary decision based on their values or suspicions about my motives. I have personally seen this administration censor dissent, when I worked at an event providing technical assistance for the media. Those that spoke out against the President and his policies were prevented from covering the event. They were denied credentials and even access. In effect, they were prevented from reporting. In turn, their newspapers didn't get a story, and the paper as a result didn't appear to be providing coverage, which drives readers to other outlets that were "friendly."

You see, you can't make the argument that the power or abuse is justified simply because you agree with the one who wields it. You have to consider the ideological opposite. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. Period.

That's why the Constitution is there. It protects us (or should) from ideologies. Regardless of who we vote into office, they should not be able to subvert the basic protections afforded the citizens.

Somehow, I can't imagine how violently Bob K and others might react to the idea of Bill Clinton spying on Americans on a grand scale without warrants, but it would be a nice reality check.

Early in this thread, Stu claimed that there hasn't been a single request for terrorist surveilance denied. This is incorrect. The FISA court has actually denied Bush admin requests (earlier in his reign as president) than any other president in history. This "inconvenience" was likely the reason the Bush admin decided to simply ignore the FISA requirement, with a very flimsy "justification" for why they didn't have to get approval. But the law is the law, and FISA approval of surveilance for national security purposes IS a requirement.

Independent approval of surveilance by a court is necessary to protect against overzealous politicians and/or gov't agencies. As mentioned earlier in this thread, there have been a significant number of documented gross abuses of warrantless surveilance that turned out NOT to be legitimate national security reasons for the request.

Right now, according to Bush's "signing statements", on the president's decision ONLY, he can declare anybody he wants a terrorist and have them arrested and imprisoned indefinitely with absolutely no rights of the accused to question the charges. This is unamerican. No single person - even the president - should wield such unchecked power. I have no problem with the president being able to identify terrorists and have them arrested - but ONLY with the proper independent judicial review so that we can be pretty certain that the president is not abusing his power.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Annie, I liked your post. That bit by Pastor Martin is well-spoken support for our presence in Iraq (IE: Then they came for Iraq and I did not speak out.) In this case, America did.

Brian, your statement that "Freedom isn't free" was well spoken. It requires effort and sacrifice - ask anyone who has served in the armed forces or knows someone who has. It costs all of us. However, this conflicts with your other comment that "Privacy is a right of citizenship". Protection is a right of citizenship, and protection sometimes affects our privacy. These two are always a balancing act and the increase of one generally decreases the other.

Aleksei, you are correct that America has been ripped away from the citizens and is being run largely by corporate interests. Now that I've said that, I bet there will be many posters in this blog that will find it hard to believe that I'm a Republican. This is because I vote with my heart and not my wallet or my need for total anonymity. If the Democratic party ever gets within the Hubble telescope's range of a Christian viewpoint they may become attractive to people like me again. In the meantime, the Republican party is the lesser of two evils. If anyone outside of both parties ever becomes strong enough to win an election, they may get my vote.

As far as the rights of the Executive office, I agree that we don't need a dictator here. On the other hand, some ability to act in an emergency is a good idea. Consider the foot-dragging that goes on in Congress these days. Most politicians have more interest in preserving their party than they do in serving their country. The way things are handled now, we'd have invading armies crossing our borders while Congress sat in their opulent chambers playing political Chess and pointing fingers at each other.

John Milton, I loved your post. 'Nuff said.

John

Why should Uncle Sam be any less curious about your data than your ISP already is? It's my understanding that Time-Warner's TOS agreement includes the right snoop on everything you do (including your e-mail) and then sell it to whoever wants it. I only wonder how much Uncle's paying for it.

"What is the difference between the Feds surfing the Internet looking for bad guys and your local police officer sitting on the side of the road with a radar gun monitoring the speed of drivers?"

None. In each case, the officer legally observes criminal activity occurring in public view and acts on their observation.

The difference is the Feds aren't just surfing the net, they're looking at everything you do. It's more like putting a camera in your car to watch your speedometer, and maybe also the way you make lane changes and where you enter and exit the highway.

They then take that information and compile a profile of "offenders" and determine that you're likely to commit a speeding offense based on your driving history (you live in an area of known speeders, you travel roads that are often sped upon, drive during peak speeding hours), declare you an unlawful combatant in the war on speeding, and arrest and imprison you.

Once you're in jail, you'll learn that you have not had any formal charge filed against you, and you're denied access to an attorney or any form of appeal. You're not afforded the opportunity to face or question your accusers. Maybe you're sent to a foreign country where CIA operatives oversee your interrogation. Maybe they waterboard you, deprive you of sleep, perform sensory deprivation, and so on, in an effort to get you to reveal what you know about the massive speeding conspiracy and confess your crimes.

Once you do, they continue to hold you. Your interment is indefinite and based on the whim of a military tribunal. The government will not allow oversight of the tribunal because of a "state secrets" or "executive privilege" claim. So your accusers, jailers, judge, and jury are, in effect, the same people.

All this even though you haven't actually been caught speeding. Maybe you just said, "I wish I could get there faster," which implied a desire to speed. You were arrested based on suspicion, not an actual action.

Anonymous, while you are correct that "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution, the vast majority of Constitutional experts (as well as the US Supreme Court, who's purpose it is to interpret the law) will tell you that the Constitution embraces an "implied" guarantee of a right to privacy. There are a number of "implied" rights in the Constitution. Another impled right is the right to a "fair trial". You will not find "fair trial" in the Constitition, but everybody agrees (once again, also the US Supreme Court) that the various things in the Constition regarding trials, taken as a whole, clearly implies a right to a fair trial.

However ... no right is absolute. There are inevitable conflicts of interest as you consider individual issues. Free speech is limited by slander laws. A woman's right to choose whether to abort (a right of privacy) is limited by the state's interest in the developing fetus as it nears full term (and there is a scientific basis for considering the fetus to functionally be a "person") ... hence Roe v Wade's ruling that abortions can no longer be performed after the start of the third trimester (except for the health of the woman).

"John Milton" - the use of a radar gun to detect speeders does *not* constitute a presumption of guilt as you suggest. All drivers are treated equally ... and *only* if you are speeding does the radar gun indicate this. You are guilty because you are guilty of actually speeding. This evidence is then included in a case against you in a court of law - where you are assumed innocent until the evidence is presented against you and you have had an opportunity to rebut the evidence if you can (i.e., was the radar gun properly calibrated when it was used against the accused, and if not was the error sufficient to question the charge of speeding?).

What is this obsession of ultraconservatives with fictional-character examples? First, Dan Quayle chides Murphy Brown about her wanton ways and irresponsible motherhood; now Donald Kerr holds up Tonto as a model of propriety because he boldly confronts villains while his compatriot hides his own identity. Do these folks think Americans are so stupid that we only know about fiction, not history? Or are they themselves unfamiliar with anything not resembling a cartoon view of reality?

For the record, fictional characters do what they do solely to advance the weekly plot lines. They have the luxury of not having to worry about the consequences of their actions, as they will always be saved by the scriptwriters. Real-world people must deal with much more challenging, very gray situations. Many of them manage to succeed without the prop of literary happy endings.

I'm a lot more impressed with neocons' (or anyone's) arguments when they cite the many famous parallels in their own nation's history for just about all of the issues they promote. Idiots who treat the voting populace -- we who must make decisions about our own leadership -- as if we don't know anything we didn't learn on "American Idol" or "Lost" should be disqualified from public service on national security grounds.

And in response to "Good Bob"....

Comparing Bush I and Clinton to Bush II is laughable ... and entirely incorrect.

While it is true that all three were "part of the corporate establishment", the similarities END there.

Bush II is arguably the *worst* president in the history of the US. He is guilty of a number of unconstitutional acts. He is guilty of politicizing both the judicial branch of the government (one example being the firings of a number of Federal prosecutors because they did not pursue completely unwarranted investigations against democratic politicians) as well as politicizing scientific research (one example being rewriting scientifically derived conclusions to match his ideological platform even though his ideology is diametrically opposite the scientific findings). Bush is guilty of lying about reasons for invading Iraq. Bush has grossly abused freedom of speech by severely limiting access to his public appearances by people who are known to differ from Bush in their perspective on things. Etc., Etc., Etc.

Wow! This has been great reading!!

Wow, what an interesting discussion. It is easy to see why we are loosing our liberty. Everyone who says that they are interested in freedom is too partisan to apply their views evenly. It seems that Bush or Clinton hatred is more important than your freedom.

Tom: You make some good points. Bush is a good president but he is on the wrong side of a few issues. We would be capable of defending ourselves without loosing liberty in the process. Bush may be using these new powers to honestly protect us from real enemies, but what happens when these powers are inherited to another Clinton/Reno combination?

Dt: These threats to our liberty didn’t start with Bush. Real ID was here before Bush. Domestic wiretapping as well; do you remember Carnivore? And when the FBI team with automatic weapons broke into a house at night to take a child away against a court order, that was more that seven years ago. If you don’t (or wouldn’t) remember the Clinton FBI files or their lame explanations, then go look it up. Although the FBI files was reported, I am more worried by the IRS audits to their political opponents and reporters that didn’t go along. These things were in place before 9-11 and the bureaucracy that accelerated them did not come from any single administration.

John: You got the key reason when you said “assuming we've all been taught anything in school about the revolution, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.” I am afraid that people today are not being taught about the Constitution. Otherwise, if someone suggested that the federal government should provide health care, they would be laughed off the stage never to be seen again. If someone suggested we could reduce crime in DC by banning private guns, they would be run out of town. The fact that these issues have enough support to be debated is a sign that the people are the ones ignoring the Constitution.

Privacy is important, however don’t expect privacy for things done in public. Free speech is more important than privacy. You are allowed to express you views in public without the government punishing you for it.

Freedom is an American conservative value.

Tom, my friend, you've been drinking the Koolaid. Stay away from Faux News, they've been lying to you for years. You have more to fear from the Republicans if you truly value your freedom than you do from terrorists. The chances are superlative that you'll never be affected personally or directly by terrorism, but you *do* have to live in a country that is quickly turning its back on its own freedom and liberties. I moved to Canada when I saw the handwriting on the wall. At least I can check out an Al Franken book from the library now without the feddies sticking that data into a manila folder somewhere.

In the 2nd message in this thread, in addition to the other factual errors in his post, "Tom" wrote: "Both the Nixon and Clinton White House were caught using the FBI to spy on political enemies."

"Tom" wrote that on November 14. Coincidently, 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Nov. 14 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21818600/) had this in the "Worst Person in the World" segment:

But our winner, Brent Bozell, Media Research Council. Goes on the Hannity and Colmes Fiction Hour, again, to announce about Senator Clinton, quote, now we know and we know — we knew that she was in the middle of things. We knew she was behind the whole FBI-Gate.

Yes, in 2000, the last Whitewater independent council, Robert Ray, wrapped up six years of investigations and announced that, quote, no senior White House official or first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton engaged in criminal conduct to obtain through fraudulent means derogatory information about former White House staff. No senior White House official or Mrs. Clinton was involved in requesting FBI background reports for improper partisan advantage.

Independent council Robert W. Ray was a Republican. And Brent Bozell is a guy who makes stuff up. Brent Bozell, today‘s Worst Person in the World.

(Could "Tom" and Brent Bozell be the same person?)

Regarding Andy's latest comments regarding the Constitution and his idea of what it says....

Nowhere in the Constitution does it forbid Congress to "provide healthcare" if it wants to, so your comment that if people were properly educated on the Constitution that any suggestion of the government providing healthcare would be laughed off the table is simple not valid. Both Medicare and Medicaid - government-provided healthcare coverage - have been around for quite some time, and now "universal" healthcare is finally being talked about and might even become a reality this time around. The US is the only developed nation that does not have universal healthcare - it is a shame that this country does not support those most in need of support for their medical care.

Also, I believe it is a gross misstatement to characterize gun control as an effort for blanket elimination of all privately owned firearms. This has never been the case. Gun control has always been about banning only certain types of guns, and about controlling who gets them (criminals generally cannot legally own weapons). The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not a blanket right to own every conceivable gun that is available. The convernment still has a duty to society as a whole protect the general public from criminals. Limiting the types of guns that can be purchased is a step in that direction. Besides, it is still debated whether this right applies to individuals to own guns or for the state to maintain militias who own guns. The 2nd amendment reads in full: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment is a single sentence, who's subject is the militia.

I missed adding the following to my note above....

Andy, here a link from FindLaw that discusses the 2nd amendment:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

You'll see that the primary precedent that has been followed since revolves around supporting a militia culled from civilians where they were expected to bring their own firearm (this is how the militia was formed at the time the Constitution was written, and why the 2nd amendment was added).

I have always found it somewhat ironic, that its the gun carrying real American, Patriots who seem the most likely to consider the Constitution as an annoyance to bypass or work around. Supporters of the Bush administration seem to enjoy screaming about us Liberals and our witch hunts, but it seems that in reality, conservatives have turned the witch hunt into a national pass time. We have had "the red threat" with it's Commies behind every door. Now we have the Islamic "Commies" and their threat to the American way of life. There was not to long ago another political group who, followed the same view of always needing a new "enemy" they were called Nazis.

First of all, the Constitution doesn't grant anybody any rights. We are all granted our rights by our Creator. The Constitution recognizes this, and is an agreement amongst ourselves to limit our absolute rights in order to create civil society.

The Constitution LIMITS what powers that government may wield.

The government has steadily encroached on those limits, and now recognizes NONE. In practice now, the government has absolute rights, and permits us what privileges the officials in government decide are convenient for them to permit.

This is not lawful, but it is legal (for those of you who are confused by this distinction, look it up).

Neither the Demoblicans, nor the Republicrats are on your side, or the side of America. They are on their side, and their side is the side of the rich. All our Congressmen/women, and high level government officials are rich. Most are multimillionaires, and they got that way, in many cases, through corrupting their offices for their personal benefit.

I'm not very worried about cops using cameras to watch me pee. I frankly couldn't care less. I am not happy about the kinds of blackmail, corporate espionage, etc., that are very, very easy nowadays to spooks who can get banks, schools, libraries, etc., to cough up anyone's information on request.

Does anyone doubt that Cheney is abusing his office to steer government funds to Halliburton? Just for fun, search for information on Dresser Industries, and find out who got $7 billion in Halliburton stock for selling Dresser to Halliburton.

Oh, I forgot, most of you were educated in American public schools, where you didn't find out how to learn stuff on your own, so I'll tell you.

The Bush family had owned Dresser Industries since the 1920's.

All the lies about Iraq having WMD's, spreading democracy, etc., was just a way of creating business conditions that fattened the liar's wallets. All the lies about NSA spying, terrorism, etc., are the same damn thing.

ALL of Congress, the administration, and the Prison Industrial Complex (the courts), except for Ron Paul (don't take my word for it, check his voting record for the last 18 years in Congress) are criminally corrupt - All of them!

The two party system is a fairy tale. The war on drugs is a business opportunity for the CIA, and the courts. FEMA holds workshops for local cops, where they point out that G. Washington and T. Jefferson were terrorists.

America has become a very nice prison, where most of the inmates don't suffer much abuse.

It looks like that's about to change, given the new rules the prison administration has passed, and that the American citizen/prisoner can look forward to being affected by as soon as the required infrastructure and personnel are in place to implement them.

Prescott Bush, G.H.W. Bush's father, and our current Fuhrer's grandfather, had his bank seized because it was funding the Nazis and Hitler.

The USG is not like the Nazis - they are the Nazis! Osama is a paid CIA asset, and has been since Jimmy Carter was President.

These facts are why American public schools are so bad. Most of you couldn't possibly do the research necessary to find these things out, and because you remain completely ignorant of history, you remain completely vulnerable to predatory government.

So far, the vast majority of US military and economic aggression has been directed beyond America borders, because it's been convenient for the rich.

It appears, in view of recent legislation and executive orders, that times are changing. It looks like it's time to subject Americans to their own medicine.

That's you, and your kids, and your neighbors, and your country.

Either American citizens own their country, their property, and their government, or they don't.

We will soon find that it is the RICH that in fact own these things, and that is the economic truth.

Vote for Dr. Ron Paul, the only honest politician who honestly believes in the Constitution and freedom, or vote against your own rights, property, and country.

Since I'm pretty sure I know how most of you are going to vote, I'll see you in the next life, after WWIII is over.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

No problem. Always assume that somebody is monitoring your electronic communication, telephone or email. So watch what you say and to whom you make your calls to. In Vietnam we put stickers on all the telephones that said "Charlie is Listening" to keep callers aware of possible monitoring by the enemy.

If you want secure communication, there are numerous third-party vendors of secure communication hardware and software.

~ LouSam

Freeman, you are a hoot!

Your black and white view of things is laughable, as is your belief in the countless conspiracies you mention.

The Constitution does indeed grant certain rights and freedoms to people. They don't call the first 10 amendments "the bill of rights" for nothing.

You should take another look at the Constitution. There is not one mention of "the creator" or any alusion to such an entity anywhere in the Constitution. This document defines an entirely secular government with no dependence on providence or any other religious notion. Now, the Declaration of Independence did mention the creator, but we are NOT governed by that document - we are governed only by the Constitution as the highest law of the land.

While I would agree (in general) with your view that Republicans serve only the rich (with only a few exceptions). You are incorrect to characterize Democrats the same way. While I'm sure some Democrats might be more interested in serving only the rich, most Democrats are interested in providing government services for the needy. We wouldn't have social security, medicare, or medicaid - to say nothing of many other programs that help those in need - if it weren't for the Democrats.

The Bush admin is an anomoly in US history. The terrible things he has done has certainly hurt American democracy. But his term in office is nearly over, and the next President - very likely a Democrat - will no doubt do a lot to restore our Constitutional principles. Will the next President be perfect? Of course not. But he or she (no matter which person is chosen, except for a few of the Republican candidates) will be a much better President that Bush has been.

Get a grip.

What apparently has gone over the heads of many who are willing to trade freedom for security is the fact that NO ONE EVER has problems with the government. Problems ALWAYS arise from individuals within the government.

The purpose of due process, privacy laws, etc. is NOT the restraint of government; but to guarantee the actions of government employees, agents, etc. are reviewed and scrutinized to ensure the safety of innocent inidividuals.

Without those guarantees there is NOTHING to prevent government employess from running roughshod over anyone they please; demanding bribes; and running their own little protection rackets, etc.

One does NOT have to be paranoid or a "conspiracy theorist" to believe this is important -- after all, even these things take place even WITH the legal protections; how much more so without???!

This is NOT a partisan issue; it is an American Citizen issue. Under our system NO ONE is above the law; that includes: presidents, senators, congressional reps; and all officials on down to the dog catcher. If you abandon that, you immediately open the door to having privileged persons with guns and the power of the government running amuk and doing whatever they damm well please with NO oversight. NOT a pretty picture!

Carl Street
carl_street@cjstreet.com
http://cjstreet.com

This country is in need of what I'd call a "checks and balances" ammendment to the Constitution....

This amendment would protect against many of the abuses of the Bush admin by clarifying in no uncertain terms some of the checks and balances inherent in this document.

Proposed sections (not written in Constitutional language):

1. There is no such thing as a "unitary executive". The President and his staff, as well as the entire government, should be subject to oversight of their actions, even during a time of war. Whether it is a claim of executive privilege or a claim of classified status for national security, review by an independent review board and/or court (with appropriate security clearances if necessary) should be mandatory for each action. This should not be based on the current practice of judges deferring to Presidential claims - they should judge for themselves, with access to the claimed classified material, whether the material truly needs to be classified or if the material simply provides an embarassment to, or counter to the ideology of, the President.

2. Scientific/technical government posts must be filled by people qualified for the position. No more unqualified hacks simply doing the ideological bidding of the President (ex.: the denial of approval for the "morning after" pill despite all the scientists saying this pill was medically safe). The administration should not be allowed to rewrite scientific papers (as the Bush admin has done repeatedly) for government sponsored research (the only reports the government reviews) - the integrity of scientific reports should be maintained regardless if it conflicts with the administration's ideology. Science should never be politicized by government.

3. There should be strict separation between the administration and the Justice Department. Presidential appointments can continue to be made/replaced at the beginning of a president's term in office, but not any time else except to replace someone for cause or to replace a vacancy. When replacing someone for cause in the middle of a presidential term, the justification for dismissal should go before an independent review board/court.

There are probably other things I've omitted. The above is what comes to mind at the moment.

While I think current politics is a cesspool and desparately in need of reform, I disagree with the notion that President Bush is, as some folks state, "the worst president in history". If you really believe this then you need to find your news somewhere other than where you find it now. I say this because the media have done a great disservice to Americans by fabricating the news instead of reporting it. And the media has great power to affect how we perceive the world around us.

Related to president Buch, consider the fact that he has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled Al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. Since 2003, US forces have discovered more than 500 shells of ordinance containing sarin or mustard gas. A report was released last year, but do you think the media said anything about it? They flatly refused to report it. Only MSNBC said anything, and then they downplayed it by calling them "weapons of minor discomfort".

In June of last year a poll showed that 60% of Americans thought it likely that the US will ultimately find success in Iraq. Since at least the middle of last year there have been documents out of Al-Qaeda indicating that America is winning the war in Iraq. The media doesn't seem interested.

For those who say President Bush shouldn't have started this war, he didn't - Al Qaeda and the Taliban did (have you forgotten 9/11?). Also, consider the following:

1. FDR led us into a war against Germany. Germany never attacked us, Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost...an average of 112,500 per year.

2. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost...an average of 18,334 per year.

3. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost...an average of 5,800 per year.

5. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three Times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on Multiple occasions.

In case you are planning to cite economics, there has been steady economic growth in the U.S. Generally you expect it to be up and down, but since this president's 1st term it has been all up. As a matter of fact, in 2003 it was growing at its fastest pace since 1984. I don't have statistics for 2004, but since Jan of 2005 it has been up every quarter. Job growth is also good - Sep of this year marked the 48th consecutive month of job growth. By last year there were 5.2 million more jobs since 2003 and this year that number topped 7 million. Unemployment is very low.

The media seem to think that inflation is important enough to mention only when it's rising.

If you don't agree with our presence in Iraq, ask yourself this question: "do you believe the world would be a better place if Saddam Hussein were still in power?" If you can answer "yes" to this question and keep a straight face at the same time then please justify your answer. If Saddam Hussein were still in power, he would still be sponsoring terror and paying families of suicide bombers. He would still be pursuing weapons of mass destruction. He would still be killing his own people. He would still be firing at our pilots. He would still be bilking the oil-for-food program and using one of the largest oil reserves in the world to threaten Western ecomonies and to fuel his ambitions.

If what I've stated above doesn't match what you've seen or read in the media, find a different source for your news. Talking about rights, we have the right to expect that what is in the news is the whole truth. If it isn't, then it's an opinion and should be stated as such.

If you dig deep enough, you can find something negative about anybody. The fact that so much of the media can't manage to find a single positive thing to say about President Bush is very telling. It clearly indicates that it wouldn't matter if he were Abraham Lincoln, Jonas Salk and Moses all rolled into one - they still wouldn't be able to find a single good thing to say about him. To treat a sitting president this way under any conditions is mean and petty. To do so to a president who has accomplished what this one has is obscene.

So many one-sided comments about Bush, John. Are you a paid Republican party member whose job it is to promote Bush and his policies? Your entire post sounds like a Republican ad spouting their revisionist history of Bush's administration. This is not balanced at all.

Why Bush is the worst President in US history:

1. His "unitary Executive" policy which most Constitutional experts deride. This seriously impacts the checks and balances built into the Constitution.

2. His "signing statements" that make a mockery of Congress as being the body that makes the laws. While signing statements have been used by most if not all Presidents, Bush has used them significantly more often and for illegitimate purposes - signing statements are supposed to be used to identify Presidential concerns with *real* Constitutional issues with the legislation Congress sends to his desk for signing; Bush has used these signing statements to essentially say "I'll sign this law, but I reserve the right as President to ignore it if I so choose". This is blatant abuse that goes along with his unitary Executive policy.

3. His "faith based initiative" where he encourages religious groups to apply for federal (tax payer) money. This is unconstitutional, as many experts have identified.

4. His politicization of Judicial department appointments. The recent scandal of the firing of a number of federal prosecutors because they did not pursue "investigations" of Democratic politicians is an example of this - some of these fired prosecutors have publically made it clear (and verified by others) that the Democrats in question had NO reason whatsoever to be investigated; the "investigations" were purely a political ploy to throw doubt in voters minds as to the integrity of Democratic politicians when there was no reason to think there were any problems (would you vote for someone who is being "investigated" for alledged criminal behavior?). Also, it has been determined that the Bush admin has wide-ranging contact between people in his executive branch and the Justice department when Presidents before him have had extremely few contacts (this goes to undue political influence on Justice department officials).

5. His administration's politicization of science. This goes from appointing unqualified ideologues to scientific positions to rewriting scientific reports to match Bush admin ideology. To see a comprehensive report with copious documented instances, search for the "Union of Concerned Scientists", then on their site look for a link to "Scientific Integrity" (upper right of page). While this is not "illegal" per se, it is gross abuse of science in the name of political expediency, and greatly undermines scientific integrity in the US.

6. Bush's lies to the world on justifications for invading Iraq. The Valery Plame public exposure (a criminal act) was fallout from the Bush admin trying to protect their false claims. See further comments below for more details.

7. The warrantless spying Bush approved on the flimsiest legal reasoning, widely derided by legal experts. The FISA court could handle any needed requests, and the law even allowed Bush to act first and present to the court later, but Bush chose to ignore this law. My guess is that he ignored this law because early in his admin a number of his requests to the FISA court were denied (it is documented that far more of his requests were denied, and rightfully so, than any president before him).

8. Bush's drastic change in US policy which now supports torturing prisoners, which is against international law, military policies against torture, and scientific conclusions that it just does not work except to get the answers you want to hear (not necessarily the truth). I know Bush denies that the US tortures, but this claim is clearly ludicrous.

9.... Others, too numerous to include here.

I'll also comment on a few of your other comments:

Bush "liberated" two countries?

I agree that attacking Afghanistan was the right thing to do after 9/11.

But Bush DROPPED THE BALL by effectively abandoning Afghanistan and instead has persued a war of choice in Iraq. The Taliban and Al Qu'aida are now resurgent in Afghanistan because Bush abandoned that country.

Iraq and Hussein had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, though Bush and people in his admin aluded to this many times in the runup to the war (part of their lies justifying invasion of Iraq). Some time after the invasion, I saw Bush himself on TV admit there was no connection between Hussein and 9/11 - there never was any evidence of this, even before the war. The Valery Plame exposure was an attempt to throw suspicion on her husband who had determined that the alledged efforts by Hussein to purchase nuclear-related material in Africa was completely bogus. This allegation was part of Bush's prime justification for invading Iraq.

There was no good reason to invade Iraq. Hussein was still under tight control because of the first Iraq war. We had inspectors in the country looking for WMD (which Bush did not allow to complete before invading). While Hussein was certainly an evil leader, most of the deaths attributed to him occured 10 years ago or more and were the result of insurgencies he quelled. Certainly he went too far in killing women and children as well as the men who were guilty, but as the leader of his country, there is at least some justification for his trying to put a stop to insurection. As far as his so-called terrorist activities, they were strictly regional and were aimed at inflaming the arab-israli issue.

There has been gross mismanagement of the war in Iraq. The so-called surge really did nothing to make things better. Instead, the US military got lucky when religious leaders in Falugia (sp), fed up with terrorist activity in their area, went to the military to report on terrorist activities and locations. This has served as a model to promote cooperation in other areas of Iraq. What eventually happens in Iraq is still very much in the air.

Since the future of Iraq is uncertain, there is a much greater risk of religious fundamentalists gaining control of parts or all of Iraq. This in stark contrast to Hussein's Iraq which was a SECULAR government with stringent restrictions on public religious gatherings. Hussein's strength in the region was more a stablizing influence than a disruptive one (except for his occasional wars - with Iran and his invasion of Kuwait). So, the future of the entire region is now much more volatile than when Hussein was in power.

The ordinance that has been found in Iraq post invasion were all old missiles that no longer worked and the chemicals found in them had long since lost their effectiveness.

The wars you mentioned that other Presidents have led us into were all justified, unlike Bush's elective war in Iraq. And when it comes to Clinton's action in Bosnia, this was a humanitarian effort to stop the *massive* ethnic cleansing that was occuring at the time.

There may well be positive economic growth in the US while Bush has been President, but at what cost? First of all, at the beginning of this growth, most economists said at the time that Bush's policies were actually hampering recovery and that recovery would have been greater without his trickle-down economic policy that was proven to be ineffective back in Reagan's time. Since then, Bush's pro-business policies have of course helped the stock market show show positive gains, but when you look at the effect this has had on the average citizen - most are in worse shape now than they were before Bush. And the enormous debt Bush is accumulating may likely lead to either recession or even depression before too long.

Bush has accomplished almost nothing except negative results: negative for the average citizen, negative for the world view of the US, negative for the deterioration of our democracy and Constitutional checks and balances, negative for church state separation, and negative for scientific integrity within government.

Oh, and I almost forgot this one:

Bush has appointed two extreme right wing judges to the US Supreme Court.

Already, these two judges, along with the other existing conservative judges on the bench, has started what appears to be an effort to dismantle all the judicial rulings of the 20th century that have benefited equal rights of various minorities and the rights of individuals over the interests of big business.

One of the most egregious recent decisions: the 5-4 ruling that in order to sue for wage discrimination, you must sue within 120 days of the INITIAL discrimination. This effectively makes in impossible to sue for this problem, since practically all wage discrimination issues are discovered years into continual discrimination. Numerous lower courts have lambasted this ruling for this reason. There are two related cases coming up in the current session of the court. We'll see whether the court corrects this egregious ruling in these upcoming rulings. Somehow, I am not optimistic of the outcome.

These two extreme right ideologues on the US Supreme Court will likely be Bush's most long-lasting ... and destructive ... legacy.

Joe, I don't have time to respond to all of your comments, (I really dislike long posts, actually my last post was too long). I'll just address a couple things.

First, my earlier post was largely pro-Bush only because so many earlier posts were anti-Bush. I felt it necessary to answer those comments.

Secondly, you deride our defending of Iraq yet applaud our defending of Bosnia as being a humanitarian effort. I think those in Iraq who are now free, and those who are alive now but would have been dead if Hussein were still in power, would want to know why you don't consider this current effort humanitarian as well.

Thirdly, those WMDs found recently are not the only ones that most of the world has acknowledged that Iraq had. Whether these particular weapons worked or not is beside the point. It indicates their intentions. Consider two things: While on the Larry King show during the time he was campaigning for president, John Kerry slipped up and said "we all knew that Iraq had weapons of