What follows has political content. For those of you who don't like to discuss political things, this is to let you know you might not want to get involved.

FROM CNN:

This story doesn't include that today Bush publicly admitted authorizing what the story talks about, but it does address the basic issues, the impact on the senate's voting in regards to the Patriot Act and a few high-up officials feelings about it.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/16/bush.nsa/index.html


This next article is an updated version of the last article. It includes Bush admitting the program exists.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/index.html


Also of note, the CNN quickvote poll:

Should the government have been given the authority to spy on Americans without warrants after the 9/11attacks?

70% of the responders so far have said "NO".
30% of the responders so far have said, "Yes".
187,602 people have responded up to 11:17 AM. By 1:38 pm the percentages were the same and 201668 had voted.


From MY YAHOO:

This story, from Reuters, says what the above stories say, except it seems to emphasize the republican side more than it does the actual issues.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20051217/pl_nm/security_patriot_dc_16


This story frm AP seems more in line with public reaction:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

It also has a statement that's incongruous to the events. Apparently this eavesdropping was started shortly after 911, yet the story says, "He said it is designed in part to fix problems raised by the Sept. 11 commission, which found that two of the suicide hijackers were communicating from San Diego with al-Qaida operatives overseas."

The 911 commission didn't draw up any resolutions (from the sounds of it) until well after the orders were originally given. It didn't even exist at the time.

I also find the following quote from Senator Feingold very interesting. Feingold said it was "absurd" that Bush said he relied on his inherent power as president to authorize the wiretaps.

"If that's true, he doesn't need the Patriot Act because he can just make it up as he goes along. I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," Feingold told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.


This next one is also from the AP, but focuses on the Patriot Act:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_patriot_act

Again, it seemed to dwell more on Bush's defense in wanting the act renewed. This time Senator Leahy's remark was of special interest to me:

"Fear mongering and false choices do little to advance either the security or liberty of Americans," Leahy said. "Instead of playing partisan politics and setting up false attack ads, they should join in trying to improve the law."

This is a fascinating day.

[ December 17, 2005, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Vi ]

Thanks for posting the articles. It is indeed tempting to turn this into a political football, which is exactly what's happening. What neither "side" seems to want to admit is that this sort of invasion of privacy has been going on with the knowledge of the ferdeal government since long before Bush was around. If people are starting to be more aware of it now, that's all to the good. Maybe it will finally be stopped.

I'm sure there are a lot of people who won't agree with me. Any takers?

The reason that this gets into a political football match is that people keep making all discussions into debates over "either/or." Either we have wiretaps or we have terrorists. Either we have liberty or we have security.

What if we have a "both/and" scenerio? We can have both liberty and security, but we may have to look at things differently. I agree that illegal searches and whatnot have been around for a very long time. It doesn't mean we shouldn't protest each and every time we hear about it and hold up a greater ideal.

Perhaps if we begin with a values and needs discussion prior to deciding what to do, we could actually come to a consensus regarding what we believe is the best thing to do from where we are right now. The constitution was actually written that way -- a discussion of needs and values.

So in this case, the value is every American citizen's right to privacy. The need is safety -- a very basic need in our lives. How do we balance the two? What about organizations and corporations? What ideas do we have for privacy in groups?

Personally, my balance is more towards privacy for individuals, less privacy for organizations, corporations and the like. With that comes a responsbility. I have a responsibility to know my neighbors. I have a responsibility to dig under a person's outward appearance and words and understand who they are and what they value before I decide they are to be feared.

We can have both privacy and safety -- it's very simple and it takes work.

Thank you NHJackie and Casey for your input. Yes, there is always a need for balance. Unfortunately this entire political system is currently out of balance.

We have now learned: Two years ago, George W. Bush went behind the back of the American people and secretly authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to carry out surveillance of people throughout the United States. He's admitted it.

The secret presidential edict, revealed by the New York Times, allowed massive spying, surveillance of phone calls and peoples' homes without any evidence of criminal activity, and without court order. This complete violation of the Bill of Rights was ordered without congressional debate or judicial scrutiny and oversight. It was Bush’s secret, a hidden and criminal violation of peoples constitutional rights.

Bush’s secret action is a violation of federal wiretapping law, the Privacy Act and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. What remedy exists when the President violates federal law and trashes the Bill of Rights? The remedy provided by the Constitution is impeachment.

This latest bombshell follows a pattern well known by all those who are demanding that Congress defend the Constitution through impeachment. Bush used September 11 to violate the most important tenets of the US Constitution and international law. The war of aggression in Iraq, the establishment of a global network of secret prisons and torture centers, the unleashing of secret police spying on citizens and non-citizens alike, the evisceration of due process rights and the systematic lying to Congress and to the people about the reasons for the launch of the Iraq war - these constitute the essential case for impeachment.

The American people are demanding in ever greater numbers that the constitutional mechanism that holds high officials accountable for criminal activity be immediately applied. The idea promoted by some that Bush is too strong to be impeached is sheer nonsense and it defies the historical record. Richard Nixon was on the verge of being impeached in the last half of his second term and not long after, he won a landslide majority in the 1972 election. Clinton too was impeached in the second half of his second term, on the allegation of perjury, when he had an approval rating of 60%.

Today Bush’s approval rating is hovering around 40%, the majority of the people believe Congress should vote to impeach if Bush lied about the reasons for going to war, and now millions more are shocked that Bush secretly authorized the most powerful spy agency to spy on anyone it wanted too without court order or evidence of criminal wrong doing.

The Bush White House, in its very essence, is the negation of democracy. The people must not stand by and let cherished freedoms protected by the Constitution, be stripped away in secret.

What can we do: place ads in the New York Times and other newspapers, as well as radio spots, this January calling for the immediate impeachment of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others.

Volunteers and organizers are working across the country to spread the message of the grassroots movement VoteToImpeach/ImpeachBush.org

The above was written by those who believe strongly in our constitutional rights.

[ December 19, 2005, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Vi ]

Vi, I pasted your post in an email to a friend whom I'm seeing for dinner tonight, and it will be our topic of conversation.

We all know the above information is true, but our discourse will be on future possibilities and probabilities. I'll post tomorrow if I have anything significant to add.

It looks like I am in the minority around this site, but I will say that I believe our President deserves our support and that he is doing a pretty good job. The liberal press has been a much bigger problem to our country's security than anything Bush might do. I watch TV and see news stories about possible targets for Al Quaeda and I think...why not just send them a photocopy of the newscast. Don't reporters think they monitor our tv programs, especially the news? Why give them more ideas on how vulnerable we are?
Personally, I am not crazy about wire-tapping phones, but ours has already been tapped by the FBI before (long story) and nothing ever came of it. Most of our personal information can be found on the internet, if someone knows how to find it. I'd rather be wire-tapped than end up dead. What good are our civil liberties when we are room temperature on a cold slab? Our very lives are at stake. Anyone who believes Al Quaeda has no plans to attack us again is delusional.
I'm getting off my soapbox now. Slice me up and put me out to dry. I don't care. I stick with my opinion.

You're not a minority, Countrygirl, I agree with you. While I'm not totally in favor of wire-tapping, I'm not upset over what Bush did. I think we can be pretty sure Al Quaeda spies on us. I think we/Bush/whoever is in power needs to do whatever it takes to beat these monsters at their own game. I too think we should be supporting our President. That doesn't mean we have to agree with every single thing he did/does. Politics is a nasty business. All's fair in love and WAR and I agree with you - they plan to attack us the first chance they get.

I live two miles from a General Electric plant. (always said to be a target) and 10 minutes from a major city, Boston and Logan Airport. We live on the water with a spectacular view of the Boston skyline. I sit on my deck at night and take in the beautiful site. My husband and I watch the planes coming and going from Logan. I remember the days after 9/11 when there was no sound of the planes overhead. An eery feeling. All was not right with the world.

When I look at the familiar Boston skyline on a hot summer night and see the Prudential Building and the John Hancock Tower I am thankful it is still there. I try to imagine what it would feel like to have part of it missing like in NY with the Twin Towers. On the 4th of July, we watch the Boston Pops on TV and listen to the music and watch the people celebrating our freedom. At the end of the show, we watch the fireworks on the TV and we can see part of them from Boston from our doorway. It gives me a sense of pride.

JW can spy on whomever he has to as far as I'm concerned if it will keep that skyline the way it is and the music playing and the fireworks lighting up the sky.

There's my soabox too, Countrygirl.
Louisa

I would be inclined to impeach President Bush if he HADN'T authorized wiretapping to protect our country and citizens. He was only doing his duty as president to protect the country. I'm very thankful to have a president who is more interested in reality than political correctness.

Daisygirl

As mentioned in the above articles, all Bush has to do to wiretap our phones legally, when there is probable cause, is to get permission from the special court set up just for that purpose. It’s almost always granted. He has instant access to that court, if he needs it, and if justifiable, he can immediately instigate wiretaps, as long as within three days, he petitions the court for the wiretap warrants. It’s a matter of checks and balances. Checks and balances are vital to democracy. Without them we have a dictatorship. We have no freedoms, if he decides to take power that is not his and disregards our liberties guaranteed by our constitution.

We are more at risk from Al Qaeda now than we were before Bush invaded Iraq. Iraq did not attack us. Al Qaeda did. The world was behind us when we went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The world even felt sorry for us. The world turned against us, and the determination of Al Qaeda to wipe out us heathens grew when Bush invaded Iraq. Because of him the problem multiplied exponentially. We are less safe now than we have ever been before, because of G. W. Bush.

Many scholars say that Bush has broken the law. The laws we live by are recorded in the Constitution of the United States. He was elected to uphold this constitution. He swore to do so when he took office, twice. It is not up to him to take the law into his own hands. As was reported in the news:

quote:

---

Feingold said it was "absurd" that Bush said he relied on his inherent power as president to authorize the wiretaps.
"If that's true, he doesn't need the Patriot Act because he can just make it up as he goes along. I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," Feingold told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

---

It is hard to trust someone who thinks he is above the law. How could I possibly think someone like that has the best interests of this country and it’s citizens at heart. The only citizens I’ve seen that he takes to heart is the corporate citizen, at the expense of the American citizen.

As I was growing up I was taught to believe that presidents were heroes, starting with George Washington, who could not tell a lie. We are a nation of good and wholesome people. But George is teaching our children that lying and cheating are okay, and that if you have enough power you can get away with anything. Is that what you want for your children?

[ December 20, 2005, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: Vi ]

Our dinner topic tonight veered towards how many people in the US are ignorant about our Constitution and laws, and they "excuse" the President from breaking these laws because they "like" him.

I agree with you, Vi, and so does my friend. No one is above the law. If our country turns into a totalitarian dictatorship, then what exactly are we fighting for? Of course, then Al Quaeda may stop trying to destroy us, because we will have already destroyed ourselves from within.

The President is interested not in reality, but in power.