Democrats realize the Bush administration was right after all; this time on wiretapping

big brother is watching you....

God, that is so funny. Clearly, the Dems care a lot about civil liberties and freedom and stuff. They only care about it when they are in the minority and have no power. Now they realize that they cannot afford to give rights to sub-human terrorists who wish to kill all of us.

I'm not a sub-human terrorist who wishes to kill all of us

I have no problem with wiretapping, especially when the people who are 'tapped' are placing overseas calls to known terrorists

Thank you for posting your article to !!!Today's Top Three Photos and Articles!!!@

http://bestoftoday.gather.com/

Here's what the article actually says:

"But in an acknowledgment of civil liberties concerns, the measure would also require a more active role by the special foreign intelligence court that oversees the N.S.A.'s interception of foreign-based communications."

So, the Democrats will allow wiretapping, as long as there is Court approval beforehand.

What's new about that?

I'm with you, James. I can not, for the life of me, understand why Congress, the ACLU or anyone else has a problem with this kind of security measure. If you have nothing to hide, there shouldn't be a problem.They can tap my phone 24/7/365.

Thank you, Elizabeth. Are you as disappointed as I am when the "AUTHOR" doesn't bother to give any information, his friends come in to agree with nothing, and then you have to present the meat of the article for him in order to clear up the misinformation? It has become a pattern.

Here's what I don't understand. The governement already has the right to wiretap people. Under FISA, they can even wiretap me and go to the FISA court after the fact to get the warrant. But the government does not want the accountability. They have created this smokescreen that so many people have bought into (as illustrated by this post) that the government cannot otherwise wiretap. They can. They have been allowed to for years. What Bush wants to do is eliminate accountability.

Someone please convince me that there should not be accountability. Please.

I wonder if the sycophants who praised this above really feel the Constitution is best served by being ignored, or if they're afraid they too will be monitored unless they start singing along with the despots. I'll keep my self-respect, thank you; the cowards above can say whatever they want. Oops, whatever they're told.

Elizabeth thanks for the dropby with spinning. I am glad that you can read an article and still not understand. It will give the court a seat at the table but the NSA can go ahead without approval and the Justice department will do quartlerly audits to make sure they are justified. That is mostly what the administration wants. It is funny many cannot evaluate their dear democrats.

Sandy the only thing that has become a pattern is your worship of DAILYKOS

What I noticed in the article is that when the authorities don't go to the court they still have to submit records for review every three months rather than having free rein. That means that they can only use the no warrant part of it in an emergency and that they better have their ducks in a row when the audit comes. To me this means they will save the warrantless incidents to when they are really needed rather than like Mr. Bush wants, which is zero accountability.

Very interesting article!

Sandy, yes, it's quite sad. MDP used to be an author of substance, but now he's simply Spinmaster Mod. I drop by his articles (I usually just refer to them as "screeds") once in a while when I have a spare moment to set the record straight, but usually I just leave him alone with his chorus of bootlickers. The strange thing is that he has a group called "Modern Day Publius Letters" when he can't even bother to write an actual article.

It is nice for Elizabeth to share. I have wrote many articles of substance. Sorry I dont post game articles like you

By the way Elizabeth you were wrong.

I agree with Sandy and Elizabeth. MDP, you can do better. You used to give clear details explaining your point of view. Now, you just write some sweeping generalization and link to an article. While I usually don't see things your way, I thought your writing was great.

It's nice that people who don't know me can call me a coward and a bootlicker, thanks!

I'll take that as a no

don't worry James...in the past 24 hours I've been called a sub-human terrorist and selfish. Some people gave up name calling in 5th grade. Some did not.

I can appreciate that Joe. I will try to expand more in the future.

I'd like to address several points here. First, MoD, thanks for the information, I do agree with your statement previous to the link.
Now,
Ivan, I agree with you. I have nothing to hide, therefore, nothing to fear.
James, I agree. I see that if you do not agree with the other side's opinions, you are called names, a coward, etc., which brings me to
Kris, what are sycophants?
Joe T., I'm surprised that you and Elizabeth have something to say about Mo's writing a brief statement and providing a link as there is a writer for "your side" who does this several times a day, and most of the titles and blanket statements are inflammatory to boot, yet I have seen you both sing his praises for his *ahem* bringing the truths out.
Again, it's okay for the name calling and hatred and personal attacks when it is aimed at the right, yet the right is always accused of doing it. Any wonder why those of us who DO lean towards the right stop listening to anything that comes from your direction after awhile?

Exactly, Katie. I believe I know who you are talking about but that particular writer doesn't have the verve that MDP has. I think that MDP is just being a little lazy. He/she? clearly has the skills and talent. I only say this to encourage him.

I don't sing the praises of people as a rule but I have to say that I have no room for those who criticize Democrats constantly but offer nothing in the way of a solution. Neither party is all that bad. They just have differing viewpoints.

Maybe he took a bad lesson from the person or persons here on Gather who do it so frequently. But I won't fault him for that as I have taken a few bad examples from some here and had to redirect when I caught myself at it. Lately, it seems to be the 'thing' to even place links in the comments rather than think about and write out a comment. I will agree that I do miss some of MoD's explanations of some of the more nitty gritty aspects of politics and government as he does understand these things better than most and more certainly than I.

I agree with Joe. MDP has the skills and the talent to do better. That's why I take the time to say -- and I have said it in the past -- this is not worthy of you.

Also, "I have wrote many articles" may be a slip of the tongue. What you are looking for is "I have written."

Katie, you probably don't want to know what "sycophant" means.

Ideology doesn't really have much to do with political reality. Politics is all about compromise. We're in severe trouble if we're governed by ideologues.

I'd rather we'd follow the Bill of Rights but the Star Chamber folks have the upper hand at the moment.

The politicians on either side will do what politicans usually do. Embrace whatever will get them votes.

As long as the wiretapping is only international calls I can see the advantages of evesdropping for a time to make sure it is not two terrorists talking. I do not agree to tapping domestic calls without a court order. That last "upgrade" to the Patriot act could be twisted to do that but it would be physically impossable to monitor everyone. So the only time it would be used is to monitor a suspect.

Wiretapping by the government has been going on for years but on a limited basis.
With my knowledge and permission my phone was monotered for years because of the nature of my service. It was for my protection and also so they could know I was not "selling out".

I do know what it means Nippy. It was just my way of pointing out again the previous remark I made regarding calling people names and making the assumption that you know what people are like just because their opinion differs from yours.

I see nothing wrong with wiretapping especially if sleeper cells and or known terrorists ARE making overseas calls.

Wiretapping has been used by law enforcement agencies for how long and yet people are all concerned about it now because it supposedly invades our privacy. So, if you are doing nothing wrong what exactly is the problem?? Should we OUTLAW wiretapping and other means that law enforcement and other security fields rely on to get information on criminals??

Thanks Modern for posting this article!

I have a few points to make about some of the comments made here. First, MDP has provided information through an article form a media source. He has, in the past, written articles containing his own opinion. I'm sure he will do so again.

I have read articles by many writers on Gather who use media sources. If not as a point to sustain their view; as a point to argue their opinion against someone else's view. It seems quite evident that some who are bashing MDP didn't even read the article. Just jumped on the 'bash MDP' bandwagon.

If ANYONE can show me that the Government is wiretapping EVERYONE with NO just cause, perhaps I'll change my mind. Until then, I'll support this type of intelligence gathering.