Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Essential Liberty, you numskull!

These hearings are going to make great ads for repubs this November. Dems want a judge to authorize hunting down international terrorists? More ACLU claptrap that prevents connecting the dots and endangers America.

Progressive dems will never convince Americans they are safer with them in charge.

Hammerhead, I love how you misspelled NUMBskull. The irony is delicious.

That soundbyte that Muirgeo linked to was interesting. In it, Bush said that all wiretaps needed a warrant (court approval), even ones that were used to chase terrorists. You could contend that this is different because of one end of the conversation being outside of the United States. I doubt that any of you are legal experts or that you have all of the facts of the situation, so you can make all of your premature judgements to your heart's content.

I'd like to wait until a judge looks at this until I go either way, but the burden of proof is on the accuser.

the left ignores that we've always suspended some civil liberties in wartime.

the key is gettin' 'em back after the enemy's defeated.

alot of service members died securing those liberties.

These hearing are absolutely useless and are a waste of time and money. The Democrat's leftist babble is predictable and at best counterproductive. I'm not sure about Specter’s game but I'm sure it's an attempt at self-preservation. He probably sees his state tilting perilously to the left and is franticly trying to save his political butt. It’s really quite sad watching this Senate and it’s immature, child like behavior while our youth are fighting and dying to protect and preserve this form of government.

Killing is illegal -- yet people are killed every day. Life sentences without parole are legal-- yet such 'lifers' are paroled. People may 'deserve' both Liberty and Safety yet obtain neither.
Life is too precious to be left to some 'swing vote' on the Supreme Court.
I believe that the government has an obligation to act when it obtains information to save lives. If that information is believed to be illegally collected, then I want to see the laws changed.
Clearly, the right to life may conflict with the Right to Privacy, and freedom will require a delicate balancing of rights. I want that balance to be the product of open debate in a congress of elected representatives of the people.

Frawg, that is sound advice. Too bad the NYT and it's slavish devotees have already had the verdict and declared the sentence. Where are the lawsuits on this anyhow? Seems like the ACLU would have filed before Fitzmas (or is Fitzmas yet to come? This new calander is mighty confusing.) if they had anyone with standing to do so. And foreign communications ARE decidedly different from domestic and FISA courts have specifically held that the Executive has this inherent power to intercept international comms. Clinton had it (and used it). But this is, NOW a matter for the courts, now that it is exposed and therefore rendered impotent. If they find for the Administration, and precedent is certainly on their side, will those who outed this program accept the responsibility for the damage wrought? They won't want to but electorally, they will have no choice. It seems Nov elections are well timed to serve as a referendum on the matter. Coincidence? Or has Rover replaced Punch Sulzberger with an anamotronic persona that does the RNCs bidding?

The real kicker in the Bush soundbyte was that it was made after they were already doing the "illegal wiretaps" ...as I understand it. That would make it a knowing lie right up there with the "yellow cake FROM AFRICA".....BOOOOO!

No..... I think the American people...the true patriotic ones...the ones really interested in truth...the ones who want statesmen not politicians running our government....will figure out who can best protect them and our country and our constitution. Did you all watch Meet the Press. It sounds as if we could see 1994 in reverse this year. You all better start holding your leaders responsible rather then making up lame excuses for them simply because you see this a football game and you cheerlead for your side no matter how wrong they are and no matter how little they really care about you compared to their next contract. The home team is the fans not the players....

Why won't Republicans let Gonzalez testify under oath? Seems like they are trying to hide something.

Both sides of the aisles want to track down terrorists. If it is true that this Domestic Spying is only when someone from Al Qaeda call to the US then FISA would throw a warrant in your direction. That doesn't pass the smell test. Also if you say you don't have enough time then you have 72 hours to persue a warrant after you already tapped the phone. None of this makes any sense. Also who is the checks and balances of this? Is the president checking himself?

Federal law "has a forceful and blanket prohibition against any electronic surveillance without a court order," said Specter, R-Pa. While the president claims he has the authority to order such surveillance to protect Americans from terrorist attacks, Specter said, "I am skeptical of that interpretation."

For those of you who say this NSA issue is driven by leftist Democrats, Sen. Specter IS NOT a Democrat.

At question is whether the President should have used warrantless spying--AS HE (HE!!!) SAID he would during a 2004 campaign speech, or whether he should have used the FISA provisions which--AS THE RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS--gives easy and rapid authority for electronic surveillance AFTER THE FACT.

In many ways, it seems to me that the Bush Administration is trying to act like the Catholic Church centuries ago: denying that the Earth moves (latter case), trying to deny that we are likely contributing to global warming (latter).

Consider: Dr. James E. Hansen who has stated that he was threatened with "dire consequences" if he continued to call for prompt action to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming. He and intermediaries in the agency's 350-member public-affairs staff said the warnings came from White House appointees in NASA headquarters.

The Bush Administration is also trying to push for its view of its god:

The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the "war room" of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen's public statements.

In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."

It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."

Is this not a Bush push for a Christian based god?

You don't testify under oath unless you absolutely must. Study any case dealing with obstruction of justice, lying under oath, etc. It's not hard to tell the truth, yet still be held under suspicion for mistatements, lying, obstructing, etc. Honest people make mistakes, forget, and anyone who knows anything about memory, knows it is imperfect. Therefore, given the human frailty and common understanding of memory, it's possible to make mistakes and fry, when one is telling the truth, or not purposefully forgetting, ignoring or distorting the truth. Doesn't this sound familiar? It should, think Clinton.

Mark,

I couldn't agree with you more!

As usual, the media and Democrats choose their words to mislead and inflame rather than to inform and educate.

If a judge says it's o.k. to listen in on a conversation, it's good and legal wire tapping to catch a criminal. If the President approves monitoring calls originating from overseas terrorists in order to potentially save the lives of tens of thousands of American citizens and billions upon billions of dollars in terrorist destruction, it's domestic spying! Why doesn't the media just start referring to all wiretapping as domestic spying?!!!

Oh, but if only the President would get the approval of their activist judges, it would all be o.k! Obviously, they are much smarter than the President, right? Wrong! Personally, I trust the President to look out for me and my freedoms far more than I do the activist judges who legislate from the bench and whom the liberals and Democrats want to keep in office. Democrats believe it's good for America if judges go well beyond their constitutional powers but not for President Bush to use his powers as Commander In Chief to protect us from foreign terrorists. Books are written citing the myriad of examples where judges have abused their positions, but I haven't heard of one where I am convinced that the President or NSA have abused theirs!

Maybe our Democratic Senators and Representatives should request that the President and NSA not intercept and monitor communications from overseas terrorists to persons in their state. The media could then publish a list of those states where terrorists are free to talk to their operatives and spies without the President or NSA infringing on their ACLU perceived protected rights... even though they may not be American citizens! However, in exchange for this "consideration", terrorists must agree to limit their bombings and terrorist activities to those states. I would think the Democrats would want to add California, New York, and Massachusetts to the top of their list. If any of their voters complain, just tell them the Democrats want to protect them from President Bush!

AAR

What good is civil liberty if you don't have a secure democratic country to use all those freedoms. Freedoms don't do much when you are fighting radiation burns or eating nuclear dust.

Muriego,

You just don't want to understand because hating President Bush is, seemingly, more important to you than rational thought or the freedom and safety of your nation.

It is just signals intelligence - we're not illegally wiretapping Howard Dean or John Kerry...we're just listening in on suspected enemy communications.

The President hasn't been wiretapping Howard Dean or John Kerry, as far as we know. But maybe he should be. Maybe he should be doing a lot more than that. After all, if the President is going to use any power available to defeat our enemies, and if the Democrats, with their criticism, are helping our enemies, why doesn't the President just round up the most vocal of his opponents and lock them up? If anyone thinks differently, they are not true patriots.

Federal law "has a forceful and blanket prohibition against any electronic surveillance without a court order," said Specter, R-Pa. While the president claims he has the authority to order such surveillance to protect Americans from terrorist attacks, Specter said, "I am skeptical of that interpretation."

I spent most of my 24-year naval career in signals intelligence, and all I can say, Alex, is you're wrong. I'll have to wait until the transcripts of the hearings are available to be positive, but I'm pretty sure I also heard Specter say, in a somewhat roundabout and convoluted way, that Congress cannot pass a law that restricts the constitutional authority of the President. While Specter says that Bush violated FISA, he, basically in the same breath, said that FISA is unconstitutional. I agree with Frawg -- this will play out in hearings and eventually in the Supreme Court. If I were a politician seeking reelection, I would not be hanging my hat on the position that the Democrats are taking on this. We'll see....

At question is whether the President should have used warrantless spying--AS HE (HE!!!) SAID he would during a 2004 campaign speech, or whether he should have used the FISA provisions which--AS THE RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS--gives easy and rapid authority for electronic surveillance AFTER THE FACT. (emphasis - mine)

Alex, you've obviously not read THIS or you wouldn't make such an ignorant statement.