CNN

We should not be blaming anyone but Charles Schumer of New York, and the new Leiberman, Diane Feinstein, from California. Those are the two that I directly blame for this.

How can we have a law that directly contradicts one of the basic principles on which the country was built!??!? I, for one, believe the 4th amendment to be one of the most precious and sacred rights as an American. – Andy J, Upstate, NY

The Conservative majority on the Supreme Court is much more concerned with maintaining the current class structure of the nation and they apparently think very little about freedom, liberty, rights, etc.

Bravo gutless Dems. This is what you get by confirming this man.

The current FISA law is unconstitutional anyway. There is only one appropriate way to allow such intrusions into privacy. That would mean a Constitutional Amendment to modify the current 4th Amendment. The government would never get the votes and states ratification to do this, so they are circumventing the law. Come on don't give me this urgency bit – FISA is 30 YEARS old.

Amen to that aj huntington ny. I completely agree with you on this.

It is so incoherently pathetic that some think Bush is listening to millions and millions of telephone conversations per day. Some people are unbelievable!

Amen to that aj huntington ny. I am in complete agreement with you.

November 15, 2007

Who of intelligence among us, is surprised that Mukasey is in support of granting immunity to the telecom industry for illegal spying?

We cannot blame this just on Republicans, but Democrats who also, with feeble excuses ("this is the best we can do at this time"), supported Mukasey's nomination.

Do the political parties, and the mainstream media, really think the American people do not recognize this for what it is?

Big Brother IS watching!

IF, as they (Bushco) say, that what the telecoms did was legal then why would they need retoactive immunity? Makes one start to think maybe it wasn't??? Just wondering...

The Constitution applies to Chimpie and Traitor Cheney as well.

No more free passes for those traitors! They have to obey our laws, and if they've already broken them, they must be punished.

Golly, imagine an attorney general who wants all the rules slanted in favor of government! I'm not suprised on several counts. First, Bush would never want a freedom lover for the A G job.

Second, the enforcement arm of our system has always wanted to have an extreme advantage over the field of suspects under their scrutiny. (which at one time or another includes every man, woman, and child in America)

I just reflect on Kent State when I think of the responsibility of Government and then I shudder to think what will happen next.
We had a reasonably fair system of doing things without invoking a "because I wanted to" waretap law. However, I see the need for radical surveillance methods when the system is so frought with incompetance.

Posted By aj huntington ny : November 15, 2007 11:51 am

yeah, and President Nixon didn't want to either right?

The FISA law *allows* the president to listen to anyone he wants – he just has to provide a reason.

Anything less would be unamerican - of course all the scared whiners prefer to live like Communist China then go ahead an keep supporting the president's illegal (and political) eavesdropping!

Please allow our government officials to intercept phones calls from abroad that possibly will lead to thwarting terrorist attacks.

Don't be so self-centered to think that President Bush wants to listen in on your pathetic little conversations !

Yes, TAKE MY FREEDOMS, MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, and FLUSH THEM DOWN THE MIGHTY TOILET BOWL called BIG BROTHER!
MY GOD PEOPLE/AMERICANS, WHEN are you going to realize that ONE SACRAFICE of YOUR FREEDOMS for SECURITY makes it IMPOSSIBLE to HAVE EITHER! YOU LOSE BOTH!
BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION!

Veto? Throw me in the briar patch. If this bill is vetoed, we revert to FISA in its current form, no retroactive immunity, no basket warrants, and the Administration will be confronted with its own blatant lawlessness in the FISA Court.

If the Attorney General of the United States has *any* opinions on the FISA laws, he should first show us the Legal Justifications behind the president's position on illegal eavesdropping.

If the President is so confident spying on Americans is legal, then why is he afraid to prove it?

In the absence of any legal justification, there is only one answer: the president is Breaking the Law.

If not, then prove it!

Posted By Dave, New York, NY : November 15, 2007 11:12 am

------

Welcome to America, Dave. The LAW does not require one PROVE their actions are "legal"... rather ... it requires opponents to their decisions to prove the illegality.

Innocent until proven guilty. Remember that little thing we try to uphold?

99.9% of people who AG Michael Mukasey would keep under electronic surveillance are crooning love at their homes or office or over the telephones.

The 0.01% whom AG Michael Mukasey has under surveillance, who in fact, are the real culprits, know very well how to dodge electronic surveillance.

A case in point is people like Zacarias Moussaoui, Richard Reid, Cho (University Shooter) have all avoided AG Michael Mukasey's surveillance. In fact Cho's sister was employed with sensitive government agency and still no one had a clue that Cho was in process of committing the University shootings. Similarly the 9/11 hijackers and UK train bombers and Spain bombers all bucked surveillance, because they had intent to kill and knew their job. The extensive surveillance could not prevent these offenders from committing a crime they intended to commit. There is nothing enforcement agencies could do about such major crimes.

Today's new that inspectors were able to carry bomb equipment pass the airport security is proof of point.

Another factor that affects effective implementation of surveillance, is the fact that people who enforce surveillance are just working for a salary from 9 to 5. These enforcers are not driven by patriotic principles, just like AG Michael is driven by political reasons rather than patriotism.

So AG Michael's position on Electronic surveillance is very weak. Electronic surveillance is just a pain in the neck for people who are genuinely free, have no intent to commit a crime, and is a great tool for enforcement agencies to hackle people at will.

Sen. Leahy has the right intent in his bill and all Electronic surveillance should be conducted with Courts approval and under preview of Congress. President Bush's reason that sharing information with Congress jeopardizes national security rings hollow, because members of Congress are in place at trust of people who elect them.

Yawn, thanks Joy. Your point is what, exactly?

Posted By David Branch, Waco, Texas : November 15, 2007 5:44 am

I sure do. Someone has to protect the US from comments like yours.

Personally, I've never believed all this debate about wire tapping was about spying on American citizens. This smells like Watergate all over again and the question is, who is the target and what do they know that this adminstration is trying to shut down.

I'm looking at you Chuck Schumer with a face of disgust. We all knew Muklasey was bad, but for all his toughness during the Fredo sessions he had a chance to do something about this corruption and he caved. This is why apathy exists. There is no party line representing the common man anymore.

If the Attorney General of the United States has *any* opinions on the FISA laws, he should first show us the Legal Justifications behind the president's position on illegal eavesdropping.

If the President is so confident spying on Americans is legal, then why is he afraid to prove it?

In the absence of any legal justification, there is only one answer: the president is Breaking the Law.

If not, then prove it!

Lucy pulled the football away for the umpteenth time! The administration is undefeated against the Democratic majority! THIS is what we voted for last November? Pitiful

Are we all that terribly suprised? This is why I don't understand why the American public time after time after time keeps voting for either party. Why not try a new party? The Republicans in office today are extremists and are shredding the constitution to fit their own faith based agenda. The Democrats are afraid of being labeled "Anti-American" or accused of "not supporting the troops". Both parties are a failure and continue to let the country down. Can we really be all that suprised to hear this? This from a man who believes waterboarding is not torture? Wake up America. Before its too late.

Republican't are reigning supreme at the current time and are put in place all this precedence that they will spend year opposing once they loose the white house.
Like the saying goes; "be careful of the weapon that once won you your freedom for it may one day take it away from you". People just watch, they will soon be screaming bloody murder.

Rockefeller supports telecom "retroactive immunity"; Feinstein and Schumer support Mukasey. How can the Dems possibly be called an opposition party, and why are they so happily helping Bushco dismantle the Constitution? More to the point, what can we do when our representatives refuse to represent us?

Imagine, a London native knows the law better than congress.....eg

Plus:

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Posted By Avedon Carol, London : November 15, 2007 9:15 am

The White House wants a retroactive law? I may not know the ins and outs of the constitution, (although I recall one passage was: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.") but I don't recall that changing laws after the fact has been considered valid.

somehow i'm getting that creeping feeling that this "showdown" is going to end like ALL of the other showdowns between the democrats in congress and this administration.

afraid of being perceived as "weak on national security," the dems will fold and the chimp will live to smirk again.

when are they going to realize that our constitution and bill of rights ARE our national security? these documents define america, and if they are meaningless, then so is america.

the most unpopular president in the history of the country and still they won't stand up to him. this is the opposition?
GROW A SPINE DEMOCRATS

read more closely – Mukaskey is opposed to the bill cause if it passed the White House would be subject to surveillance too – now Bush wouldn't want that now, huh?

What a shock, Waterboarder Mukasey waited a whole day before demonstrating what a wingnut hack he is. Thank you Chuckie Schumer and Diane "Democrat in name only" Feinstein for giving us this fascist.

Why do the Democrats keep carrying the water for these clowns?

That is a question that we will never hear the answer to.

Mukasey, McConnell, and the rest are just a bunch of power hungry neocons whose only interest is power power power.

Disgusting.

Plus:

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Amen, Joy.

Read the 4th Amendment.
How can we have a law that directly contradicts one of the basic principles on which the country was built!??!? I, for one, believe the 4th amendment to be one of the most precious and sacred rights as an American.
This is scary, scary stuff.

Our new Attorney General already appears confused as to his role. It looks like its time for another Congressional showdown, hopefully this one shall result in a override of any Presidential VETOs.

Mukasey's concerns should be does the law pass consitutional muster. Other than that it is his job to follow the law and enforce the law.

I agree with Joy the 4th Amendmend says it all.

This wonderul 110th Congress send a bill to the president that would get an automatic veto?? No......

This is what Americans were trying to tell the fools in Congress when Mukasey was put before them. He was only put in his position to promote GOP politics and not defend Americans or the Constitution.

yadda, yadda, yadda ... what else did you expect from a Bush flunky ...

We traded one political prostitue for another.

I knew Mukasey was an arse kisser, why else would Dubya nominate him. At least Janet Reno did her job relative to investigating President Clinton. But, this is what we have come to expect from this President, he'll not let us down. No immunity for the stupid phone companies, they knew they were being ask to break the law, oh, but King George said it was ok.

Yawn, thanks Joy. Your point is what, exactly?

You probably support the right to bear arms, too.

FISA was put into law in 1978 to curb confirmed government abuses. Bush has done nothing to assure Americans their privacy won't be violated or abused besides saying "trust me" and their lemming lesser citizen followers saying "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide".

Democrats should tell Bush to sign the bill then work with Congress on what should be done to modify it, not the other way around. And American citizens need to tell Bush they won't be scared into losing their freedoms. (and please no one give the lame "there's no time to get a warrant" excuse, one can wiretap, then get a warrant later when time is a factor)

We need to heed the wisdom of our founding fathers and demand a warrant before invading the privacy of Americans, as opposed to putting blind trust in Bush (or any president) not to abuse his power, when he has been proven to do nothing and ignore countless scandals within his own party and administration.

If Bush can't balance freedom and safety, then he needs to admit he can't do his job and step down.

Just as we don't want to be attacked by terrorists, it's just as important we don't want to be governed by tyrants.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

4th Ammendment – nuff said