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.

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

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!

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

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.

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!

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

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?

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.

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.

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!

Plus:

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

You probably support the right to bear arms, too.

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.

4th Ammendment – nuff said