White House Says Phone Wiretaps Will Resume For Now

austinhook brings us news that the U.S. government has resumed wiretapping with the help of telecommunications companies. The companies are said to have "understandable misgivings" over the unresolved issue of retroactive immunity for their participation in past wiretapping. Spy agencies have claimed that the expiration of the old legislation has caused them to miss important information. The bill that would grant the immunity passed in the Senate, but not in the House.

Comments

How do they know?

[duffetta]

How do they know that they've missed important information, if they aren't wiretapping?

Re:How do they know?

[ExecutorElassus]

Sorry, that information is classified for reasons of national security. You have an inappropriately strong interest in questioning the Terrorist Monitoring Program's scope; just whose side are you on?

Re:How do they know?

[MyNameIsFred]

...How do they know that they've missed important information, if they aren't wiretapping?...

It's not that hard to presume that they know they are missing information. Assume they recorded a conversation that was important, and part of that conversation was let's talk every Thursday. Or they said we're putting everything in place, we'll contact you shortly with the time. Although those examples raise the question of why don't you just get a warrant...

Re:How do they know?

[Vellmont]

Assume they recorded a conversation that was important, and part of that conversation was let's talk every Thursday. Or they said we're putting everything in place, we'll contact you shortly with the time.

Yah, that would be true if the current wiretaps were to expire when the legislation expired. But the law was written to specifically say they didn't. Any existing wiretaps expire when they were originally set to expire.

Re:How do they know?

[Zeinfeld]

It's not that hard to presume that they know they are missing information. Assume they recorded a conversation that was important, and part of that conversation was

That is the White House line and its a lie. Existing authorizations continue to be in force for a year. That takes us past the next inauguration.

The only case where the administration could not conduct a warantless tap is if there was an entirely new terrorist organization to emerge in the next twelve months. And they could still get a wiretap, they just have to get a warrant.

The issue here is not providing immunity to the telcos, it is providing immunity to the Administration. They want to be able to shred all the evidence of their criminal activities before a Democrat takes over. And they are willing to hold the security of the country hostage till they get their way.

Up till now it has been sufficient for the Bushies to cry National Security and the Democrats would run frightened to hide. Now they have accidentally called the Administration's bluff they have discovered the consequences of standing up to Bully Bush - absolutely nothing. Bush's approval ratings dropped by ten points to 19%. The wiretap issue was gone after a single media cycle.

Re:How do they know?

[10101001 10101001]

Although those examples raise the question of why don't you just get a warrant...

Because it'd undermine their power grab (aka the warrantless wiretapping program(s)) by showing that warrants get the job done. Isn't it great how, every time someone tries to force the Bush Administration to follow the law, which is more than sufficient to get the job done, there is screams of "you're making us vulnerable to the terrorists"? Bush can't let the man behind the curtain show his face (that the law works, and power grabs are wholly unnecessary), and Bush and company are perfectly willing to sacrifice the security of the nation--you know, one of those primary functions of the Presidency--to cover their own asses. But, then, this story is at least as old as the Iraq War* and the bullshit about WMDs.

*Note: There might be older examples, but the Iraq War one was exceptionally egregious.

Re:How do they know?

[evil agent]

Up till now it has been sufficient for the Bushies to cry National Security and the Democrats would run frightened to hide. Now they have accidentally called the Administration's bluff they have discovered the consequences of standing up to Bully Bush - absolutely nothing.

I think you're wrong, something quite significant has come out of this: Bush has proved himself wrong. The gov't has been, and still is, saying that without this warrantless wiretapping, we are no longer safe. By calling their bluff, they forced Bush to say that he would veto the bill if it didn't include telecom immunity. In effect, and in his on words, he has put the well-being of the telcos over the safety of the American public! If this wiretapping is so instrumental to our safety, why would he threaten a veto, or in this case, let the legislation expire?

Re:How do they know?

[illumin8]

The only case where the administration could not conduct a warantless tap is if there was an entirely new terrorist organization to emerge in the next twelve months. And they could still get a wiretap, they just have to get a warrant.

That's still BS, because even if a new terrorist organization emerged, they could still use existing FISA to begin wiretaps immediately, and just get a retroactive FISA warrant within 72 hours. This whole fiasco is a recursive nest of lies, deceit, and illegality.

Re:How do they know?

[gilroy]

Although those examples raise the question of why don't you just get a warrant...

Because it's never been about getting a warrant, or conducting the wiretapping, or any legitimate purpose. It's always about immunizing the telecoms so that the lawsuits can't proceed to discovery phase -- which is just a way of saying, it was about immunizing the administration from its misdeeds.

Re:How do they know?

[Nimey]

Not that it matters. The congressional GOP will continue to obstruct investigations and enable the Decider, and the Party leadership's wishes are more important than those of the People, especially People who are not rich and powerful contributors.

Re:How do they know?

[dzfoo]

>> I'm not sure I follow what you're saying.

He means that Bush's argument goes something like this:

1. The warrantless wiretapping program is essential for our national security.
2. We must not let it expire and we must enhance its regulation or else the country will be unsafe.
3. Oh and by the way, we could use retro-active immunity for the telcos in order to ensure their cooperation.

His focus when speaking to the American people has been on #1 and #2, in essence playing the "fear card".

By threatening to veto a bill that provides #1 and prevents #2 (his primary argument), just because it does not contain #3 (an auxiliary argument), he is conveying the message that retro-active immunity is more important than national security itself.

Now, you can argue -- as you you seem to do in your comment -- that it is Bush's opinion that retro-active immunity is essential for national security, and that may very well be the case. However, whether it is more important than having the program in the first place is debatable, and understood by many to be an indefensible position; and at the very least gives the appearance of a strawman to the first two arguments I mentioned.

            -dZ.

Re:How do they know?

[Steve B]

Nope. Under existing law, neither of those is a problem... for legal surveillance with a legitimate national security authorization.

This is about a coverup for administration crimes, nothing else.

Darwinian M&M duels

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever I get a package of plain M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them cracks and splinters. That is the "loser," and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round.

I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior. I have hypothesized that the blue M&Ms as a race cannot survive long in the intense theatre of competition that is the modern candy and snack-food world.

Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen, or pointier, or flatter than the rest. Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness, but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength. In this way, the species continues to adapt to its environment.

When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&M, the strongest of the herd. Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to M&M Mars, A Division of Mars, Inc., Hackettstown, NJ 17840-1503 U.S.A., along with a 3x5 card reading, "Please use this M&M for breeding purposes."

This week they wrote back to thank me, and sent me a coupon for a free 1/2 pound bag of plain M&Ms. I consider this "grant money." I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament. From a field of hundreds, we will discover the True Champion.

There can be only one.

Re:Darwinian M&M duels

[Soft Cosmic Rusk]

I must admit that I don't quite see the connection to TFA, but anyway: Would you please either stop doing that or pay my dentist bills?

Resuming wiretaps

[Ice Wewe]

...that the U.S. government has resumed wiretapping with the help of telecommunications companies.

Which just goes to show you that they never had any intention to stop wiretapping, just to throw a big tantrum over it and then go back to spying on Americans the good old fashioned way, illegally.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[Eggplant62]

Fuck the non-American's, it's the American side of the conversation that needs, no REQUIRES, protection. Last I checked, unwarranted searches and wiretaps were still unconstitutional, but the Bush administration has trampled roughshodden over our rights so much anyway that the sheep living in this country just shut up and take it. It's like everyone in this country has been put under some Svengali spell designed to keep them complacent, docile, and unquestioning, primed for the day before the '08 election, when the Bushies will dispatch the National Guard to institute martial law and a new Christian Theocracy. No one will question it, and no one will even raise a hand to do a damned thing about it.

Yeah, I know, it's a totally made up scenario. But with things going the way they are, that scenario could one day become very real. Take this moment to drop an email to your elected representatives and demand an end to this nonsense.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[fangorious]

go dig up the testimony of the AT&T engineer whistleblower, and the Qwest CEO. The surveillance rooms intercept all calls coming over the lines. There is no way for the telcos to route specific calls. During the onset of these programs, no language was involved to specify domestic versus international traffic. The overwhelming majority of traffic going thru some of the centers is domestic. And since you seem so confused, the Constitution is all about inalienable human rights, not inalienable American rights. It says the government needs warrants that specify parameters about what's being search: who; when; where. The very architectural design of this surveillance system (surveil everything that goes through a call center at all times) breaks the specificity requirements.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[Phroggy]

Seriously. Is it illegal to eavesdrop on overseas conversations? That is what we are talking about here. These calls we are tapping have at least one party overseas. Please, tell me: What law designed to protect non-Americans are we breaking? Take a look at the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution:

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. The language is a bit archaic, but the gist of it is, the government can't go snooping through your stuff, unless they can show probable cause and get a warrant that says what they're looking for and where it is. Obviously telephones didn't exist at the time, but if they did, it's reasonable to assume that telephone conversations would have also been included along with "papers and effects", so that's how we interpret this.

So it's perfectly OK for the government to wiretap someone's phone, if they get a warrant. However, this raises three concerns: first, if they get a tip, they need to act immediately, and getting a warrant from a judge normally takes time. Second, it may be difficult to explain to a judge who hasn't dealt with matters of national security before why the government really should be wiretapping this person's phone. Finally, warrants are normally a matter of public record, and we wouldn't want terrorists to know which phones we're wiretapping!

So, Congress addressed these concerns by passing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It establishes a secret court that can issue warrants without making them public; the judges have a ridiculously high security clearance and have training and experience dealing with matters of national security, and the warrants issued by the FISA court are retroactive for 72 hours - so the government can start eavesdropping immediately, then file the paperwork a couple days later and everything is OK. As it turns out, the FISA court is little more than a rubber stamp (apparently out of thousands of warrant applications, they've only ever rejected five). But this allows the government to comply with the Constitutional requirements laid out in the fourth amendment.

The problem is that the Bush administration is ignoring the law and wiretapping people's phones without getting warrants from the FISA court.

You mentioned that these calls have at least one party overseas. Even if you interpret "the people" to include only US citizens on American soil, if only one party is overseas, you're still eavesdropping on a conversation involving an American, so it's still illegal regardless of who they're talking to (if you don't have a warrant).

Also, how do you know the conversations the government is wiretapping all involve foreigners? Sure, that's why President Bush says he wants the power to wiretap without a warrant, but with no oversight whatsoever, all we have is his word, which most of us don't hold in high esteem at the moment.

Does this clear things up?

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[DittoBox]

Gee, I don't know. Because non-Americans are *gasp* humans as well?

Everyone, not just Americans, deserve basic human rights. You may think you can put a label on someone (EG "terrorist") and then they somehow become less human, so you can do whatever you damn well please.

What if, say, Japan or France or some other foreign nation decided that we were a "terrorist threat," and decided to begin wire tapping conversations going from America to Japan or France? Or originating in those countries? Wouldn't that make sense that you would be outraged that your conversations were being wire tapped by another country? What if you were French or Japanese?

Or how about another country takes you and puts you in their prison, without any kind of legal recourse. They just need to slap a label on you and call it good. Then torture you.

I thought we busted the Japanese for water-boarding in WWII...or was that the Germans? No, wait, it was both. We also busted them for slapping labels on people and locking them up without any legal recourse.

The reason these rights were instituted among men is because you are human, not because you're born in some arbitrary nation.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[ArcherB]

And since you seem so confused, the Constitution is all about inalienable human rights, not inalienable American rights. So does that make the CIA an illegal organization then? I mean, it's their job to spy on foreign countries.

If the Constitution applies to ALL people of the earth, shouldn't we be invading all these other countries and removing their current, illegal governments? Shouldn't these people be voting in elections and sending the winners to Washington to serve in Congress? Shouldn't we be taxing their populations? Shouldn't we be using our military to guarantee these rights to the peoples of the world?

Also, "inalienable human rights" was in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Tell me how I'm the confused one again?

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[fangorious]

So does that make the CIA an illegal organization then? I mean, it's their job to spy on foreign countries.

That's a strawman. Firstly because it's the NSA that's conducting surveillance, not the CIA. Secondly because I said the Constitution requires a warrant to conduct a search, not that spying is illegal. Having judicial oversight is the designated balance between the government not being able to perform its duties to defend the country and the government growing into an oppressive tyranny. I have no problem with legal intelligence gathering. The rules are spelled out, and there's a process that allows for changing them.

If the Constitution applies to ALL people of the earth, shouldn't we be invading all these other countries and removing their current, illegal governments? Shouldn't these people be voting in elections and sending the winners to Washington to serve in Congress? Shouldn't we be taxing their populations? Shouldn't we be using our military to guarantee these rights to the peoples of the world?

We have been using our military to "spread democracy" for 60 years, and the CIA to overthrow democracy and install dictators, and then often have to send in the military to remove them. It's why so many people around the world hate us. If an oppressed group of people need and seek outside help, then I have no problem with international forces coming to the rescue. We just need to follow our Constitution by declaring war with a clear and well-defined goal and follow the Geneva Conventions.

Also, "inalienable human rights" was in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Tell me how I'm the confused one again?

You're confused because you inferred a quotation where the was none, notice the lack of such notation in my original post. The discussion is regarding the legality of certain government actions. The Declaration of Independence says why we needed a new government. The Constitution defines that government, in such a way as to honor those inalienable human rights. So any discussion of what the government can and can't do must therefore refer to the Constitution.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[misanthrope101]

Yes, it seems so obvious that human rights should extend to humans. It's sad that this is an edgy, subversive idea in our day and age. Suddenly basic moral principles are open to nuanced, legalistic discussion.

People just don't have the basic moral character that we like to think they have. Rattle them a little bit and suddenly they'll gladly sign off on tortureing someone to death if it could hypothetically lower the risk of an unspecified something happening to any American at any point in the future. Who are these people? Oh, my fellow Americans. How I love thee.

Well that answers the immunity question...

[TheRaven64]

Retroactive immunity is now a moot point. Previously they could argue that they weren't aware that they were operating illegally. Now they surely have no such defence. I'm sure some of the lawyers on Capitol Hill will start using words like 'wilfully' now.

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[htnprm]

BS. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Telcos are well aware of the details under FISA. Honestly. The fact that your average American does nothing as a result of the evidence that this administration has been illegally wiretapping since 2002, if not before (Well before the Protect America Act was passed) says so much. People I speak to are waiting for Obama to change things. Well. Wait for this to change:

If Obama is elected - "I haven't had enough time in four years to change anything, so elect me again".
At the next congressional elections - "We haven't had enough time with a Democrat as President, so elect us again". ...What will you all do when nothing changes? I'm taking bets if anyone is interest.

(Note, this post is not a message against Obama, or for any other candidate. Just pointing out details regarding a candidate who everyone thinks will change things, but who is simply another politician, and an individual person, up against the whole of the political machine).

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[whoisjoe]

Hmm... We may actually have to impeach this asshat before the election. We *need* to impeach both of these asshats before the election (both Dubya and Darth Cheney). Given all of their crimes (from misleading the public to sell a war to willfully performing unlawful searches), not impeaching them sends the message to future administrations that this sort of behavior is OK.

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[kharchenko]

Not that I don't think he deserved it, but I have some qualms about having current VP fill the spot.

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[HiThere]

Because the Democratic Speaker of the House said she wouldn't support impeachment, and would do everything she could to block it. The villains aren't all Republicans.

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Retroactive immunity is now a moot point. Previously they could argue that they weren't aware that they were operating illegally. Now they surely have no such defence. I'm sure some of the lawyers on Capitol Hill will start using words like 'wilfully' now.

You miss the point of this gambit.

You know the old saying: When you owe the bank a million bucks, you have a problem. When you owe the bank a billion bucks, the bank has a problem.

Well, when the telcos are liable for $1M in fines, nobody has a problem. When the telcos are liable for $1B in fines, the telcos have a problem. When the telcos are liable for $1T in fines, the government (as in all three branches -- the courts, the DoJ, and the legislators) has a problem.

The financial penalties to which the telcos were exposed, and the jail time to which Administration, government, and telco employees were vulnerable, were already so sky-high that retroactive immunity was on the table. Every telco with the possible exception of Qwest would have been instantly put in Chapter 7 bankruptcy; lock the doors, nobody comes in to work the next day, shareholders and bondholders alike all wiped out. Everything gets sold for pennies on the dollar, probably to some upstart like Google.

That might be a great scenario for us geeks, but that's an unacceptable outcome if you're a telco executive. Which makes it an unacceptable outcome for any telco lobbyist. Which makes it an unacceptable outcome for any Congressman or Senator who depends on telco cash to get elected.

Now read the statutes and see how much bigger the penalties get when it's wilful. Publicly flouting the law doesn't make the issue of retroactive immunity moot -- it makes it a requirement.

I call B.S.

[christurkel]

Spy agencies have claimed that the expiration of the old legislation has caused them to miss important information.

Riiiiiiiiight. If you can't illegally wiretap, how could you possibly know what you missed? Besides, there is a perfectly good FISA court still around; you can even wiretap and get a warrant 72 hours later.

Fear mongering sucks. We're a better nation than this.

Re:I call B.S.

[marzipanic]

Exactly! How would they know? Unless they have the extra secret alleged psychic warriors on the case, which would be easier than the whole wiretap thing.

I believe the age of "Enemy of the State" is upon us, I believe they have been doing it for a very long time! But that is just me and from what I hear.

It is not just the US either, it is UK too http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/29/interception_communications_commissioner/ although they keep getting "wrong numbers" ahem! Bet it is those 0898 numbers they keep trying!

It is good in one way as it will help reduce crime (allegedly) yet in another it is an invasion of privacy and as we know what is meant for good is usually used for bad by certain people.

Bring back James Pond! Codename RoboCod....

Re:I call B.S.

[johnsonav]

The real question for me is, why not get FISA warrants? By all accounts, they are a rubber stamp that will grant most any warrant. The FISA court was set up for exactly the type of activities that they say they are doing. So by circumventing that process, I can only conclude that the real program is much more broad, and illegal, than they are letting on.

Re:I call B.S.

[Lloyd_Bryant]

The real question for me is, why not get FISA warrants? By all accounts, they are a rubber stamp that will grant most any warrant. The FISA court was set up for exactly the type of activities that they say they are doing. So by circumventing that process, I can only conclude that the real program is much more broad, and illegal, than they are letting on. Even more than a rubber stamp, since the spook agencies are allowed to begin surveillance, *then* apply for the warrant (up to 72 hours later).

But the issue, I think, is the paperwork. For instance, each application must be personally approved by the Attorney General (can you imagine poor Mr. Gonzales having to review and sign hundreds or thousands of such applications at a time?).

The surveillance carried out in support of the "war on terror" is orders of magnitude greater than was contemplated when the FISA court was created. So Bush & Co. simply decided to ignore the problem and proceed without bothering to get warrants from the FISA court.

Re:I call B.S.

[Verteiron]

Fear mongering sucks. We're a better nation than this.

Apparently we are not.

Re:I call B.S.

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

There is not war on terrorism. War is the wrong word. There are military actions against disparate groups around the world, and there certainly was a war against Iraq which we won but had nothing to do with terrorism, before or during, now there is a threat of Terroism from the mistakes made in that war such that an Al Qauda group has formed in Iraq that was not there before. There is an occupation in Iraq but it is not a war. Iraq has a civil war going on and has groups resistant to the occupation but it is not a War.

So I hate to see the Republican Fear Marketing slogan War on Terror used. It is really like the 1984 war with the Northeast (if I remember right). That continuous war that keeps the population under martial law and rallied around the flag. For what, for accumlation of power.

So the War against Terror is just like the War against Poverty or the War against Aids. Its not a war, its a slogan, lets not forget that. It should not invoke war powers for the Executive branch. Actually it did not, the war powers were granted to go to war against Iraq because they were claimed (falsely and brazenly and seemingly with full knowledge of that falsness) have weapons of mass destruction. Valerie Elise Plame Wilson was outed as a CIA agent because that lie was being exposed by her husband.

Lets not forget the War on Terror is just a marketing slogan and get on with the business of cleaning up the mess in Iraq and the mess in Afganistan.

Terrists exist, there are terrorist who are targeting the US and other countries as well, but giving up our Constitutional rights and protections isn't the way to go. The Executive has lead us into improsonment with no charges, lack of due process, torture, rendition, wiretapping, ... and we dont know the entire extent. This blossoming of illegal unconstitional behavior is unprecedented and I feel unwarranted and the scope and type of those behaviors does not make me trust the ones doing those behaviors.

Marketing slogans should be reserved for those selling soap.

Re:I call B.S.

[ardent99]

The exact quote from a letter from U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell is "We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act," which was in TFA, if you had bothered to read it. Their obvious position is that "intelligence" information is "important" information, or they wouldn't be bothering with this at all.

I find it interesting that rather than address the issue on the merits, you chose instead to make an ad hominem attack on all reporters, say they are unintelligent and shouldn't be trusted, and project an air of arrogance and disdain to further deflect any disagreement.

You seem to be willfully diverting the question from the merits of the administration's remarks to an untruthful characterization of the reporting, a typical tactic of administration apologists. So let's summarize:

1) The administration says something
2) It gets accurately reported
3) You call reporters unintelligent, an ad hominem attack on the messenger,
without actually showing they did anything wrong
4) You assume an air of arrogance and disdain to deflect any questioning of your unjustified statements
5) In the end you have contributed nothing to the discussion of what actually happened

Maybe next time you can actually address the issue rather than mischaracterizing its reporting? What's actually a bit sad is that your comment was modded +3 insightful for making that little bit of flamebait.

Re:I call B.S.

[pha7boy]

it's more then that. The FBI collects information with the purpose of prosecution. The justice department and the FISA court also operate under that principle - information collected is to stand in court. Intelligence collection is about finding information, not about making a case. As such, the information available for the wiretap might not be good enough to convince a panel of judges. Having a a wiretap dismiss means all the information goes "bye-bye" and can have a snowball effect on the rest of the cases emerging from it. That's one of the reason they are oposed to it.

Re:I call B.S.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

We're a better nation than this.

I think it has been proven time and time again, that, in fact, we are not.

We like to think we are, we congratulate ourselves for being it, and maybe once upon a time we were. But our morals and ethics have faced the biggest test they have had in a long time, if not ever, and we failed. Pretty spectacularly.

I think the fact that we were debating if "waterboarding" constituted torture, on C-SPAN, clearly indicates that ethics, morals, and justice are just so much rhetoric until those notions are put to the test. And we caved to our baser notions in what can only be a speed record.

We have laughed at the French for the speed in which they surrender(ed) when put to the test; I wonder if the US will be known for generations for the speed in which our character collapsed when we were faced with a test.

I just don't get it

[websitebroke]

What does the White House, et al. want with this? In the previous system, all you had to do was get a warrant to spy on somebody. There was a special court set up just to issue these warrants, and it was completely confidential. If they really, really had to spy on somebody right this very instant, they could, and just had to make sure that they touched base with the court in the next few hours. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

What does Bush want, other than to spy on everyone with no supervision whatsoever?

Oh, yeah, he wants us to not sue Verizon, AT&T, whoever. Well, sorry guys, you had a responsibility, as citizens of the USA, to tell the government no. I mean, WTF, corporations run this country anyway...

Re:I just don't get it

[drooling-dog]

What does Bush want, other than to spy on everyone with no supervision whatsoever? Exactly this. The FISA court is practically a rubber stamp for legitimate surveillance, and yet Bush's spying needs are so super-sensitive that not even it can be allowed to catch wind of them. Unless you believe that the court has been infiltrated somehow by "the terrorists", there's only one logical reason for this: both the court and the public would be outraged if the real reason for the surveillance became known. Are they collecting commercial intelligence for their closest corporate patrons? Do they intend to tamper with the upcoming elections? Are they going to mess with political and ideological opponents? I'd worry about all three.

Re:I just don't get it

[Lijemo]

Because the previous rubber-stamp system left a paper-trail (albeit one they could claim was "classified for reasons of national security") as to who they were spying on and why, and thus had some amount of accountability, no matter how tiny.

The new system does not.

If there's anything this administration hates, it's accountability.

Re:I just don't get it

[bberens]

My speculation is this:

You get a warrant when you want to spy on SOMEONE. You don't get a warrant when you want to capture all inbound and outbound (from the country) telephone traffic and put it through your NSA analyzer supercomputer thingymajig looking for suspicious activity. You see, for something like this to work, you need a very large sample of data to compare to. You will never be given a warrant for little Felipe who wants to call mommy back in Italy to talk about spaghetti recipes. But you need that data as a base line.

Re:I just don't get it

[TubeSteak]

Unless you believe that the court has been infiltrated somehow by "the terrorists", there's only one logical reason for this: both the court and the public would be outraged if the real reason for the surveillance became known. Or it's like the **AA & the DMCA: FISA was a good idea at the time, but now the government has realized how much extra work it is to comply with the law & they're desperate to get around it.

However, the fact that the telecoms are having "understandable misgivings" after the collapse of the immunity bill tells us all we need to know about how their corporate lawyers view the situation. If we're lucky, the truth will get declassified in 25 years, but I doubt it.

Re:I just don't get it

[fizzywhistle]

That baseline data is also what you need to monitor everyone in the country at all times. Especially activists groups of the sort that might cut into corporate profits.

But hey maybe your right. Maybe they're looking for who funds the terrorists, oh wait they already know that (cause Bush and the Royal Family are BFF). They're looking for terrorists in this country. Ohh no wait, that wouldn't work, it would be stupid to communicate over phones or hotmail. No trained terrorist would be that dumb and you don't need the data itself anyway. You just need the points of interest then you can monitor those points (such as cell phone numbers). But then theres disposable cell phones, and OMG the most diabolical of all... snail mail, newspapers, etc. etc.

John Nash might find the red spys, but the NSA is just looking for dirt on anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda. Its been done before, thats why we have FISA in the first place.

Speculate all you want, but its just as likely they're looking for Rainbow Ponies as Terrorist in the 'Tubes.

Now he says that?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bush has said he would hold out for a permanent overhaul of the 1978 surveillance law."

Wow, what a brilliant idea! Too bad Bush didn't suggest that BEFORE authorizing an illegal program and goading the telecom companies into going along with it. Had he done so he wouldn't need to get retroactive immunity for them.

I think everybody understands that in the height of an emergency tough decisions have to be made, but the next priority should have been to move for revision to the FISA legislation, not keep the thing secret for several years and then try to bail out the organizations involved once people found out the law was being broken. Don't like constraints of the FISA law? Conform to it, revise the legislation, or break the law and face the legal consequences. There is no other option for a person holding office who has sworn an oath to uphold the law. Well, there isn't supposed to be.

Bush Blows It

[Doc Ruby]

Yesterday, Bush barfed at us in his radio address:

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that Democratic leaders in the House are blocking key intelligence legislation so trial lawyers can sue phone companies that helped the government eavesdrop on suspected terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Terrorists are plotting new attacks against America "at this very moment," Bush said in renewing his call for the House to pass legislation needed to renew the intelligence law that expired last weekend.

Bush has his new Attorney General lying to back him up, but they can't even keep their stories straight:

The Bush administration said yesterday that the government "lost intelligence information" because House Democrats allowed a surveillance law to expire last week, causing some telecommunications companies to refuse to cooperate with terrorism-related wiretapping orders.

But hours later, administration officials told lawmakers that the final holdout among the companies had relented and agreed to fully participate in the surveillance program, according to an official familiar with the issue.

It's obvious that it's Bush's fault the PAA expired without extension:

But even if telecoms were refusing to cooperate, the reason for their refusal was not because they don't have retroactive immunity, but rather, it's because there is alleged uncertainty over the legality of current surveillance requests, and uncertainty over the ongoing validity of the prospective immunity provided by the PAA, because the PAA expired. If the PAA had been extended, they would be completely protected with prospective immunity for future surveillance cooperation. And, of course, the PAA would not have expired had Congressional Democrats had their way -- they wanted to extend it until they could agree to a new bill. Thus, any alleged refusal on the part of telecoms to cooperate is exclusively the fault of Bush and House Republicans for forcing expiration of the PAA. That's just true as a matter of basic logic.

The bottom line is that Bush's own Attorney General just admitted that he and Bush and the rest are repeatedly breaking the law:

But leave all of that aside for a moment. Since Mike Mukasey himself just said in this letter that spying outside of FISA is "illegal," and since it's indisputable that the Bush administration did just that for years, doesn't that compel him as Attorney General to commence a criminal investigation into this "illegal" conduct?

What does it take to get impeached in this country? Will someome please blow Bush already, so we can finally get it over with?

Re:Bush Blows It

[rpillala]

Yesterday, Bush barfed at us in his radio address:

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that Democratic leaders in the House are blocking key intelligence legislation so trial lawyers can sue phone companies that helped the government eavesdrop on suspected terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks.

This is a fabrication, as the only case pending right now (am I wrong?) is the one by the EFF, hardly a bunch of trial lawyers looking to get rich. Gleen Greenwald interviewed Cindy Cohn, the lead counsel in EFF's case against AT&T in October of last year.

Re:Bush Blows It

[Carewolf]

No one is going to impeach the president as long as the vice president is more corrupt and criminal than the president is.

Re:Bush Blows It

[Doc Ruby]

The Democrats are playing it "safe" because Bush/Cheney's crimes make it cheaper and easier for Democrats to run against them this year. So they're bottling us up in here with them, our only way out seemingly to hand Democrats a trifecta power monopoly. Democrats mainly care about increasing their nominal Senate majority closer 60:40, with Republicans defending 23 seats to Democrats 11. In January the Congress will also probably have some thing like a 15-20 point Democratic House majority, possibly that 60+ seat filibuster-proof Senate, and a Democratic president with the first actual majority of voters since Reagan.

With which Democrats can abuse all those "Bush/Cheney" tyrannical powers without the Iraq War that gets you caught. But with the Iraq War that gets you paid.

Quite a racket. Which is why Americans should force them to impeach, or at least make it as costly as possible not to. Because Republicans will be in no position of any kind to offer the kind of "opposition party" these Democrats couldn't muster even the past 8 years with very solid minorities and blatant catastrophes.

The missing party, as usual. is the American people. And decent country would be out in the streets with pitchforks and torches by now, especially with economic collapse staring everyone in the face. Instead, we've got Slashdot and the Daily Kos. And President VP Cheney.

Corporate intrest

[Dan541]

I cant help but wonder how long it will be until the RIAA are allowed to wiretap just in case people are talking about their latest downloads.

~Dan

Re:Corporate intrest

[rhendershot]

I was going to moderate you off-topic but, well, then.... my 2 cents.

First, don't minimize the scope of the government of the largest and strongest nation coercing private enterprise to bend to its will and to do illegal acts. That goes WAY beyond the issues of private commerce between individuals and recordings-producers.

With that said; what the fux do you think DRM *is* except a way to "wiretap" the private individual (aka. customer). Without judicial review. Unilaterally.

Personally I think it's a violation of RICO and monopolistic to enforce law through technology when the issues of fair-use are not resolved by a court. That's another rant though.

They're playing to cover their own crimes

[Phoenix666]

If the Whitehouse can bully Congress into passing retroactive immunity to the telecoms for warrantless wiretapping, then they also by extension are exhonerated. So, they get to get a free pass for breaking the law without directly asking Congress to give it to them.

There's a word for this: Fascism

[Ralph Spoilsport]

They could do this legally through the FISA courts, but rather than go bother with even a Ruber Stamp court like FISA and at least pretend they're not spying on American citizens in direct violation of the fourth amendment for which the FISA courts were implemented to supposedly protect, they would rather run rough shod over everyone's privacy and interests for their own ends based out of their own incompetence and ignorance.

The sad part? There is no promise that any democratic administration would stop this.

Why? Because it's fascism, or, as one of the guys who invented fascism (Mussolini) caled it: Corporatism.

The American Empire is dying and it's a sad thing to watch it act, as WS Burroughs said in 1984, as the single greatest betrayal of the last and greatest of human dreams.

RS

It's a smokescreen - you're already wiretapped

[Zollui]

The NSA has been eavesdropping on electronic comms of US citizens including telephone conversations for several decades. It was illegal to do this in the USA so they did it from their base at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire, England (MH is the world's largest listening post).

Re:It's a smokescreen - you're already wiretapped

[TheLink]

That'll be rather hard, since you'd have to send all the conversations across the Atlantic.

Much easier if you shipped the Brits to the USA to listen and then ask them if they heard anything interesting ;). Then you have some of your people to the UK to listen to the UK people and do the same thing. Similarly for the rest of the Echelon members.

BUT the main thing is, it looks like they've even stopped bothering to go through the proper motions. And that should worry the people in the USA (and people elsewhere because the USA is the most powerful nation and willing to unilaterally use that power for bad reasons).

When the people in power regard their _subjects_ with such contempt that they even stop putting on a "quality show", then it makes you wonder what's next.

Just by way of reminder

[HangingChad]

We were not completely surprised by the 9-11 hijackers, the problem was we didn't act on what we did know. Even then we knew. We knew without the Patriot Act, we knew without wholesale spying on the American public, we knew without the Protect America Act. We knew and did nothing. So now the solution is to spy on Americans. Makes almost as much sense as being attacked by terrorists operating out of Afghanistan and responding by attacking Iraq.

Only a Republican would think it makes sense to fight terrorism by monitoring my 83 year old mom's phone calls.

And, just in case this dust up has interfered with the intelligence community's ability to monitor the activity of Americans, the bake sale has been postponed until next week because the lady running it broke her hip and mom change her hair appointment to 11 am this week because Marge's family is flying in from Montana. And dad still can't figure out why his pineapple plants keep dying in the front yard. Now you're up to date.

Re:Just by way of reminder

[rubycodez]

re: nsacarnivore-20080915-1103535-2535EJA34032:
subject lives in climate where pineapples can grow, similar to asian areas with high islamic radical populations. relatives in Montana which is known abode of militia groups. subject altering appearance at 11am.

action: subject to be reclassified as probable threat to national security.

Re:Tapping the future.

[wellingj]

It's ok when they get a fisa warrant, and not ok wehen they decide they don't need one.
Somebody should troll a terrorist attack, get caught, and then expose the whole mess of no fisa warrant.

Revolution 2.0

[fishthegeek]

Will be fought one vote at a time. If the telecom providers didn't do anything wrong when they assisted the wiretaps then they do not need legal protection from congress. By moving to protect the telecom providers Congress is implicitly admitting that they acted in ways that are probably illegal.

Resume?

[nurb432]

Did they ever really stop?

This whole issue of the US gov. spying on ....

[3seas]

...its citizens is not about identifying potential terrorists but rather to determine what the general public mindset is so to know what to promote in order to manipulate it.

Why such spying has resumed, or hasn't stopped, is because its an election year.

And that should be obvious.

Is this against the constitution of the united states? Absolutely, as it is an intent to invade privacy in order to deceive.

This is nothing new as even the "Declaration of Independence" identifies government abuse of its citizens, even being specific.

To All: When was the last time you read it?

Now what?

[EaglemanBSA]

...and just when I thought the administration couldn't be any more open about breaking the law and violating my civil liberties. Honestly, does this piss everybody else off as much as it does me? I'm all for America, and I think we have a good number of good things going on over here, but this is getting ridiculous - we have these controls in place (the representatives of the people) to limit the power of the executive branch, and it's as if the administration doesn't even hear them.

I don't know what's worse, not having any input at all, or knowing that it won't be used in any decisions in the end anyway.

Re:Now what?

[EaglemanBSA]

My fiancee lives in a foreign country, and I call her every other day, you insensitive clod. Perhaps you missed the part where it's totally possible to monitor those phone conversations legally, with a warrant (at which point I would have no problem with it). Why the need for such secrecy, that the tap has to be without the approval of a judge, even 72 hours after the fact?

Beyond that, this isn't just about wiretapping phones. It sets a very dangerous precedent through which the executive branch can bypass the legislative branch's powers and act illegally with no fear of repercussions.

The end of the Afghan war

[Max_W]

To understand what is going on in the USA and in the world one has to realize what a traumatizing event was the destruction of Mew York City and the US military headquarters in September of 2001.

The war in the Afghanistan ended not by the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan. The true end of the war was on 9/11. It was the logical final of supporting and financing the religious fanatics around the world.

At the same time it was a wrongful attack on the civilian targets which forever changed the social and political climate in the USA. Like the defeat of Germany in 1918 brought radicalism and extremism decades later, the same way 9/11 will bring the certain political realities for years to come.

What happens in Iraq, Kosovo, the USA itself is the message which hurt American people send to the world and to themselves: "We can be as cruel, ruthless, nasty just about the same as the outside world was to us. Even more so. Much much more."

There is nothing new in this phenomena. Sometimes people are surprised why the leadership of the USSR did not want accept some good economics ideas from the West. But they forget that Leonid Brezhnev was a general during the WW2. He was part of the battle for Crimea. He was among few survivors of the most ferocious artillery barrage during human history at Malays Zemlya.

It is difficult to expect a senseful decisions from traumatized people. The crime that was committed against the great nation on 9/11 will be felt by the generations to come.

The New York City was not only the achievement of the USA. It was the part of the humankind heritage. That is why its destruction changed the humankind. Inevitably to the worse.

Re:The end of the Afghan war

[ghostunit]

That's the problem with you people. Always trying to aggrandize stuff out of proportion.

Listen here, 9/11 was an act of international terrorism, and should have been dealt with as such. What's with this "war on terror" non-sense? you are all just reacting as it's one of your damn movies or something.

Lies and follies are always paid for (even if it's not you who is being made to pay the cost) and the sooner you realize that phrases like "great nation", "achievement of humanity" and "noble intentions" mean nothing at best and complete hipocrisy most of the time, the better.

Criminal charges

[Nimey]

Since the current congress is too spineless, too complicit, and too full of Republicans, I think we'll have to pin our hopes on the next President telling his AG to investigate and pursue criminal charges against those responsible in the Bush Administration and in Congress.

That definitely wouldn't be Clinton (too much of an insider) and it wouldn't be McCain (he's shown he's a good boy after all), and Paul hasn't got a snowball's chance. I can only hope that Obama wouldn't pull a Ford and pardon Bush "so the country can move on".

Re:Criminal charges

[TheRaven64]

I'm not convinced. The current administration has so completely discredited the office of the president, both domestically and internationally, that it will take a lot to restore it. Pursuing criminal charges would send a message that the President is not a dictator, and that the new incumbent expected to be held to account for their actions.

Spying is OK if accountable.

[headkase]

The problem isn't with the spying - like you say there are many cases where it is needed. The problem is that the checks and balances from the oversight aspects are being compromised. The Federal Government can spy on anyone they like and even get a FISA warrent for it after the fact in cases of emergencies. The problem is that the Administration branch of the government thinks that even that is too much and want to remove that check and balance (or continue to ignore it). Spy away, but damn well be accountable *when* it is abused.

Re:Spying is OK if accountable.

[esper]

Ah, but it was the executive branch (and, specifically, the President) who decided that retroactive immunity for the telcos was more important than the powers granted by PAA. ("I will veto any bill which grants those powers but does not include immunity.") All the legislative branch did was to (finally) acknowledge that accountability is important and call Bush's bluff.

oblig

[PieceofLavalamp]

yeah i've gotta admit i'd rather be constitutionally violated than shot in the face.

Re:News at 11

[The Spoonman]

Yeah, like an announcement by our FearFUL Leader was needed, for us to know they are tapping our communications.

There, I corrected that for you. Bush, like anyone else still afraid of "terrorists", is a huge pussy.

approximately 40 cases

[SpaceLifeForm]

Link

catch22

[scifiber_phil]

Anyone against these wiretaps is suspect, and probably should be placed on the wiretap list? The language of the fourth amendment is clear and straight forward. The executive branch, the phone companies, and congress need to reread it a few times until they understand it. When they start arresting people for expressing concerns over the loss of our constitutional guaranteed rights, it will be too late. Forums like Slashdot etcetera will disappear. People will be afraid to post. Wiretaps without a warrant and fear of arrest will see to that.

Re:News at 11

[element-o.p.]

I've got to disagree with you there. The dude's got cojones so large, I'm amazed he can still walk.

Look at it this way. His attorney general when he first announced the program has left the post in disgrace. Congress refused to pass an act providing retroactive immunity to the telcos who first participated in program. The ACLU and EFF have filed lawsuits because of the wiretapping program. People across the county have spoken out against the program. And still he announces that the warrantless wiretapping has resumed. Sounds pretty brazen to me.

On the one hand, I want to believe that he is doing it with the best of intentions but is just to stupid to realize the long-term implications of such a thing. On the other hand, I am very, very afraid that he knows exactly what he is doing. In either case, this program is a (tm) Bad Thing and needs to end, permanently.

AG agrees wiretaps are illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what our Attorney General say, in a letter McConnell and Mukasey wrote to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes:

[You imply that the emergency authorization process under FISA is an adequate substitute for the legislative authorities that have elapsed. This assertion reflects a basic misunderstanding about FISA's emergency authorization provisions. Specifically, you assert that the National Security Agency (NSA) or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) "may begin surveillance immediately" in an emergency situation. FISA requires far more, and it would be illegal to proceed as you suggest]. In other words, in the Administration's own words, what they are doing is illegal. Nixon broke into some file cabinets. Bush and the complicit telcos monitor everything. And the Democrats are so spineless they let it happen. Amazing. One telco refused to comply - Quest - and they were shut out of lucrative government contracts.

Glen Greenwald has been on this beat for a long time now. Read more about Mukasy's recent admissionhere.

Re:For all you legal experts

[scifiber_phil]

No amount of intelligence will ever make you "safe". Warrantless wiretaps will, however, make you a slave to self-censorship. When the first time comes to you when you hold your tongue, because the government may be listening, warrantless wiretaps will no longer seem like a good idea. Freedom means that you can live your life unscrutinized until there is actionable cause to suspect you have committed a crime. Then it's time to get a warrant and investigate, not before the fact. Freedom does not mean spy on everyone all the time to keep them honest. Now, do you want to live in freedom or not? Whatever your answer is, do not presume to tell me that I should live in fear and repression so you might be "safe". That decision is not yours to make.

Re:For all you legal experts

[esper]

You're forgetting that there's a substantial body of evidence, including testimony from involved FBI agents, that we did know what the 9/11 guys were planning, based on information collected through old-fashioned police work, without the need for warrantless wiretaps or any of the other powers granted or assumed by the President since then.

There is a vast difference between "we must operate within the boundaries of the Constitution and the law" and "we should do nothing".

Re:Impeach now

[WNight]

The problem is that if he's not impeached, he gets away free. If he's impeached, and we fight this spying, then we'll let the next people know that they can't do this.

If we ignore this, not only will our next leaders continue it, but Bush will go unpunished.

He's by far the worst president the USA has ever had. Not just in what he's personally done, but in the lack of respect for law that he's instilled into the office and various three-letter-agencies.

If, on the other hand, he was stripped of power, even a day before the end, not allowed to pardon anyone, and made liable for criminal lawsuits... Ideally, he'll get tortured in Gitmo, that would be the ultimate payback for the sell-out.

Re:This has to be a cover-up

[Boronx]

The Bush administration has to be covering up something very embarrassing. Something worse than what we know about already. Otherwise it wouldn't be spending its remaining political capital on this issue.

There's no mystery: the Bush administration began spying illegally on Americans soon after it came to power, that is months *before* Sept. 11. Not only did the system fail to prevent the attack even though much information was already known about the hijackers, but it was initiated during a period when terrorism didn't even make the list of Bush administration priorities, even though they'd been warned by the Clinton administration to take it seriously.

So what's to hide? 1) Illegal spying already has failed to protect the country. 2) Illegal spying was not started to protect America from terrorism. The real purpose is still not public.

Somewhat related to your other point: This congress won't have the guts to impeach Bush, because despite what you say, all most every Republican politician still has his bag. The next Congress can, however, impeach a president after he leaves office: this is mostly symbolic, but would also cut off all federal funds to Bush and prevent him from taking other federal offices.

LAST TIME - Pay Attention

[not_hylas( )]

LAST TIME - pay attention.

It's wholesale data-mining.

Spying in the Death Star: The AT&T Whistle-Blower Tells His Story
Mark Klein = Patriot
Former AT&T technician

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/05/kleininterview

In room 641A at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco, California is a SPLITTER that duplicates ALL traffic and diverts it by the way of a proprietary black box to an unnamed acronymed agency.
Mark Klein called it a "Big Brother Machine".
It can't be more clear than that.

For all the folks that still don't get IT, good God!, go back to sleep, and or, quit posting drivel.

Re:Impeach now

[jjohnson]

He's going to get away free. There's nothing that can be done to Bush himself in any practical sense. Possibly some lawsuits after he leaves office, but I doubt even that. It sucks, I know, but that's life.

That's not to say nothing can or will be done. The Democrats have finally started making hay out of wreckage of the Bush administration--letting the surveillance bill lapse because it contained retroactive immunity for the telecoms is a good start. That allows lawsuits to proceed against them that, over the next few years, will make clear the scope of the domestic spying that was going on.

To the extent that anything will change, it will be because a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress will look for a lot of legislative achievements in the first 100 days, riding a still-fresh wave of disgust, that have to do with (very loudly) making certain things illegal, restoring and strengthening FISA, and cleaning up the civil service. More than impeaching or imprisoning Bush, suing and jailing the civil servants who carried out his orders will put the fear into those who happily break the law under colour of executive authority.

Re:News at 11

[Znork]

Sounds pretty brazen to me.

It's not like any lawsuit can do anything to him. He's got immunity. And it's not like he cares what people speak out against.

Courage requires risking something. Bush's merely an obstinate simpleton, something a coward can easily be. As long as he doesn't risk getting smacked in the face about it.

Re:For all you legal experts

[justinlee37]

I have never seen anyone show such blatant disregard for the constitution. The fourth amendment.

This is nothing like "requiring the police to get warrants for using radar guns to check if someone is speeding," because they're observing something in public. Listening to your private communications, without your knowledge, and without judicial review, is something entirely else. You expect that to be private. It would be no different if the NSA decided to open all of your mail and read it, without having their actions reviewed by a judge, and without telling you.

How would you feel then? Personally, I'd start to feel like it resembled Nazi Germany or Cold War Russia.

What we ought to be asking is, why hasn't the supreme court acted?

Hey, who is on the supreme court these days, anyway?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Impeachment

[MarkusQ]

Impeachment may have been worthwhile years ago, but at this point unfortunately it would be hugely counterproductive. It's far too late to really accomplish much of anything, and all the other asshats would have a field day politicizing it for the next election.

I beg to disagree, Impeachment is as important now as it ever was, and should be pursued (IMHO) even after the present administration has left office.

Why? Because the basic purpose of impeachment is not political theater, throwing the bums out, or any of the other nonsense that is commonly cited. Impeachment is about investigating plausible claims of wrong doing by high ranking officials and if the claims are true meting out appropriate consequences. We are in a very risky point in our history, but not because of the offenses against our constitution presently being perpetrated, but rather because of the precedent we setting by ignoring them. The third amendment

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

is interesting in that it is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the present administration hasn't been plausibly accused of violating. And yet we do nothing.

So turn the question around: if we aren't going to impeach now, when would we? And what sort of message does that send to future administrations, of either party?

--MarkusQ

Re: Impeachment..

[Lunarsight]

At this point, the impeachment is primarily symbolic. This is the best time to do it, since if Bush gets kicked out of office, we're not stuck with Cheney for a long period of time.

Bush -definitely- needs the scar on his record. You figure - Clinton got an impeachment over much less.

Re:News at 11

[sethadam1]

He's got immunity. Historically, Congress has several actions at their disposal to formally censor, impeach, override, or otherwise reprimand a president. However, what should scare us is that this congress full of pansies won't, and this country of fat lazy bastards will lose interest and go back to TMZ's 24-hour Britney rehab-watch coverage.