"I just scanned the level five posts. Every one of them are rampantly anti-Bush. Most lack one iota of actual fact. All operate under hyperbole."
Let's see if I can remedy that.
"The point is this: somebody leaked classified information. It does not matter what information was leaked. The fact that it was leaked is absolutely criminal."
It may have been criminal. If so, they should be tried for it so we can find out. But do you really think that if a government agency broke the law people should not reveal it? Because that's what's at issue here. The Bush Administration and the NSA broke the law. We need to know that. Besides, TFA is talking about going after not the leakers, but those leaked to. That is a very different thing; one not addressed in your post.
"What you do not realize is that information kept secure is kept that way for a reason. The people who leaked decided that they were above the law. They decided that what could be short-term political gain was more important that your personal security."
George Bush has also decided that he is above the law. Were you incensed when Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby leaked the actual name of an actual undercover operative to the press to make her husband look bad? Talk about putting politics over security! That act affected our security in a very real way. Or is it that when you think the information leaked helps your side, you don't care?
"If Bush were really trying to silence opposition via an investigation, you can bet your sweet bippy that he will see to it that the Justice Department will dot all the Ies and cross all the Ts to ensure that those who need to go down do."
Um, yes, and that is exactly what he is doing, but using the NSA instead of the FBI. Do you think this is a good thing? What if Bill Clinton did it? By looking for patterns or particular numbers in reporters' phone records this administration is using the national security apparatus to intimidate and silence those who would tell the truth about it's illegal activities. This isn't about stopping leaks; they did nothing about the Valerie Wilson case. This is about covering up their illegal acts.
"This is a criminal referral by the NSA to the Justice Dept. to find out who leaked National Security secrets (like, duh, how we find terrorist communications). Just like every other criminal investigation phone records are subpoenaed."
The linked article said nothing about this being a Justice Department investigation. It referenced "the government" as tracking phone calls. And they were not subpoenaed. That is the critical issue here, and the one that those making your arguement consistently ignore: THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT. No courts, FISA or otherwise; no warrants issued; no subpoenas issued. This is a case of the Executive branch, which is what the NSA is under, collecting information in a sweeping fashion on private citizens who are not the suspects or targets of any criminal investigation. This is not a criminal investigation. It is naked intimidation.
"The NSA program to listen in on Al Qaeda phone calls is limited. By if nothing else having people review the recordings."
How do you know? Because they told you? You know what else they told you? They told you that whenever the government talks about wire tapping, it is always under a court order. But that has been demonstrated to be false. So they have lied to you at least once about this. They have told us a lot of other stuff that is also not true, but that is outside the scope of this post. The point is, they have shown that they are willing to lie to you. Again, the issue is oversight, or the lack thereof. I think I would rather have a court ruling on the scope of this program rather than having it limited solely by a lack of resources.
"Qwest refused to hand over it's phone records but will sell them willingly (check out their home page) to anyone it has a business relationship to."
This is true. And I don't like it any more than I like the rest of this crap.
"The Dems have a gigantic database of personal info (if you ever gave to them) same with NARAL, NRA, ACLU, Sierra Club, NAACP, etc. So for that matter do marketers who will buy in bulk or Russian scammers who can buy in bulk not just your phone records but Credit Records and Credit Card transactions."
This is also true, but so what? The Dems have that for political action and fundraising. So do the Republicans. No one is taking issue with that here. Are they using those databases in conjunction with data from major telecom carriers to cross reference with your calling habits to establish patterns of who you call and why? No, they are not. Why? Because it's illegal.
What the Russian scammers and the like do is also illegal. If you were a victim of theirs, you would have legal recourse (such as it is) to do something about it and have the perpetrators brought to justice. However, with the NSA trolling you have no legal recourse. Don't like it? Tough. NSA invading your personal life? We can neither confirm nor deny that at this time. Your spouse was brought in for questioning and is now being tracked because his/her calling habits fit a pattern? We have no comment. Want to have the FBI investigate? They don't have enough security clearance, sorry.
"Bottom line: NSA program leakers... broke the law, and are getting investigated."
Ok, this shows that your argument has the mental age of 12. The leakers leaked because they had no legal recourse to government law breaking! I love the double standard. If I see a person breaking the law, I have a duty to report them to the authorities. But according to you, if I see a government agency breaking the law I am supposed to accept it and get with the program, because it's all for my own good. Somehow, I don't buy it. Honestly, why do you trust the government so much?
"Choose one: listen in to who's calling Osama, protect methods and sources of intel; OR mondo profiling of Muslims in all walks of life (Abdul gets a full body cavity search while flying, and Al Gore gets a pass, not the other way around
I don't think kids are that cynical. When I was young, I believed it. Maybe not in high school, but in elementary I bought the whole story. it actually ended up having the opposite effect of allegiance. I became that much more disillusioned when I realized that our society does not work in the fair, just, honest way that I was lead to believe it did. And considering Europe's monarchical, sometimes fascist past, I can understand why they find it creepy.
"Why do you think that analyst is there? To catch you talking to your pot dealer over the phone?"
Maybe. Or perhaps it is the FBI agent that he shares the database with who's looking for that.
"To support the agenda of a narrow minded politician?"
Unwittingly, yes.
"To take away your civil liberties or freedom of speech?"
Inadvertantly, yes.
"With appropriate oversight, such a system may prevent and probably already has helped prevent domestic acts of terrorism"
This is purely speculative, but perhaps true. The important part is the "appropriate oversight". This issue often gets twisted into surveillance vs. no surveillance. That is not the issue. The issue is oversight vs. no oversight. Obviously, we have enemies, and agencies to spy on those enemies, inside and outside the US. But the article states that when Qwest asked for FISA approval, or a letter from the A.G.'s office, the NSA declined. They said those authorities might not grant the permission! Well, then, um, maybe they shouldn't be doing it. Lack of oversight is the key point.
"If politicians misuse the database then we as a society have a mechanism to remove them from office. It's called free elections. Everyone complaining about the NSA database voted in the last election right?"
How do we know? How many of us knew about this program when we voted in the last election? None of us, because it was secret. That's why we need oversight. And it is not happening here. So I have put myself in the shoes of the NSA, and I still disagree with what they are doing. It's about warrants and oversight, not this "You don't want us to spy on terrorists?" strawman BS.
This may have been addressed elsewhere, but what makes a car flex fuel? It is my understanding that a few hundred dollars' worth of upgrades (fuel pump, spark plugs, etc.) will turn most cars and trucks into flex fuel vehicles. I have a Subaru WRX (2.5L H4, turbo), and I think it will run on E85 without much issue. And it benefits from the higher octane and compression possibilities with the turbo.:-)
I think it means that we should concentrate on producing ethanol from sugarcane and other sources that provide more return on energy used. What did you think it meant?
They actually do say how it will work. The users in the censored countries would make requests to proxies in non-censored countries. These proxies would not be restricted because the use no keyword (just IP address) and the govt. does not know the exact IP's to block. The requests would be encrypted, so that the govt. of the censored country would not be able to listen in. There is no software to install on the client computer, so there is nothing for the authorities to find. Besides, all of this is illegal in these countries already. It is being done clandestinely. So making new laws will have no effect. I guess you post as an AC when you are making silly points?
Ah, yes, did we mention disingenuousness? The media outlets you cite are nowhere near as egregious in their slant as Fox News is. Fox News' internal memos have shown that they have a policy of making the Republicans look good. This is a specific policy, though unofficial. Anchors, commentators and correspondents are specifically told what they should talk up and emphasize; how they should spin the story. Those who don't toe the line are disciplined. This does not happen at the other media outlets. I'm not saying they don't have pressure from editors and whatnot. But there is not a concerted effort to elevate one party over the other, as there is at Fox News. The "Liberal Media" as the Republicans define it does not exist.
"In any case according to your belief system then, murders and pedofiles are all part of 'gods' design. IE: they were designed bad and then they act on that bad design as a result of thier free choice. According to some of them they can't help their behavior."
This implies that there is a genetic predictor or predisposer for murder or pedophelia. I don't think this is the case. In my understanding pedophelia results from sexual abuse or some other trauma in childhood. So the pedophelia is caused by people's choices, not by God's design. So too with murder. People kill other people because of their desperate circumstances, or their greed, or what have you. Not because of their genes. It is the result of a series or aggregate of choices.
Our choices in this world are what determine the course of our lives and our history. God is not doing it, we are. So when we ask, "Why does God allow so much suffering in the world?" we should really be asking, "Why do we allow so much suffering in the world?"
"Explain to me this: If there was a god, why are there cripple people born every day? Why are people being born with malformations? Just the other day there was a show on about a kid born without a face ( no joke it was about his operations )."
This assumes that God would want us to have lives free from pain and discomfort (be it physical, social, emotional, etc.). We figure that if God loves us that He would intervene to keep us from earthly harm. But perhaps this is not God's purpose. If we are really spiritual beings (a soul in control of a mind and body) then God knows that what happens to us here does not harm the soul (our "true" self).
In my belief system, we are all living in the ultimate virtual reality. It is so good, that we don't even realize it's virtual. Our true purpose in this reality is to gradually come to understand who we truly are; to really self actualize. I also believe in reincarnation, as this process is too big for one lifetime. We move this process along through our experiences. So a spirit may choose to come to this life with a disability, to have that experience and all that comes with it.
This is also why God does not intervene to stop war, injustice and all the other terrible things we choose to do to each other. He gave us this place and a free will to exercise in it. So if we don't want pain and suffering in our world, then it is up to us to make different choices. It would be rather hypocritical of God to give us free will and then tell us how to live. For this reason I don't believe in sin or hell.
Anyway, that's my take on the eternal question of why bad things happen to good people (or why some people are born crippled). I hope I have given you something to think about. Or perhaps you will think what I believe is silly (you wouln't be the first!;-)). Either way, the fact that we are free to believe in God or not is entirely the point.
It is not a matter of a gene, it is a matter of fear and how we react to it. But yes, war and violence are demonstrably part of our current existence. When we fear something, we either attack it or run from it. Agression is a fearful response, though it is not often understood this way.
But making a different choice involves not only banishing fear, but also understanding the complexity of the system in which we live. By system I mean reality, not the government or society. We act out of self interest. Thus the question becomes not only what will I do to get what I want, but what I want and why I want it. Actions have consequences. As I said in my previous post, war is often chosen for it's expediency. On a smaller scale, if you have $100, and I want it, I could quickly kill you and take your money. But your money would not be all I acquired by that action. I would also get the animosity of your family and friends, who might come back for revenge. I would also set an example to others as to how to get $100. If others follow my example, which some would, it increases the chance that someone else would kill me for the $100.
This is a simplified example, but I use it to illustrate the idea that our motivating self interest must not be so narrow. We must focus on more than the $100, because our actions have consequences for us far beyond the immediate. This understanding, coupled with the overcoming of fear, would enable us to make a different choice.
I'm not sure that the Cold War and hippies were entirely responsible, though they may have contributed. It seems to me that Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and the lack of a good waste disposal scheme contributed as well. Having said that, it is important to point out that France (for example) has had a lot of success with nuclear power. And from what I have read, pebble bed reactors go a long way towards preventing a melt down. So the remaining problem is waste disposal. If we put our heads together, I'm sure we can figure that one out too.
"You state you are sick of war, you know what I'm sick of? Slashbots like yourself who assume humanity can choose peace and that war is some form of social construction and game that only the rich play."
Do you really think that humanity cannot choose peace? We have free will otherwise, but not to choose peace? War is a choice like anything else. Of course we can choose not to go to war. We just don't choose that.
I agree that there is a tendency towards war. But this is only because our society (and most others) is driven by fear. We can change our worldview and decide to try engaging each other constructively, rather than viewing others as enemies or adversaries. We can view war as the dehumanizing horror that it is, rather than an expedient way to get what we want.
I actually suspect that it is slashbots like you that assume war is inherently part of human existance that keep us from recognizing that we can make a different choice.
"The problem with that is having to hold it down for a few seconds while driving. Taking eyes off the road is bad enough, having to take them off the road for a few seconds is a big deal."
Well, you could just watch for the light in your peripheral vision. But I get around this by setting the backlight to a 10 second timer. Whenever I hit a button or the scroll wheel the light comes on automatically and stays on for 10 seconds. Yeah, uses a little more power, but not much.
"Now if they would just have an update where you could turn the backlight on by pressing a button without it changing the menu selection/volume/song..."
Hold down the Menu button for a few seconds. It turns on the backlight, but doesn't change anything else. You're welcome.:-)
A friend of mine worked at Oracle until yesterday afternoon. He worked in a release group. He is getting a month of health insurance, four weeks pay, and a week's pay for every year he worked there.
Great post! Thanks for the reply. But please don't misunderstand me. My issue is not with the gov't wiretapping people for the purposes of national security. I understand that that must be done. It's the oversight, as you mentioned in your post. What the Bush Administration is doing is warrantless and without oversight. We have no way of knowing who is being surveilled or why. Couple that with their demonstrated willingness to subvert the truth to further their agenda, and I think we have an unacceptable situation. The Administration could easily have gone to the FISA court, but they did not. None of their stated reasons for this hold water. So it really looks to me like they broke the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see if I can remedy that.
"The point is this: somebody leaked classified information. It does not matter what information was leaked. The fact that it was leaked is absolutely criminal."
It may have been criminal. If so, they should be tried for it so we can find out. But do you really think that if a government agency broke the law people should not reveal it? Because that's what's at issue here. The Bush Administration and the NSA broke the law. We need to know that. Besides, TFA is talking about going after not the leakers, but those leaked to. That is a very different thing; one not addressed in your post.
"What you do not realize is that information kept secure is kept that way for a reason. The people who leaked decided that they were above the law. They decided that what could be short-term political gain was more important that your personal security."
George Bush has also decided that he is above the law. Were you incensed when Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby leaked the actual name of an actual undercover operative to the press to make her husband look bad? Talk about putting politics over security! That act affected our security in a very real way. Or is it that when you think the information leaked helps your side, you don't care?
"If Bush were really trying to silence opposition via an investigation, you can bet your sweet bippy that he will see to it that the Justice Department will dot all the Ies and cross all the Ts to ensure that those who need to go down do."
Um, yes, and that is exactly what he is doing, but using the NSA instead of the FBI. Do you think this is a good thing? What if Bill Clinton did it? By looking for patterns or particular numbers in reporters' phone records this administration is using the national security apparatus to intimidate and silence those who would tell the truth about it's illegal activities. This isn't about stopping leaks; they did nothing about the Valerie Wilson case. This is about covering up their illegal acts.
The linked article said nothing about this being a Justice Department investigation. It referenced "the government" as tracking phone calls. And they were not subpoenaed. That is the critical issue here, and the one that those making your arguement consistently ignore: THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT. No courts, FISA or otherwise; no warrants issued; no subpoenas issued. This is a case of the Executive branch, which is what the NSA is under, collecting information in a sweeping fashion on private citizens who are not the suspects or targets of any criminal investigation. This is not a criminal investigation. It is naked intimidation.
"The NSA program to listen in on Al Qaeda phone calls is limited. By if nothing else having people review the recordings."
How do you know? Because they told you? You know what else they told you? They told you that whenever the government talks about wire tapping, it is always under a court order. But that has been demonstrated to be false. So they have lied to you at least once about this. They have told us a lot of other stuff that is also not true, but that is outside the scope of this post. The point is, they have shown that they are willing to lie to you. Again, the issue is oversight, or the lack thereof. I think I would rather have a court ruling on the scope of this program rather than having it limited solely by a lack of resources.
"Qwest refused to hand over it's phone records but will sell them willingly (check out their home page) to anyone it has a business relationship to."
This is true. And I don't like it any more than I like the rest of this crap.
"The Dems have a gigantic database of personal info (if you ever gave to them) same with NARAL, NRA, ACLU, Sierra Club, NAACP, etc. So for that matter do marketers who will buy in bulk or Russian scammers who can buy in bulk not just your phone records but Credit Records and Credit Card transactions."
This is also true, but so what? The Dems have that for political action and fundraising. So do the Republicans. No one is taking issue with that here. Are they using those databases in conjunction with data from major telecom carriers to cross reference with your calling habits to establish patterns of who you call and why? No, they are not. Why? Because it's illegal.
What the Russian scammers and the like do is also illegal. If you were a victim of theirs, you would have legal recourse (such as it is) to do something about it and have the perpetrators brought to justice. However, with the NSA trolling you have no legal recourse. Don't like it? Tough. NSA invading your personal life? We can neither confirm nor deny that at this time. Your spouse was brought in for questioning and is now being tracked because his/her calling habits fit a pattern? We have no comment. Want to have the FBI investigate? They don't have enough security clearance, sorry.
"Bottom line: NSA program leakers ... broke the law, and are getting investigated."
Ok, this shows that your argument has the mental age of 12. The leakers leaked because they had no legal recourse to government law breaking! I love the double standard. If I see a person breaking the law, I have a duty to report them to the authorities. But according to you, if I see a government agency breaking the law I am supposed to accept it and get with the program, because it's all for my own good. Somehow, I don't buy it. Honestly, why do you trust the government so much?
"Choose one: listen in to who's calling Osama, protect methods and sources of intel; OR mondo profiling of Muslims in all walks of life (Abdul gets a full body cavity search while flying, and Al Gore gets a pass, not the other way around
Thanks for this very insightful post. It is informative, not only on the state of a democracy, but our world in general.
The parent is on-topic! Man, I hope I get this one in Meta Mod...
I don't think kids are that cynical. When I was young, I believed it. Maybe not in high school, but in elementary I bought the whole story. it actually ended up having the opposite effect of allegiance. I became that much more disillusioned when I realized that our society does not work in the fair, just, honest way that I was lead to believe it did. And considering Europe's monarchical, sometimes fascist past, I can understand why they find it creepy.
Great test. Now I know why you posted as a AC....
Maybe. Or perhaps it is the FBI agent that he shares the database with who's looking for that.
"To support the agenda of a narrow minded politician?"
Unwittingly, yes.
"To take away your civil liberties or freedom of speech?"
Inadvertantly, yes.
"With appropriate oversight, such a system may prevent and probably already has helped prevent domestic acts of terrorism"
This is purely speculative, but perhaps true. The important part is the "appropriate oversight". This issue often gets twisted into surveillance vs. no surveillance. That is not the issue. The issue is oversight vs. no oversight. Obviously, we have enemies, and agencies to spy on those enemies, inside and outside the US. But the article states that when Qwest asked for FISA approval, or a letter from the A.G.'s office, the NSA declined. They said those authorities might not grant the permission! Well, then, um, maybe they shouldn't be doing it. Lack of oversight is the key point.
"If politicians misuse the database then we as a society have a mechanism to remove them from office. It's called free elections. Everyone complaining about the NSA database voted in the last election right?"
How do we know? How many of us knew about this program when we voted in the last election? None of us, because it was secret. That's why we need oversight. And it is not happening here. So I have put myself in the shoes of the NSA, and I still disagree with what they are doing. It's about warrants and oversight, not this "You don't want us to spy on terrorists?" strawman BS.
This may have been addressed elsewhere, but what makes a car flex fuel? It is my understanding that a few hundred dollars' worth of upgrades (fuel pump, spark plugs, etc.) will turn most cars and trucks into flex fuel vehicles. I have a Subaru WRX (2.5L H4, turbo), and I think it will run on E85 without much issue. And it benefits from the higher octane and compression possibilities with the turbo. :-)
I think it means that we should concentrate on producing ethanol from sugarcane and other sources that provide more return on energy used. What did you think it meant?
They actually do say how it will work. The users in the censored countries would make requests to proxies in non-censored countries. These proxies would not be restricted because the use no keyword (just IP address) and the govt. does not know the exact IP's to block. The requests would be encrypted, so that the govt. of the censored country would not be able to listen in. There is no software to install on the client computer, so there is nothing for the authorities to find. Besides, all of this is illegal in these countries already. It is being done clandestinely. So making new laws will have no effect. I guess you post as an AC when you are making silly points?
Ah, yes, did we mention disingenuousness? The media outlets you cite are nowhere near as egregious in their slant as Fox News is. Fox News' internal memos have shown that they have a policy of making the Republicans look good. This is a specific policy, though unofficial. Anchors, commentators and correspondents are specifically told what they should talk up and emphasize; how they should spin the story. Those who don't toe the line are disciplined. This does not happen at the other media outlets. I'm not saying they don't have pressure from editors and whatnot. But there is not a concerted effort to elevate one party over the other, as there is at Fox News. The "Liberal Media" as the Republicans define it does not exist.
But it can substitute in the short term! ;-)
This implies that there is a genetic predictor or predisposer for murder or pedophelia. I don't think this is the case. In my understanding pedophelia results from sexual abuse or some other trauma in childhood. So the pedophelia is caused by people's choices, not by God's design. So too with murder. People kill other people because of their desperate circumstances, or their greed, or what have you. Not because of their genes. It is the result of a series or aggregate of choices.
Our choices in this world are what determine the course of our lives and our history. God is not doing it, we are. So when we ask, "Why does God allow so much suffering in the world?" we should really be asking, "Why do we allow so much suffering in the world?"
Oooh! A tantalizing question! Does God have a God?
This assumes that God would want us to have lives free from pain and discomfort (be it physical, social, emotional, etc.). We figure that if God loves us that He would intervene to keep us from earthly harm. But perhaps this is not God's purpose. If we are really spiritual beings (a soul in control of a mind and body) then God knows that what happens to us here does not harm the soul (our "true" self).
In my belief system, we are all living in the ultimate virtual reality. It is so good, that we don't even realize it's virtual. Our true purpose in this reality is to gradually come to understand who we truly are; to really self actualize. I also believe in reincarnation, as this process is too big for one lifetime. We move this process along through our experiences. So a spirit may choose to come to this life with a disability, to have that experience and all that comes with it.
This is also why God does not intervene to stop war, injustice and all the other terrible things we choose to do to each other. He gave us this place and a free will to exercise in it. So if we don't want pain and suffering in our world, then it is up to us to make different choices. It would be rather hypocritical of God to give us free will and then tell us how to live. For this reason I don't believe in sin or hell.
Anyway, that's my take on the eternal question of why bad things happen to good people (or why some people are born crippled). I hope I have given you something to think about. Or perhaps you will think what I believe is silly (you wouln't be the first! ;-)). Either way, the fact that we are free to believe in God or not is entirely the point.
But making a different choice involves not only banishing fear, but also understanding the complexity of the system in which we live. By system I mean reality, not the government or society. We act out of self interest. Thus the question becomes not only what will I do to get what I want, but what I want and why I want it. Actions have consequences. As I said in my previous post, war is often chosen for it's expediency. On a smaller scale, if you have $100, and I want it, I could quickly kill you and take your money. But your money would not be all I acquired by that action. I would also get the animosity of your family and friends, who might come back for revenge. I would also set an example to others as to how to get $100. If others follow my example, which some would, it increases the chance that someone else would kill me for the $100.
This is a simplified example, but I use it to illustrate the idea that our motivating self interest must not be so narrow. We must focus on more than the $100, because our actions have consequences for us far beyond the immediate. This understanding, coupled with the overcoming of fear, would enable us to make a different choice.
I'm not sure that the Cold War and hippies were entirely responsible, though they may have contributed. It seems to me that Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and the lack of a good waste disposal scheme contributed as well. Having said that, it is important to point out that France (for example) has had a lot of success with nuclear power. And from what I have read, pebble bed reactors go a long way towards preventing a melt down. So the remaining problem is waste disposal. If we put our heads together, I'm sure we can figure that one out too.
Do you really think that humanity cannot choose peace? We have free will otherwise, but not to choose peace? War is a choice like anything else. Of course we can choose not to go to war. We just don't choose that.
I agree that there is a tendency towards war. But this is only because our society (and most others) is driven by fear. We can change our worldview and decide to try engaging each other constructively, rather than viewing others as enemies or adversaries. We can view war as the dehumanizing horror that it is, rather than an expedient way to get what we want.
I actually suspect that it is slashbots like you that assume war is inherently part of human existance that keep us from recognizing that we can make a different choice.
Well, you could just watch for the light in your peripheral vision. But I get around this by setting the backlight to a 10 second timer. Whenever I hit a button or the scroll wheel the light comes on automatically and stays on for 10 seconds. Yeah, uses a little more power, but not much.
No, that's the Select button (in the middle). The Menu button is at the top of the wheel; or second from the left on the 3rd gen iPod.
Hold down the Menu button for a few seconds. It turns on the backlight, but doesn't change anything else. You're welcome. :-)
Can you really not see the benefit of being able to load the Mac OS and Win XP on the same machine?
There are laws against wire-tapping without a court order too. Basically, if the cops won't arrest you, you can break all the laws you want.
A friend of mine worked at Oracle until yesterday afternoon. He worked in a release group. He is getting a month of health insurance, four weeks pay, and a week's pay for every year he worked there.
Great post! Thanks for the reply. But please don't misunderstand me. My issue is not with the gov't wiretapping people for the purposes of national security. I understand that that must be done. It's the oversight, as you mentioned in your post. What the Bush Administration is doing is warrantless and without oversight. We have no way of knowing who is being surveilled or why. Couple that with their demonstrated willingness to subvert the truth to further their agenda, and I think we have an unacceptable situation. The Administration could easily have gone to the FISA court, but they did not. None of their stated reasons for this hold water. So it really looks to me like they broke the law.