Listening In

By the way ... the article heading is "resisting" the "expansion" of the tapping!!! It was illigal in the beginning ... then temporarily legal ... not the law has expired ... so ... continuation is NOW ILLIGAL ... but ... the process is being EXPAANDED ILLIGALLY!

Fear of prosecution? Or maybe, its the fact that the government hasen't paid its bill

If he was King george, your head would have axed off already.

Those who are willing to sacrifice their liberties for security, deserve neither.

I don't understand why king george wants retroactive immunity for his cronies? Why is the only one who refused to be a cronie being the ONLY one investigated for business fraud? Why do we need to give immunity to people who is help our king and his cronies to do the right thing? Might it be that these coroporation are not doing the right thing, but the trail of imporoper conduct will lead to King George and his cronies in 2009? So it is simpler to legalize the action or retroactively legalize the act in 2008, so that no one comes knockin just in case King George is not able to get his #5 justice into the Supereme court to help refuse hearings. .... JUST IN CASE.

This is what i love: The fear mongering, embellishment of the right wing-nuts to try to make a point with the kool-aid hallucinations:

faminchin @ 02/22/2008 7:28:13

"Our congress critizes the newly formed Iraqi government for not getting anything done, while they allow a law that have saved countless American lives to lapse. WRONG!! They offered to EXTEND it until they could work out a compriomise, and Shrub said he would veto it.

We would have leaned about the Mall Bombers, after they killed who knows how many innocent people without this law. Mall Bombers?? ROFLMAO!! a "lone wolf", not associated with any terrorist group - 'steered" into a mall "threat" by an FBI informant. Oh - and he had no hand grenades or any expolsives either. He also wasn't caught by any eveasdropping either, you moron. He befriended the informant at a Muslim rally and had confided to him that he wanted to "smoke a judge". The informant was the one that got him thinking bigger...

We would have learned about the group in Miami, after they had killed who knows how many people without this law. HUH?? These guys had nothing - they didnt even have shoes. And they were also "steered" by an FBI informant into ramping up whatever it was they were doing. "Not only did government informants provide money and a meeting place for Batiste and his followers, but they also gave them video cameras for conducting surveillance, as well as cellphones, and suggested that their first target be a Miami FBI office, court records show." Give me a break...

The two tons of explosives intercepted at the Canadian border would now be somewhere in our country without this law....................... You mean the compact car that had 100 pounds of TNT in it? That was seized by the CANADIAN police, not American, and it was found in a routine border inspection - you know - the kind that they have been doing for 75 years or so?

"It's as if we want to pretend that their aren't Islamic Extremist trying to kill us again, the same way we did for 20 years leading up to 9/11. It's as if we want to pretend 9/11 never happened. " Good luck with living in fear.

If the telecoms did nothing wrong and did not conspire with the administration to violate the Constitutional rights of Americans, they have nothing to worry about. No cause of action exists. On the other hand, if they did conspire to trample the rights of American citizens, why shouldn't they be sued? Maybe that would make them reluctant to engage in similar behavior in the future. When my Constitutional rights are placed at risk, I want them to be nervous.

This is crazy!!!! This law needs to expire. The government has no right to spy on it's own people. We need to take our freedom back. Fix what needs to be fix in this country and stop taking away our rights and freedoms. If we as a people let the government take away our rights then we'ver failed our founding fathers. Shame on us!!!!!

I served in the military for 38 years with 5 hostile fire tours to protect the rights of the people ... not the "give me your rights and I'll protect you groups. There are laws on the books that, if used by the FISA rules, will allow the data captures with proper oversight and protect the telecoms from any actions (and this action will be kept secret. The administration is crying "poor me" and seeding fear by the truck load to get power (and immunity) for themselves. If one of the telecoms crosses the group in the current administration, watch how fast their FCC license to operate is yanked!

My first thought is that if extension to the FISA law was so important to the administration, why did the president refuse to sign the extension? Congress is supposed to be a deliberative body, not a presidential rubber stamp. By refusing to allow the law to be extended, the president is just proving that the politics of the matter is more important than the substance.

What's more, if cooperation in obtaining these warantless wiretaps is impossible and the administration is so certain of its position, why not offer a presidential pardon to the telecoms? Why should congress do the dirty work (provide retro-active immunity) for the president when it is his demand and within his power to make it right?

Does the president want to do what he thinks is right or find an accomplice for something he's ashamed of?

Currently, the law is baseless and as Americans, our Government should not have limitless powers to intrude in our normal everyday lives. The idea of granting immunity to corporations to support the already existing laws is ludicrous. If they were always operating ethically, then there is never a concern. President Grover Cleveland said when faced with a any issue or scandal, just tell the truth. Today, the National Security Agency (NSA) has authority to conduct surveillance in at least three different ways, all of which provide strong capability to monitor the communications of possible terrorists. Congressman Reyes pointed out a few alreday existing procedures to deal with surveillance.

First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA???s collection occurs under this authority.

Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not ???expire??? on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year ??? until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately.

Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes.

the 1978 FISA law, which has been modernized and updated numerous times since 9/11, was instrumental in disrupting the terrorist plot in Germany last summer. Those who say that FISA is outdated do not understand the strength of this important tool.

Bottom line is why should the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized? Go figure...

Ever think about what information is being given to the government by Mastercard and Visa?

How much information are Mastercard and Visa giving the NeoNazies?

This is a problem? why don't they get a judge to give them permission? It takes only a day at worst---unless, of course, you are asking for something that is illegal. Is less cooperation the result that the threat of retaliation from these agencies is less with Congressional and Judicial oversight? I think your reporter should do more than report what the administration offers them---

The telecoms are totally protected by a warrant. Totally. They have absolutely nothing to fear unless they have reason to believe that they would be lied to about the warrant status on a tap. And if that has been the case, then it's the government officials who will fall harder than the telecoms. They will get their immunity in return for testimony.

Robert---55, you seem to believe that the right to privacy is for the completely innocent. However, we all have a right to privacy, and warrants must specify a charge. Data gathered on people without their knowledge can and will be abused. It's better to miss a chance to record a terrorist conversation than it is to erode a basic pillar of this nation. Short term vs long term.