Terror Watch: The Politics of Eavesdropping | Newsweek Voices - Terror Watch

Posted By: Pecos_Bill @ 10/26/2007 3:47:48 PM

Comment: Ofus,
I believe these articles fall under the category of "Opinion". You may have a problem with the way they arrived at their conclusions, but it is still their "Opinion". If you want cheerleading for your side, check out the FOX News Channel...
But there is another comment I want to add to this: I don't think Bush/Cheney and the fascist right need ANYTHING else to fight their so-called war on terror, they shoulda put it in the Patriot Act when they had majorities in both houses. I urge all congressmen to vote against these dangerous and misguided extremists and to hold the Constitution and Bill of Rights unchanged. The Constitution provides for presidential rule during time of extreme duress and War or rebellion. It is called Martial Law. Let the cowardly Decider declare martial law if he wants to run the country even more like a dictator than he already has...

Posted By: Ofus @ 10/25/2007 9:26:23 PM

Comment: How can you people possibly expect the media to do fact checking or present a reasoned analysis of the underlying issues and the potential ramifications? Can't you see they're busy repeating partisan talking points and perpetuating false claims? You sound just like those silly Democrats, squabbling about their 'constitution' and playing politics by defending the rule of law.

Posted By: PhilKing @ 10/25/2007 7:36:18 PM

Comment: This article is infused with innuendo without any supporting evidence. Are you asserting that Dodd does not believe that his position vis a vis the bill is correct but only made his filibuster threat to raise campaign donations or get more votes? What evidence is there to show that. Moreover, the fact that people running for president will get money from people who support their views is not worthy of an article. If you want to do reporting or commentary, perhaps you could actually discuss the legislation and the pros and cons of giving immunity to corporations for actions one knows nothing about. This article is so superficial. position.

of that

Posted By: Brix @ 10/25/2007 5:39:14 PM

Comment: If the lawsuits move forward, the telecoms will expose the tactics the Bush administration used to invade of privacy of law-abiding US citizens. This immunity clause is selfish self-protection by the Republicans and Chris Dodd is doing the right thing by blocking it. We have a right and a duty to uncover prior abuse.

The issue is not whether we wiretap terrorists; everyone agrees on the need for surveillance. The issue is OVERSIGHT. We have a right to independent oversight to ensure that these programs are not abused, and that resources are not wasted on spying that's unrelated to national security.

Posted By: Ofus @ 10/25/2007 4:09:50 PM

Comment: The Constitution and the rule of law in America is too important for the Republicans to be playing political games with for short-term partisan gains. Republican lawbreaking and abuse of executive power endangers our national security by threatening the very foundations of our Democracy.

Posted By: Vlad Trotsky @ 10/25/2007 3:51:47 PM

Comment: These peopel will stop at nothing to spy on the peopel of this country.The protect America act is as most know in violation of the servellance act of ,"1976."The most unnerving thing a governing body can do is embark in over lapping law.But when the peopel allow then selvs to by economics and metaphysiscs, of the most rudimentary type.The window will be open.Big corprits like AT@T and Verizon all line the pocket of black money America.Sometimes I think that,9/11 was no more then a rally cry for the("facsist")right and who ever they can reach with there money.

Posted By: NoGoodGermans @ 10/25/2007 3:44:29 PM

Comment: To all the Good Germans - The opposition to the bill is due to the grant of retroactive immunity to telephone companies, which broke the law and divulged confidential info w/o a warrant, as a quid pro quo for favors from the FCC. The existing law grants the gov'm't power to obtain information with a warrant, which is easily obtained from a SECRET court, and which can be obtained retroactively in the case of imminent danger. The R's have offered one case where surveillance was delayed; as it turns out, the surveillance didn't happen because high-level members of the Bush Administration didn't think they had the info to meet their internal definition of probable cause.

Also, please provide the data supporting the "established fact" that the Patriot Act would have prevented 9/11. The FBI had the info, and the Bush Administration had a security summary reporting the possibility of an imminent attack, but DID NOTHING. (A couple of weeks ago, they let OBL escape, again...seems W needs to have a boogeyman to keep people afraid long enough for his Administration to steal the rest of your rights.)

BTW, moveon and others are taking on this law because it is US law, as opposed to sharia law, which is a religious law. Tell me the name of an organization opposing sharia in a country where sharia is enforced by the government, and I'll support it, if my support is welcome (just not with violence)

BOO! Did I scare you? What will you give away next to feel safe?

Posted By: Vlad Trotsky @ 10/25/2007 3:33:03 PM

Comment: These peopel will stop at noyhing to spy on the citizen of the wrold.The protect America act is as most know in violalion of the servellance atc of, "1976." The most unnevring thing is to enbark in to the redundantcy of over lapping law;But when you allow yor sevls to be governed by economics as well as metaphysics. The window is opened to big corprits like AT@T and verizon.All line the pockets of black money America.Sometimes I think 9/11 is nomore then a rallying cry for the "facsist" right.And who ever they can buy off to watch the constitution get pessed on and nullfide.....yes I'm on sen Byrd's side for the moment.

Posted By: adirondack_1 @ 10/25/2007 10:14:43 AM

Comment: This type of opposition to national security being paramount is why we have a republic. If it were a democracy a simple majority could remove the protections this nation needs to keep its citizens safe. Who knows what corruption wanders the minds of sheep? If moveon.org is so keen to protect the public why don't they take on ms13 or sharia law instead of some imagined crisis where an elected official might spy on your hotel stays with your paramour. Even though that info would never come into public view even if you were a terrorist. That is unless the transparency moveon wants makes secrecy of tactical advantages illegal. Which they have already shown their willingness to go to press with even the smallest bits of information the general public has no interest in yet when published abroad actually helps anti-western enemies. Be careful who paints your pictures, they might be jaded!

Posted By: neoconx @ 10/25/2007 8:20:05 AM

Comment: It's mind-boggling that people choose partisanship over common sense. The established fact that if the patriot act and other preventive measures were installed after the first world trade center attack, the second would never have happened, simply doesn't register with the mindset of the cultural elites and other blind partisans.

Posted By: zanny @ 10/25/2007 3:22:45 AM

Comment: It seem to me the way we enter into this not so clear area of powers, that the excutive branch has left us american very uneasy about this intelligence protocal. I,am not so sure that protection from external radicals who have been around for years prior to 911 gives a pass when it comes to the constitution of company who know the law. Why else would immunity be so important. I believe if ones personal rights have been violated then the constitution provide a way for a hearing at least. Now if I have my History right from school WWI stated when someone threw a device in a automobile. Their no perfect safety net when it comes to terrorism. So I would have to question this because it seem a total abdication of the very priciple the President speak of when it comes to freedom. And more so give total power to people to receive any information at all and that would subject us back to the days of watergate, but that was low tech. with power of the Presidentcy. So were do the checks and balances come in on this issue. Does the press with what they speak about privately want thier conversation heard. I would think not. Now they say this would only be use for terrorism only, But Nixion said he wasn,t a crook either! After the advent of faulty Intell with curveball and no wmd found I don,t think I would be so inclined to give up my personal right at this particular moment in time .But that,s just me talking I don,t know about the rest of you. This Hi tech stuff is still new and I really don,t think it,s vetted itself in our nation for people to really trust it yet. Beside if MAD work for us as a deterent then it should also carry us this time. Yes we could be attacked, but the return fire would be well I don,t even want to think about that. Just keep it mind that Japan surrender!

Posted By: Dollared @ 10/25/2007 2:52:26 AM

Comment: It shocks me to see people such as erchess give up their constitutional rights so willingly. Without privacy we citizens are powerless to resist our government interfering in every aspect of our lives. We have had a successful democracy, free, safe and prosperous, for more than two centuries while not granting these rights to our government. Remember how these same privacy rights were abused by Hitler and Stalin, and yes, by Richard, Nixon, who made enemies' lists and then authorized spying, breakins and tax audits against those enemies.
Shame on the Republicans for their continued support for Bush' and Cheney's continuing and serious violations of our laws and the constitution. Shame on the Democratic leadership for not holding Bush and Cheney responsible.

Posted By: erchess @ 10/25/2007 2:34:04 AM

Comment: I think the intelligence agencies should be legally allowed to capture any conversation they are able to capture. I think telecomm companies should be required to cooperate in any and all such efforts and everyone involved should be sheilded from lawsuits. The only protection I ask is that if such efforts uncover evidence that an American has committed a crime other than terrorism, the relevant evidence may not be used against him not even as an impetus to searching for other evidence against the person. But then I don't think we need a constitutionally protected right to privacy and I am not ashamed to call the governement I favor a police state.

Posted By: adellair @ 10/25/2007 12:35:33 AM

Comment: I was a subscriber to verizon. Last year when I learned that they may have been involved and gave my personal information awa, I switched to another telephone company. Enough is enough. I am tired of the Bush administration's snooping into American's liives. This administration uses scare tactics to run roughshod over the constituation and it has to stop. I can't wait until we get another president.