So EFF gets the whole Rummy Suite at Gitmo?

If this fails, they should have to pay ALL court costs, and attorney fees and a nuisance fee for being of limited intelligence!

This is, once again, an attempt to spread the technical information of how this is accomplished to the free, and not so free, world! To inform and give adequate counter measure capabilities to all, including those who want us to fail (including some of our very own), first in our counter terrorist efforts, and second, as a nation!

Freedom does have costs, just look at the grave markers, ALL OVER THE WORLD! Stupidity raises those costs for the FEW still willing to pay!

Is it now just a little to costly to defend for YOU?

Someone should take EFF to the wood shed and straighten them out. We can't profile or listen to the radio waves. Hell, we can't even lock up sheet heads we picked up on the battle field. We don't have a chance. If we were fighting WWII today we would get our asses wipped.

What part of "unconstitutional" do you people not get?

If this fails, they should have to pay ALL court costs, and attorney fees and a nuisance fee for being of limited intelligence!

Fair enough. And if it succeeds then President Bush and Cheney and any NSA agent that knowingly violated the US Constitution should go to jail as a traitor to this country.

Failing to defend the US Constitution is treason.

Treason in a time of War is punishable by death.

Failing to defend the US Constitution is treason.

Treason in a time of War is punishable by death.donnerboy
Spot on patriot.

Joe Biden and Barack Obama know what the Federalist Papers and Articles of The Constitution are and can quote them from memory.

I'd love to hear McCain and Palin even try.

What part of "unconstitutional" do you people not get?

#4 | Posted by evashogouki

The part where it is overseas conversations. They arn't doing calls within the nation. That takes a warrent.

With your rules we would have never have caught a German spy during WWII.

The part where it is overseas conversations. They arn't doing calls within the nation. That takes a warrent.

Well then Bush has nothing to worry about, does he? What's he afraid of? If Americans have never been spied on, if FISA has never been circumvented, then the evidence will be on their side. If they could quickly prove their innocence they would.

This is, once again, an attempt to spread the technical information of how this is accomplished to the free, and not so free, world! To inform and give adequate counter measure capabilities to all, including those who want us to fail (including some of our very own), first in our counter terrorist efforts, and second, as a nation!

Well they should have thought of that before they decided they didn't need warants.

If we were fighting WWII today we would get our asses wipped.

The curse of a Republican President. He can't even beat the taliban, wiretapping or not.

The part where it is overseas conversations. They arn't doing calls within the nation. That takes a warrent.

With your rules we would have never have caught a German spy during WWII.

#8 | Posted by Sniper at 2008-09-19 07:02 PM

YOU are either a simpleton or a liar or both.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO ALL COUNTS
THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORIZATION OF THE PROGRAM

39. On October 4, 2001, President Bush, in concert with White House Counsel Gonzales,
NSA Director Hayden, Attorney General Ashcroft and other Defendants, issued a secret presidential
order (the "Program Order") authorizing a range of surveillance activities inside of the United States without statutory authorization or court approval, including electronic surveillance of Americans' telephone and Internet communications (the "Program").

40. This Program of surveillance inside the United States began at least by October 6,
2001, and continues to this day.

******** The curse of a Republican President. He can't even beat the taliban, wiretapping or not.
.....Posted by northguy3 *********

....Ronnie Reagan beat the Grenadians in 1983......

The price of freedom means you have to give up all your freedom.

Got it?

40. This Program of surveillance inside the United States began at least by October 6,
2001, and continues to this day.

I forgot to say "HELLO!" to all my "friends" in SPY land....

I see President Bush, I see Gonzales, I see NSA Director Hayden, I see Attorney General Ashcroft and look, there is little Cheney too!

Well I hope the EFF wins or at least some more evidence of what's been going on comes to light.

I'm not sure about the WWII analogies, sniper. You're equating a global conflict involving every industriazlied nation on earth with 20 guys who hijacked some planes? Really?

Additionally, the "technical know-how" on how to do this is pretty obvious.
1. Allow PNAC "Pearl Harbor level event" to occur.
2. Use the resulting panic and fear in people like sniper as your justification to ignore the Constitution and the FISA courts.

What part of "unconstitutional" do you people not get?

#4 | Posted by evashogouki at 2008-09-19 06:07 PM

I'm gonna go with the 'un' part of unconstitutional.

Failing to defend the US Constitution is treason.

#5 | Posted by donnerboy at 2008-09-19 06:45 PM

Where does it say that?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Where does it say that?

The Presidential oath of office.

It doesn't say keep all you chicken hawks safe. It does say preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

We shall see if bush defended the constitution and truely tried to protect and preserve it.

But, I suspect most prudent individual in this country already know this answer.

Any society willing to give up a little freedom for a little security will lose both and deserve neither.

Paraphrased - Ben Franklin.

So.... what freedom have we given up when the spooks listen in in international phone calls?

I guess you libs believe that it is possible for them to listen to the billions of phone calls that are made here in the US. That is as impossible as free health care.

That is as impossible as free health care.

#23 | Posted by Sniper at 2008-09-20 10:43 AM

oh sure ..Free Health care is "impossible" but instantly finding Hundreds of Billions of dollars to bail out the Banks and Investment firms is easy!

as for the freedom you gave up...

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

Didn't the Democrats just pass a bill that shielded telephone companies from being sued?

And by the way, how does the EFF know whose phones are being tapped, and that they are being done without a warrant?

Seems to me that all Al Queda need do is go down to Alltel and buy up a whole bunch of phones with American numbers. That way, liberals everywhere will say that they have a right to do or say anything they like.

Didn't the Democrats just pass a bill that shielded telephone companies from being sued?

The bill's complex. There is protection if the telecom can prove that the President authorized their action, otherwise they are subject to criminal prosecution. This means President Bush has to admit, or it has to be shown that, by signature, Bush authorized a felony and unconstitutional act.

The bill also doesn't shied any of them from Civil lawsuits.