As Bush's numbers dropped, the feeding frenzy of Democrats got more and more laughable. This is a continuation of the same. Someone on the Democratic side-- whoever is last one to pile on-- is going to eventually be embarassed by this.
Bob | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 9:19 am | #

I survived the Carter years and all I got was a lousy T Shirt that said "MALAISE" on the back.

Little did I know I was living in a Police State!
Mike's America | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 11:50 am | #

The so-called intrustions into privacy that everyone is in a snit about is being done by machines, with only email being read or phone conversations being reviewed once computers have determined that certain trigger phrases merit human review.

Just a bunch of hoo hah, if you ask me...
Hooda_Thunkit | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 2:10 pm | #

> At issue is whether the listening in on overseas phone conversations is, in a time of war, "unreasonable." A person is now subject to a warrantless search when boarding an airplane, entering the New York subway system, or even entering the building that houses the office of the New York Civil Liberties Union. Why should an international phone call be inviolate?

There's a huge difference between knowingly submitting to a search and being searched without your knowledge. Nobody ever told us that our international calls may be monitored.

>This "without court order" was so clear that even President Carter, a Democrat not known for his vigilance in the war on terror, issued an executive order on May 23, 1979, stating, ....

Really?
Marie Antoinette | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 2:40 pm | #

"Marie",

Yeah...really. And really.

Plus, it's not like Dems didn't know.

Also,

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

I'm sorry, "Marie", but if it was good enough for you leftists when Clinton's bitch Gorelick (rhymes with "derelict") advocated it, then it's gonna have to be good enough for you people NOW.

Nobody ever told us that our international calls may be monitored.

Sorry about that. We prefer not tipping off the bad guys...we're kinda funny like that. And what do you mean "us" and "our calls"? Have you been talking to al Qaeda? If not, then your calls weren't monitored. If you were, then I hope to hell you were monitored!

And isn't that cute? You referenced a moonbat talking points blog. You probably also believe the tripe in other moonbat blogs like Media Morons...er, Matters...don't you? That's just sooooo precious!
Jonathan Leffingwell | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 3:45 pm | #

"Nobody ever told us that our international calls may be monitored."

Attention! Attention! Attention

If you are placing overseas calls to known al-Qaeda operatives and leaders, your calls are subject to monitoring.

Any questions?
Old Soldier | 12.21.05 - 5:14 pm | #