Interesting story. Many are down on Bush but I think many other countries spy as well, they have just not been caught yet. Is Bush the only Head of State to sanction spying? I believe not, and most likely you feel the same way. The recent spy case in Ireland has the reported ex-head of a major political faction on the run and in hiding, fearing for his life. Russia’s’ government is stacked with former KGB officers, Israel has been accused of bugging embassies in America, now there is evidence Britain may have spied on the Irish political party Sinn Fein. Is spying a necessity in today’s world?
Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com

You make me laugh. Do you actually believe that anyone would really cares what you have to say, other than to get a good laugh at your own self-importance? Your time would be better spent worrying about being struck by lightning, that's much more likely to happen than the government taking any interest in you.

I almost forgot to answer your question about the foil. Yes, absolutely. Make a hat too.

Raymond B:

Of course I'm not against spying per se, but the American system is built with certain safeguards, such as the warrant requirement, that are meant to prevent abuse of the power to spy.

What worries me is that the Bush administration is doing its best to circumvent those safeguards ... and I wonder if it simply disregards them elsewhere.

--|PW|--

Unless you are willing to say that Bush was lying when he outlined the periodic (every 45 days) review of the NSA surveillance by the Justice Department, NSA lawyers and the FISA court and the dozen or so briefings of congressional leaders, I don't know how you can argue that the administration is doing its best to circumvent safeguards of civil liberties.

Unless you are willing to argue that Bush lied when he said that the targets of this surveillance had been identified as having ties to terrorist organizations identified by other intelligence, I don't know how you can to be worried that the NSA is tapping your phone.

So stop hiding behind Henny Penny hysterics and either make the accusation or not.

Otherwise, save the tinfoil for leftovers.

Here's an interesting question, since you seem to take a "slippery slope" view of civil rights violations. How did you view the gun rights activists who were worried about mass confiscations back in the Clinton era? Were they paranoid delusionists, or people who were genuinely worried about constitutional checks and balances?

Your post is very similar to some of the stuff I read 10-15 years back.

I thought Hoover swept up those bugs years ago. Is Risen The Dirt Devil? Where is Kirby? Last I heard, he was distributing bugs on and under a Persian rug in Little Syria.

Stephen:

At this point, I don't think I can justifiably make an accusation one way or the other ... but I can certainly signal my discomfort with what appears to be policy under this administration.

And I have an overall discomfort with how this administration has conducted its war on terror, esp. in teh realm of surveillance and detention of prisoners. Much of what I read screams to me "circumventing," "ducking," and "dodging."

I am also disturbed at future conditions. Will another president venture even further into the murky realm? Will a future president abuse the vast powers that the Bush administration claims under the rubric of "inherent authority?"

Dodgeman:

At the time, I don't think I would thought that. Then again, gun rights aren't my chief area of concern, so my personal alarm bells don't go off quite as easily over gun rights as they do over other issues.

Still ... I can certainly see the argument that there has been an erosion of gun rights over the last few decades. And I can certainly see where somebody would be alarmed. I'm not sure I buy the "government is going to take all our guns and oppress us!!" argument, but I could certainly see the argument that the erosion of gun ownership rights could lead to a more totalitarian state through the force of bureaucratic inertia, if nothing else.

--|PW|--

Is just me or does anyone else notice this--if you got rid of the words "but", "WMD" and "Iraq" all liberals would be speechless?

I personally trust this administration to keep the scope of its "surveillance" to issues of preventing terrorism within the borders. At the same time I said this back when they started talking about the Patriot Act, I want this aspect of it *gone* someday. That will be the fruit of a successful war against terrorism.

Your constitutional questions are right on though. I am a little flummoxed as to what is going on here and will be watching to see what facts shake out of the rhetorical questions.

I don't particularly believe in a right to privacy nor do I feel a need for it. What I do believe in is rule of law, so to me the question becomes whether or not what the administration is doing is legal.

I think that this had the best insight on that count.

Adam:

I'm glad to see President Bush's view. Quite frankly, I'm waiting for a the Volokh Conspirator to write something, though. I trust them a bit more, since they're not stakeholders in the Bush administration or in the various "usual suspects" who oppose Bush policy. At least as far as I know.

--|PW|--

If you have nothing to hide, then you have noting to fear (as long as they don't take my guns away).

From what I understand, this was limited to international communication, wasn't it?

Pennywit: Yeah, I'm not willing to draw any conclusions myself. My feeling on the matter is that I don't particularly believe in a right to privacy, but I do believe in rule of law. If this is against the law, then they should not have done it. If it isn't, then I don't give a damn.

But I'm not familiar enough with the legal context here to say anything with any confidence one way or the other.

Pennywit, I don't think you answered Stephen's point. Based on the facts of the current situation, there is no evidence whatsoever that constitutional authority has been overstepped. So unless you make the accusation that the administration is lieing, nothing has been provided that demonstrates illegality or even unnecessary execution of constitutionally granted powers. To say otherwise is to jump on the cliche bandwagon and use your heart over your head. You say you're uncomfortable with the administrations anti-terror policies so far. Why? Without any proof of illegality, how can one conclude that any policy has been in the spirit of doing anything other than fighting terrorism as aggressively as possible within the bounds of the law? Are they getting closer to the line? Of course, but under threat of attack I kinda sorta want my government to do everything within their powers to combat the enemy. All of these measures were enacted FOLLOWING 9/11, not preceding. So to assume the motives of the administration are counter to the interests of the American people is a bit of a stretch. The strength of this country is that it has basic principles it adheres to but has a broader degree of flexibility so that it can respond to threats when they arise. If this nation stands still it will be picked apart.

For those who give themselves chills everytime they repeat the words "Bush personally granted the NSA the ability to spy on Americans" you are being incomplete at best, and probably closer to willfully dishonest. Then again, why bother with complex facts when you can throw around scary words?

BTW pennywit, that last part was not directed towards you at all.

Hey, PW,

Can't you get a gig over at the "best blogs" on the web? Why are you wasting our time here?

Hike on, my friend.

we are in a war. I would shocked and pissed if the government wasn't conducting this intelligence operation. the only operative point is did the government operate within the law or not? so far there is no evidence to the contrary. what we do need is some espionage prosecutions for those who leak.

bob-

How can they take away our guns when we have all of them?

Pennywise,

I am weary of the Patriot Act. (I am weary of RICO).

But what I am most weary of is our national discourse.

It's total crap. We are not getting synthesis from it.

We are at war, and that should carry some weight.
How much, I am having trouble determining. Since the left is currently a bunch of nut jobs, I don't trust any of their analyses.

And who has time to become a friggin expert on EVERYTHING.

We desperately need a LOYAL opposition.

I agree completely cubanbob...in the history of this nation our government has been given the ability to operate to its full capacity to protect our nation in times of war without being whipped back from within. In this era, the administration is being held to a such an unreasonable hands-off standard that it's not only handicapping our ability to fight terrorism but is allowing our enemies to gain ground... all for the sake of partisan political gain. It amazes me that it's not coming from subversive political groups, but emanating from factions of our own government. I think it's disgusting, irresponsible, and criminal. I think in the past people were intellectually honest enough that they could look beyond their own politics to come together for the mutual benefit of our country when external threats emerged... but those times have passed.

Good God! A Wizbang poster that I agree with? What's the world coming to? I come here to have my opinions challenged, not confirmed.

Oh, one thing for some of Pennywit's more exreme detractors...I live in a country where you have to assume that every single thing you say to anyone, anywhere will be reported and put into an official file with possibly serious consequences - for you, or for someone else. Many of us out here have a great deal of respect for the theory of the US constitution. The real issue is the practice.

I just saw a question over at Kos, and I'd like to pose it here, more for the sake of argument and discussion than anything else:

Would you trust President Hillary Clinton with these powers?

--|PW|--

Would you trust President Hillary Clinton with these powers?

What, the power to issue executive orders in compliance with FISA and other intelligence gathering acts?

Yes. Without question.

Then I repeat, in what specific instance has the practice of the current administration overstepped the theory of the constitution? Perhaps I'm completely ignorant and naive, but the only thing I've observed is an administration using the tools at its disposal to combat an enemy that is seeking to exploit us. A lot of partisan politicians and pseudo-intellectuals throw words around in such a manner that makes everything the administration does sound scary and orwellian. If you actually look at what is being done in context it's pretty reasonable and logical in my opinion.

Also, I would trust Hillary Clinton with the powers of the current administration because by all accounts, to this point, they have been legal with significant oversight. What I wouldn't trust is for her to actually utilize those powers. National security was ineffective and unaggressive under the former Clinton administration and I would expect more of the same from another one. Some argue the only reason we're even in the state we're in at the moment is because of the Clinton administrations appeasement in the face of terrorism. I don't completely agree with that, nor do I completely discard it.

2002:
WHY DIDN'T BUSH CONNECT THE DOTS? You mean those Ay-rabs were taking flight lessons and our gov't wasn't watching them? Why the hell is Bushco following all these legal niceties when these people have declared war on us. They should have connected the dots.

2005:
You mean Bush is spying on terrorist phone calls? And sometimes those terrorists are talking to Americans? How dare Bushitler do that! Go get my pills, Martha; I'm getting the vapors!

[gives Les a high-five]

"You mean Bush is spying on terrorist phone calls?"

Les, you must know a whole different kind of Quaker than the Quakers I know. Or maybe they all conned me with their pacifist talk. Maybe they really wanted to blow you and me up.

Forgive me if I don't believe that.

PW

If your "ear" is listening to suspected foreign agents, and your "mouth" is helping coordinate, then yep, better break out the firstaid ointment.

And I damned well expect that.

But then, my theme song is not "Party like it's 9/10/01."

So cat, I wonder if your link 'nourl' is literal, or stands for something like "no understanding of real life?"

Certainly you are not a Friend, and neither are any AQ members, so the coherency of your last post is not apparant to me.

Oh, and regarding tin foil and all [apologies to bullwinkle], grounded copper mesh is a better barrier than aluminum foil. It is a little more expensive, but hey, when you have important delusions of grandeur you want to protect, why cut corners?

eromivus, I'm not an expert on your constitution or your laws. You check them and decide for yourself. It's your country...and your business. I'm not going to interfere.

I will just point out one thing for anyone who thinks this subject isn't important. Where I live, the majority of people live their lives like anyone else in the world - worrying mainly about how to provide for themselves and their families. But countless numbers of other people here do not have that choice - they're incarcerated for expressing their beliefs and defending their rights.

Be careful you don't find yourself in the same situation.

Interesting, the communists and marxists have the most fear of communist and marxist governments, or seem to, at least, be the most fearfully projecting communist, marxist characteristics onto defense policies and procedures by the U.S.

Another thing: any issue of discussion on KOS is not something I'd ever stoop to considering. Hillary Clinton won't ever be President and has already engaged in harassment and unreasonable use of federal agencies against citizens -- and what else, many of us continue to suspect -- so there's little point in speculating about Hillary being President and what she might do when. Just as it is to try and speculate what springs and lakes on Pluto would be like because there is no atmosphere on Pluto and isn't going to be one in which springs and lakes would exist as we define them and a supportable atmosphere to be.

The Democrats -- and some of our Republicans -- in current Congress need to be investigated for treason. As is the Publisher and Editor of the New York Times.

The country is at war. President Bush merits, deserves and requires the country's support but at this point, the Democrats have decided to support the enemy. Their loss.