Wizards first rule: People are stupid. They believe what they want to be true or fear to be true.

bush can torture or wiretap anyone he wants. it won't do anything. we have massive unprotected borders , which people regularly walk through and largely unsearched cargo at ports, where chinese are known to stowaway to get here. we are vulnerable and simply too big. a country like Israel can bui;d and man a wall effectively because it's like 5 centimeters around and has a few million people.

The fact is, the muslims have got us. They've figured out our weak point and it';s only a matter of time before they hit us again. they don't even NEED too. "waiting is the hardest part" as tom petty once taught us.

Does Sweden have programs like this? How about Zaire? iceland? why not? because they don't have thousands of troops in muslim countries and a president talking about "al aoptions are on the table". We can live without middle east oil.

The only issue we are presented with in the media is "do you want to have a totally unfettered consitution, or do you want to DIE BY A TERRORIST ATTACK?" is ridiculous. who would choose to DIE? that's so dumb. we can have both by isolating oursleves from the muslim world. Like Iceland!

does sweden have a muslim problem ummm yes, iceland doesn't even have an army, and Zaire is Muslim. LOL

"Thus the program of collecting information about numbers dialed, as outlined by USA Today, is unquestionably legal."

When I first heard about the program, I agreed.

Then I looked closely at the test case. Now I do question its legality, on what I think is a valid point. Simply put, the police already had reason to suspect Smith. In fact, if the facts given in section 1 of the case decision are correct, I'd say they were very close to having probable cause for a warrant, and I wonder why they didn't get one. Did they apply for one and the application was denied?

On top of that, the Smith case was one phone line, belonging to one person, whom the police already had reason to suspect. By contrast, NSA has no probable cause at all for 99.9% of the data it's collecting. I think that plus the issue of scale are enough to question whether the Smith precedent should apply. "Quantity," said a wise man once, "has a quality all its own."

Would-be repliers please note that I am merely asking the question, not giving any answer. I remain open to the possibility that the answer is "yes, the precedent applies." I'm also open to other arguments that defend the legality of the NSA program. I simply want to see an argument that takes the differences between the two cases seriously.

hmmm... on reflection, I should've checked the source of that quote before using it -- the discovery that I was quoting a communist without realizing it is unpleasant, to say the least. I thought it came from an American general during WW2.

I suppose the USNews phone records story this week and the breathless story about spying from space on Drudge this morning (from AP) are both complete accidents of timing, coming just as Hayden has to face the Kangaroo Court. I'm sure it was a complete accident. Really, put it out of your mind.

There are much more important things to worry about, such as American Idol, Britney Spears' next litter, and other stuff like that.

Wolfwalker, the NSA does not need "probable cause" to do what is not a search or seizure to begin with.

It has always happened that draconian laws are brought in to combat a small minority of people in a society but end up being applied to the whole of the society. Unfortunately its a very slippery slope. So today people that support such laws may not support them tomorrow when they are being used against them.

christian- Perhaps I should have used less random examples. My point is the "rights vs death" debate is a waste because the issue of why we are being targeted isn't being addressed.

I have said it before -- the greatest strength of this country (its freedoms) is now its greatest weakness, and our enemies understand this. They understand that the Bill of Rights is the weapon that gains them access (physical and communicative) into this country, and that the ACLU and others will (wittiingly or not)protect that access.

wavemaker- so what do we do. all the ACLU does is enforce the bill of rights. either we get rid of the bill of rights or address the reason why we are being targeted by terrorists: our involvement in a part of the world where we aren't wanted. personally, I prefer the bill of righs but then I'm a patriot

Why am I not surprised that the last sentence of the post accuses those that disagree as essentially supporting the terrorists.

So typical.

The heads of the judicial and intelligence committes (repubs) are also requesting a review of the program.

Though I did not agree with the post I thought it made a sound argument. Ironic that in the last sentence Ken shreds any chance of swaying my opinion by insinutating that those who disagree help the terrorist.

You are either with us or against us eh Ken?

Why am I not surprised that the last sentence of the post accuses those that disagree as essentially supporting the terrorists.

So typical.

The heads of the judicial and intelligence committes (repubs) are also requesting a review of the program.

Though I did not agree with the post I thought it made a sound argument. Ironic that in the last sentence Ken shreds any chance of swaying my opinion by insinutating that those who disagree help the terrorist.

You are either with us or against us eh Ken?