Obey the law – now there’s an interesting abstraction. It comes back to that old saying, “Does a falling tree make a sound if no one is near enough to hear it?” Or, to the point, does one break the law when law enforcement turns a blind eye? In this context, law enforcement means the USAG and the SCOTUS.

I think any notion that the Executive must obey the law is mildly flippant.

senate has rejected conference.

The Democrats will have to counter the fear arguement because it is so powerful and visceral; a rational civil liberties approach does not cut it.

(like others, I home sick with what seems like all of the above) I recommend finding the magazine.

I just googled this ‘George Soros funding mediamatters.org’ . Appears this is quite a debate
reply

Let’s just say that they’ve denied it vigorously over and over. I think it was Bill-O who kept accusing them of that when he and MM were in a battle, and IIRC they backed up their denials with documents. But it has been awhile ago and my recollection may be faulty.

I WANT SOMEBODY MAKING SURE THEY AREN’T STEALING FROM ME

what the FRIG do these democrats NOT understand, there MUST be oversight no matter WHAT

they can wiretap whoever they want as long as someone else besides cheney and bushe’s lap dogs is there to make sure they aren’t taking information for their own personal use

You’d think in this political election season that the politicians would be really concerned with this for their own safety and security, but apparently not. So if they don’t care if their own or their campaign’s privacy is violated, what would make you think they’d even consider yours. That’s just how dangerous this whole thing is. These politicians don’t even seem to care when they are at risk themselves. Blind and stupid is all I can think.

Testimony of James A. Baker
Before the
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
September 25, 2007

The Constitution does not mandate that judges play any role in foreign intelligence collection, so long as the collection activities are otherwise reasonable. But it seems to me that there is general consensus today that the FISA court should approve electronic surveillance and physical search in advance when those collection activities are targeted at people who are clearly located inside the United States. This includes surveillance of all domestic-to-domestic communications. Similarly, there appears to be consensus that the court should play no role in approving collection when the surveillance is targeted at people who are clearly located outside the United States, even when the collection itself takes place inside the United States. As I mentioned previously, foreign-to-foreign wire or radio communications traditionally have fallen outside the scope of FISA.