There is a difference between wiretapping foreign suspects whose communications come through our country and U.S. citizens.

There is a difference between wiretapping foreign suspects whose communications come through our country and U.S. citizens. There is also a difference between a President secretly instituting a plan that allows wiretapping of citizens wtihout a judge's order and a law that is discussed openly in the legislature and passed by a majority.

Because of the Great Power of George {MINDBENDER} Bush, he can bend simple minded people to his will, hence the vote.

Nice reversal, Loca. It's what I expect from Libs. When Republicans held Congress, EVERY Democrat I know said it was unConstitutional. Now suddenly it's all good!

Say what you will about Republicans. For all their failure, they're not as flaky as Dems for the most part.

Gid, you can't see the difference between GWB instating a secret illegal wiretapping program that targets citizen's communications without a warrant and a law that is open to public scrutiny, debated and passed legally through the Congress that targets foreign nationals and requires a warrant for surveilance of citizens? It is two very different things.

The Dem's can't win. If they hadn't passed this everyone would be crying saying that they don't care about national security.

I'm still trying to figure out why the Democrats were so up in arms about Bush's wiretaps but so supportive of Clinton's "echelon" program.

Not by ME, Loca! I have NEVER made that sort of allegation, and you KNOW it!

So, what you're saying is that you think Human rights are CONDITIONAL! I'm saying I think human rights are INALIENABLE! And that is the position I have taken from the beginning!

bush didn't do this.


bush did this

Don't confuse her with the facts, danielost. The liberals can only teach her so many talking points at a time!

i only used her words

I was reasonably sure that the vote essentially authorized EVERYTHING that the NSA was doing, both the foreign-to-foreign calls that pass through US switches, and the single-foreign-party calls that the NSA certifies invole a "person of interest". IE - the difference between before-bill and after-bill is that Congress signed off on it. We'll see what happens in 6 months.

So the Dems were so mad about how unconstitutional it was that they passed a law authorizing it? That doesn't change the US Constitution at all! So what is it Dems, was in Unconstitutional before this law, or did you just pass a law authorizing the president to do something unconstitutional?

Either way, anyone who protested Prs. Bush's actions, then voted Yea on this bill was lying in their protest.

EXACTLY!

Gid, you can't see the difference between GWB instating a secret illegal wiretapping program that targets citizen's communications without a warrant and a law that is open to public scrutiny, debated and passed legally through the Congress that targets foreign nationals and requires a warrant for surveilance of citizens? It is two very different things.

First, there has never been proof of any crime, just allegations.  And a lot of them just useless ones.

But second and most importantly, you dodged Ian's question.  WHY - if what you allege is true - would they then vote to give Bush and Gonzalez that power again?

If it was bad when the republicans passed it, why is it now ok (with the same administration in the white house) that the dems have passed it?