Exactly. That's the problem here, misrepresenting data-mining with wiretaps to scare people.

Just to be clear -- it's your belief that the Government, under the new FISA law, can only examine the data relating to international calls in which U.S. citizens participate, but can't listen in on those calls without a warrant?

That's actually your understanding of what this new FISA law allows?

You do realize that you don't have the slightest clue what this law does and that you've demonstrated beyond any doubt? Please answer the question above about whether that's your understanding of the law.

When you say anything you want to keep secret can be kept secret, you mean: communicate it to no one. That is not the point. People need and want to communicate. Communication needs to be kept private. For example, you are a republican; you support business. How can business be done without privacy?

Except that Bushista is allowed to declare ANY U.S. citizen at anytime to no longer be a citizen, without having to tell anyone. -- brightstar65

You are wrong. Habeas Corpus is alive and well for anyone in the US and even prisoners overseas. It's not nice to scare people for no good reason.

Are the terrorists as smart as shooter? What's the point of monitoring phones and e-mails then?

Wire taps are not synonymous with data-mining.

Exactly. That's the problem here, misrepresenting data-mining with wiretaps to scare people.

Under the new FISA legislation, the N.S.A., but not the Sierra Club, is allowed to target individual phone conversations.

Thats always been true in some situations, hence the four points about what FISA DOESN'T COVER, REGULATE, APPLY TO, or ANYTHING ELSE.

You are arguing against your own straw man; if you read the many posts here, you'll find not one objection to data-mining among them. -- dr rick

Terrific, send the ACLU an email about pulling the suit.

I wish I'd said it like that.

I wish I'd said that

That aren't taken from Coulter's testosterone-fueled rants!

...Shooter, who I don't know from Adam, and who says that this is no big deal -- like Amazon keeping track of your purchases -- or Senator Russ Feingold, who says that we will regret passing this law?

Gosh, it's so difficult to decide, but I think I'll have to go with Feingold, who has absolutely nothing to gain by taking this stand (which is nothing short of courageous in this political climate), and who I'm pretty sure knows a lot more than Shooter does about the reality of the wiretapping program.

And, as for "situational awareness", this argument would be akin to saying that a woman should have "situational awareness" and expect to be raped if she walks down a deserted street late at night, and that's just too bad then.

So how about just those, then -- international calls and "cross-border" emails of yours -- will you record those and forward them all to me? -- GlennGreenwald

Which part of "Anything I want to keep secret, can easily be kept secret." didn't register?

Look Glenn, I'm not trying to be harsh here, but the comments from people who felt physically ill, and contributed their next to last dollar for your cause, got to me. They looked to you as Leader, and from where I sit, you used them. Taking legitimate issues and blowing them all out of proportion to the extent where nightmares ensue, is abuse of position.

Scary!

-To assert that is simply to make assertions with no basis whatsoever. GG-

...and the Lying Liars who tell them.

I should probably stop reading about this on blogs, as I'm the first to admit that I'm not a lawyer...but , as they say, I have friends who are lawyers--and they are appalled. The idea of someone from London being the "point" of the warrant, does not (CAN not) prevent whomever is spying from "becoming aware" of what the "un-point" person is saying! Huh?? Okay, I'm not Ivy League (thank gawd)--but , (esp. with Dubya!such a grand record on protection of civil liberties!!), if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, lies and makes war like a traitor, it's probably neo-con, who only wants to [press the point to gain m ore power for the "unitary executive", which only exists in strange peoples' minds--John Yoo , for instance,. And, maybve you. WHY do you want obe be spied on? Do you think the CIA can protect you? The "9/11" terrorists had all over-stayed their VISAs, were reported by the pilots' school as "engaging in odd behavior" (like not weanting to learn how to land!), and the Administration had been warned by Richard Clarke and others...so it still makes yiou feel safe if they spy on a few activist groups and Muslims>? I'll tell you, there's thingws worse than getting blown up (being dead..you are a good Christiena arent you?? WHY are you guys so afraid of death??)--and having Dubya's --or any rich guy's-head up my arse is one of them! I'll take my chances--oh, but I can;t ! Too many US citizens are terrified and think that the incompetent US Gov't. w3ill protect them by arresting Code Pink and Earth First! And Tim McVey---oh, that's right, they never got him until too late....I hope it's not too late for theuS!!

ill wind and whistle past? jeeze. maybe it was the wind generated by whistling or the wind required to whistle. who knows where the association came from.

How about, It's an error to whistle past the place where many of this administration's dead bodies are buried.

I ran across this vocal Obama supporter yesterday on dkos. This person most certainly defended what Obama did and the reasons that they gave for doing so were chilling.

"Defending the constitution". No hyperbole? (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by: askew, geejay

Stop with this drama. FISAA passed just now is neither the end of the constitution nor the sell-out on the part of Obama that people are making it out to be.

Even if it were, people are hurting too much otherwise to really care right now -- whether it is due to the deplorable state of our civic education, or the sheer willful non-participation, the public at large does not care about this at this point in time. Only people with inconsequential places in life can therefore afford to take to a losing, rigid stance on this.

Someone who is running for President in especially treacherous media waters, when the nation literally depends on him to get the Presidency, has to weigh the relative merits rather more carefully.

I am not entirely sure he is right, but I am not entirely sure you are right either. But I do know one thing: no vote on any one single piece of legislation, UNLESS it is on WAR, is going to make my opinion of the candidate change, especially when I know that 1) he is a constitutional law professor, 2) he worked in the projects helping the most down-trodden, 3) places emphasis on pragmatic solutions rather than on stances per se, etc.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/10/101543/969/877/549338