FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed

The alternative is a succesful terror attack that has everybody saying, "Maybe we should have stayed the course".

I think it's a stretch to say that this domestic spying program is the one thing protecting us from another attack.

Also, isn't this sort of program the kind of thing that conservatives traditionally oppose and is contrary to some of their core principles? It seems more like something FDR would do than Reagan.

this post makes me chuckle. who appointed Donald Rumsfeld? in politics, its all about choices, and making sure you make the right ones. its not like Rumsfeld had changed his philosophies over the years. and im sure the decisions that were made were discussed, ad nauseum, in the war room( with the president present) and if the president wasn't involved in those decisions, its his fault for giving Rumsfeld free reign, to making some of the most important decisions of the world. im not ready to give president Bush a free pass on the Iraq mess

No free passes I agree but I can't be reasonable and think that the catalyst behind so much of the crap was Rumsfeld? This is what baffles me about politics. I have no allegiance to Bush more than Rumsfeld. I look at the two and ask myself "Which of these two guys is most directly responsible for the mess in Iraq?" Well Bush got us in but Rumsfeld blew it. Crap rolls up hill for sure and Bush certainly has his failings but in the case of the execution of our "plan" in Iraq you have look at Rumsfeld and say he was the causation. I don't understand why everything has to be laid right at Bush's feet and the mere mention that others had larger roles in policy is giving him a "free pass". I am simply talking about what actually happened. And what actually happened was that our President relied on Rumsfeld to do a job that he did poorly at best. Bush's screw up was Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld's screw up was our sh*t plan for actually doing our job once we rolled over Iraq's joke of an army.

The telecoms were asked to provide assistance, they were not forced to do so. Also, the telecoms owe certain duties to their clientele (e.g., not to violate their constitutional rights or to release information about them in violation of their own privacy policies). If their conduct was illegal, why shouldn't they be held responsible?
The telecoms do need to follow the terms of service for their customers. I haven't read mine in detail, but I'm sure there is a clause that states they will cooperate with law enforcement investigations and are not liable for information used in the course of an investigation. There is no way any telecom volunteered info to the Fed. Any info was requested/demanded and I'm sure the telecoms have plenty of documentation to back up any requests for info.

Labeling the ACLU an organization which represents terrorist/anti-american interests is a little silly.Really? They already have.

ACLU, Lawyers Group Aim to Defend High-Value Detainees (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/03/AR2008040304133_pf.html)

The Editors on Surveillance & Supreme Court on National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmU1ZDY2OTVjYTgyOGJkZTVmNTM3ZDcxNjk2NWQzYTg)=

If one of the lawsuits was successful, it would likely signal that the spying program was illegal or unconstitutional. Do you think that companies should not be held liable for engaging in illegal conduct? Not if they are cooperating with a request/demand from the Federal government. I agree with looking into the constitutionality of the program, I just believe the target should be the Attorney General, NSA or whatever government agency requested/demanded this info.

I also believe the ACLU & CAIR folks are pretty smart and will be looking for a court (such as in Detroit) with a judge either sympathetic to them or anti-Bush to work this through. Because a lawsuit in this type of court is successful, doesn't make the program unconstitutional.

If this program is at such a level of being unconstitutional, I would think the Senate Intel Committee (controlled by Democrats) would be making a much bigger issue of this than just leaking some info to the NY Times. I would also think the bill would've passed by a much closer margin than 69-20.

Do you believe the threat from fundamental Islamists is perceived and not real? They have openly declared war on the United States and their objective is to have one world under Sharia law. Are they an immediate threat to succeed? No. However the threat they pose is very real.

I do agree with you on protecting our liberties, but allowing the government to actively pursue our enemies through surveillance IMO does not infringe on our liberties, as long as there is ultimate oversight by the legislative and judicial branch, which there is.

I would say that terrorists present many real threats, but none which justify the removal of any liberties in America.

Basically, the real threats that terrorists pose are insignificant. The major threats they "pose", are only perceived (IMO).

As for global Sharia law, that will NEVER happen. That is a perceived threat, and it will never become a real threat (IMO). However, that is the kind of "threat" that is used to justify these kinds of restrictions on liberties.

Justice:


The quality of being just; fairness.


The principle of moral rightness; equity.
Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.




The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
Law. The administration and procedure of law.


Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason

I think it's a stretch to say that this domestic spying program is the one thing protecting us from another attack.

Also, isn't this sort of program the kind of thing that conservatives traditionally oppose and is contrary to some of their core principles? It seems more like something FDR would do than Reagan.

I didn't say it was the only thing. I was pointing out the dilema a President Obama will face. Bush has had no terror attacks for many years now. Any attacks that occur on Obama's watch will cause him headaches because his position has been that Bush has gone too far.