This entire fallacy of "good guys vs bad guys" dichotomy is the REASON America is in the shithole that it's in. All of the major problems faced by the U.S. in the last 8 years (e.g., fighting wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, torturing people at Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo Bay, the politicization of the DOJ, warrantless wire-tapping, a failing economy, and all measures of Draconian secrecy run rampant throughout the administration) is based upon this the false notion that we live in an Aristotelian "is" / "is not" (with us / against us) kind of world. The world of human affairs is always more complicated than that -- unless you are working from the framework of "branding" and "campaigning" by which marketing principles persist, that the simplest, most basic (read: ignorant) way of framing an idea is the best for manufacturing a consensus for a self-constructed agenda.

Read a book, America. Your country has been stolen!

^Yeah. Obama's scorecard is only from a pool of 20 votes though. And of those he voted:

FOR the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Senate)
On July 9, 2008, the Senate passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 6304) by a vote of 69-28. The ACLU opposed this legislation due to its failure to protect Fourth Amendment privacy rights for individual Americans. Specifically, it authorizes an unlawful warrantless surveillance program, while providing effective immunity to those telecommunications companies that assisted government surveillance even before the facts surrounding the full extent of this program are known.
FOR Patriot Act Reauthorization (Senate)
On March 2, 2006, the Senate passed the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act
of 2005 by a vote of 89 to 10. The ACLU opposed this bill because it failed to add to the Patriot Act reasonable, necessary safeguards to protect civil liberties. It made many expiring provisions permanent, including provisions that allow the government to obtain a wide variety of private confidential records using National Security Letters, seek secret court orders under section 215, gag recipients of these record requests with only an illusory right to challenge, and secretly search homes and offices. The bill also expands the death penalty, limits protest rights at major events and coerces businesses to check their employees against flawed government watch lists.
FOR Judicial Review of Torture
On November 15, 2005, the Senate agreed to the Graham-Levin Amendment that would strip
detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay of most of their due process protections. The ACLU
opposed the Graham-Levin Amendment because, by stripping detainees at Guantanamo Bay of
the ability to file habeas petitions and other claims in federal court, it unconstitutionally removed the
system of checks and balances for persons seeking protection against the government's use of
torture and abuse and other denials of due process. The amendment passed by a vote of 84 to 14
and was attached to the Defense Department Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.


christ that was a pretty important 18%....

I somewhat agree pmkierst... Ashcroft was one of the very few who stood up to Bush and Gonzales (while deathly Ill and essentially incapacitated in hospital) against renewal of the warrantless spy program. Of course his efforts ultimately failed when he and his deputy were pushes aside and Gonzales was knighted to be torturer in chief.

Google is still facilitating the imposition of censorship.

Its the same argument the telecoms could make if they ever get sued for warrantless tapping of Americans by the US government.

"Its not our fault! We were just helping the government spy on Americans without warrants!"

Except Qwest, which got hammered afterwards.

Furthermore, it was Google itself that tauted the Do No Evil line.

America's enemies are the ones approving warrantless wiretapping. QM, maybe you should examine the threats to this country. (Give you a hint, it isn't dirt poor muslims on the other side of the planet)

Please read the Constitution, it isn't that big. THat is the essence of this country, and that is what is under attack. McCarthyism was proven to be wrong and harmful to this country, and everything Bush has done to dry-hump the Constitution will be shown just as idiotic. QM, you are on the wrong side of history, (time to invoke Godwin's law).

Please... The current FISA act more that sufficiently allows for the protection of the US. There is support for extension to its time periods also. Most people that claim it isn't sufficient don't actually know what the current FISA laws allow.

There is no need for baseless, warrantless wiretaps.

reason, are you joking? Current FISA law already allows that, even in domestic cases. In fact they allow the president to start wiretapping 72 hours in advance without a warrant. There is also support to extend that time period up to 10 days. Over the decades of use, the FISA courts have only rejected 4 or 5 warrants. Since this is the case, why do we need warrantless wiretapping? We don't, unless you want to wiretap people that you have no possible justification to wiretap.

Quite frankly, I don't think you know what you are talking about. I find that people that want to give away our freedoms (while claiming that other people "must have something to hide") are usually woefully ignorant of history and woefully ignorant in general.

Some people wouldn't know the truth if it slapped them in the face, which it has, and was duly ignored. The so called warrantless wire tapping was aimed at connections from known/suspected terrorists OUTSIDE the USA contacting or being contacted by parties inside the USA. It was not aimed at private citizens talking to their mothers. Why are you people so in a twist over this? Something to hide maybe? Involved in voter fraud or political campaign scams? Afraid to get caught? I find it interesting that those who scream about freedoms the loudest are the very ones who wish to take those freedoms from people who disagree with them. I have nothing to hide and if some one wants to listen in on my phone they are more than welcome to be bored to death.

No problem, RadHazG. Media is part of what I do and to show it's flawed I've got to know where they got it wrong, this just happens to be one of those subjects the media is badly failing on. The warrantless wiretaps was another. If it's a FISA debate it's domestic, period. The only function of the FISA court was to deal with those foreign calls when they come home to a US person who has a right to expect a reasonable degree of privacy. Foriegn wiretaps never have needed a warrant. Program was so illegal that even Ashcroft threatened to resign if they didn't fix it. Never had a thing to do with stopping or needing approval to listen to foreigners or terrorists, that was just talking points to confuse the issue.

J-Rova might have a point though. Might not as well. In most cases the President has a right to pardon and such but what about if he pardons to protect someone who commits a crime in their own administration? Even Nixon didn't pardon Halderman, Colson and Liddy. When done to coverup or to stop an investigation into crimes in your own administration, then we just might be crossing a line into obstruction of justice.

I've got to agree about past abuse as well though. Clinton pardoned his brother and that crossed a big line too, some others were questionable as well. The nation NEEDS to start to understand that the law is as much precedent as what's printed on the books. Let someone bend the rules and defend it once and now it's easier for the other side to bend it too, for their reasons rather than yours. We're quickly becoming a nation not of laws but of partisan favoritism and it'll ruin us. If we don't figure out who we really want to be as a nation I'm afraid we're at about the end of the road. Both sides need to stop defending their abuses, it's bad precedent and precedent isn't partisan. One abuse sure as hell will lead to the next.

Heh - i love the idiots that post on there with no idea of what the law really says.

The 4th Amend doesn't apply.

If someone opened the door, (...)

your arguement barely holds up IF that happened, but we don't know...

look again at the law...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

you still need a warrant for probable cause. it's what enables you to procure a warrant.

--

It's called "probable cause"....it gives the police great lee-way into what they can and can't do. For instance, if there were a crime being committed inside a private residence such as a murder or a rape or some other such crime, the police do NOT have to wait for a search warrant to enter.

See: http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/knock-and-announce-rule.html
Knock and announce rule
Definition - Noun
: a rule of criminal procedure requiring that police announce their authority and purpose before entering a premises in execution of a search or arrest warrant unless special circumstances (as risk of harm to the police) warrant unannounced or forcible entry

See also: http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/exigent-circumstances.html
Exigent circumstances
Definition - Noun
: circumstances that are of such urgency as to justify a warrantless entry, search, or seizure by police when a warrant would ordinarily be required

See also: http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/no-knock-search-warrant.html
No-knock search warrant
Definition
: a search warrant allowing law enforcement officers to enter premises without prior announcement in order to prevent destruction of evidence (as illegal drugs) or harm to the officers

underage drinking and/or noise ordinance issues hardly qualify for the above no-knock-warrant scenario.
if someone let him in though, their bad.

fyi BatmanX is a Minneapolis Police Officer trainee so it's not surprising he'd support warrantless searches. What he really means to say is that people have no rights, especially the ones who aren't the right color.

Interesting coverage by PBS Frontline regarding this program Comey is testifying about.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Frontline-clip-on-Bushs-Warrantless-Wiretapping-spying

from some website

State of Indiana Vs Robert Trimble, appeal from Jennings Superior Court Indiana to the Indiana Supreme Court....... Indiana State Supreme court ruled officer seeing crime / evidence from public that any public citizen could see, investigating a tip of a crime, including parking car in driveway to walk to the home, is allowed to warrantless enter the premises ( yard ) to investigate further. Court further states that officer entry onto private property and their observations do not violate fourth ammendment when they have a legitimate investigatory purpose for being on the property limitting thier entry to places visitors would be expected to go. Indiana Supreme court decided ruled on this type situation 02-21-2006. Also mentions timely tip from a person and health / safety of others.
The Deputy could have walked with the woman to investigate any health hazards to the public


think a locked fence and gate would have saved him?

"The Bush Administration has hyped the fear of the "islamofascist" beyond any rational basis. Terrorists and their methods have been around for decades. It is simply not a "new and unprecedented" threat. The UK and Israel have been handling comparably greater terrorist threats for decades without eroding civil liberties and placing powers in the hands of an unchecked executive."

No two things are ever created equal, and terrorist threats and societies change over time. The U.K. dealt with the IRA in their own way, I can't comment on it too much because I've never studied that part of history. What I do know is that England is, by comparison, more strict with their civil rights and have far more intrusive law enforcement methods. England also recently broke up a homegrown terrorist ring and foiled a major attack of British soil. If they had America's laws, they never would have found them.

Israel has been going back and forth with Palestine and Syria for decades and very little has changed. And with the most recent conflict with Hezbollah was a huge victory for the terrorists because Israel showed them that they are unwilling to carry a fight to the end. And incidentally, if government suggested that we take on the kind of airport security that they have in Israel, the American people would absolutely freak.

The Islamofacist threat is real, but the vast majority of people simply don't want to believe it. I think it's part of human nature, that people don't want to think the unthinkable. What would happen if the sovereignty of this country was very seriously threatened? Can you even conceive of it? In the late 1930's, America, England and most of Europe didn't (want to) think that the Nazi's were a threat. Polls from back then stated that 90% of Americans didn't want to get involved even if England was conquered, but then Pearl Harbor happened and things changed. And like Pearl Harbor, we were hit once, we will be hit again.

"would like to know if [you] would support the torture powers asserted by the Bush Administration (no transparency, no oversight, classified secret prisons, warrantless surveillance) if someone like Al Sharpton (or even someone like Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton) was President."

I would hope that those in power would do what necessary to protect the people of this country regardless of who was in charge. But for what it's worth, let me try to assure you that there is oversight and that those in charge are not running wild with power and brutally mutilate prisoners for their own pleasure and the everyday, law-abiding Joe Schmoe has absolutely no intelligence value and is not worth surveilling. It is a massive waste of resources.

What this clip shows is not torture. It certainly is coercive, in that I would call it "coercive interrogation." If you've ever seen Hostel, THAT is torture. The use of electric shocks, blades, employing power tools is torture. Pouring water up someones nose is not, in my opinion.

"I appreciate the faith that some people have in this administration. But it is a deliberately blind, lemming-like faith on the issues of Iraq and torture."

Believe me, I share your sentiment, however I don't share your outlook. The people need to have a large amount of faith in the people they elect, and like you, there are people I simply don't trust. And I know it's hard, but we all need to believe that those in charge will do the right thing, but it gets harder everyday.

Wumpus is no quantummushroom.

I agree with wumpus that America is not a country of hate. No more than Canada is a country of love. Every nation that I have ever visited has had their share of despicable people. Sometimes the despicable people hold positions of great power.

I am not sure that Holland is a great exemplar of "truly free and happy people", particularly if you look at the Theo Van Gogh incident and the Hirsi Ali situation.

The Bush Administration has hyped the fear of the "islamofascist" beyond any rational basis. Terrorists and their methods have been around for decades. It is simply not a "new and unprecedented" threat. The UK and Israel have been handling comparably greater terrorist threats for decades without eroding civil liberties and placing powers in the hands of an unchecked executive.

I would like to know if Wumpus would support the torture powers asserted by the Bush Administration (no transparency, no oversight, classified secret prisons, warrantless surveillance) if someone like Al Sharpton (or even someone like Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton) was President.

I appreciate the faith that some people have in this administration. But it is a deliberately blind, lemming-like faith on the issues of Iraq and torture.