I had left p off asp of link above..sorry :^x

you are correct. Between the corruption Misleading media, propaganda, WMD hoax (wilkersos), Warrantless tapping, katrina funding, underfunding NCLB, Backloaded taxes, Fiscal responsibility doesnt exist any longer. I applaud her for Standing up. Its pretty bad when we have groups in the white house that put their “CLIKS” above the people.
Not only that Franklin/AIPAC, Journalists promoting Bush war rhetoric, Armstrong Williams..

And thats not even all. Yeah I applaud this Representative for this administration has clearly losts its moral compass

Executive Summary
Chief Concerns

The EFF’s chief concerns with PATRIOT include:

1. Expanded Surveillance With Reduced Checks and Balances. PATRIOT expands all four traditional tools of surveillance used by law enforcement — wiretaps, search warrants, pen/trap orders and subpoenas. Their counterparts under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allow spying in the U.S. by foreign intelligence agencies have similarly been expanded. This means:
1. Be careful what you read on the Internet. The government may now monitor the online activities of innocent Americans, and perhaps even track what Web sites you read, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is “relevant” to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on does not have to be the target of the investigation. This application must be granted and the government is not obligated to report to the court or tell the person spied upon what it has done.
2. Nationwide roving wiretaps. FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is being used by a suspect or target of an order, or even specifically identifying the person targeted. The government may now serve a single Title III wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or entity is named in the order. The government need not make any showing to a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a criminal investigation. In the pen/trap or FISA situations, they do not even have to report where they served the order or what information they received. The EFF believes that the opportunities for abuse of these broad new powers are immense. For pen/trap orders, while ISPs or others who are not specifically named in the order do have the legal right to request certification from the Attorney General’s office that the order applies to them, they have no right to request such confirmation from a court.
3. ISPs hand over more user information. The law makes two changes to increase how much information the government may obtain about users from their ISPs or others who handle or store their online communications. First it allows ISPs to voluntarily hand over all “non-content” information to law enforcement with no need for any court order or subpoena. §212. Second, it expands the records that the government may seek with a simple subpoena (no court review required) to include records of session times and durations, temporarily assigned network (I.P.) addresses, and means and source of payments, including credit card or bank account numbers. §§210, 211.
4. New definitions of terrorism expand scope of surveillance. One new definition of terrorism and three expansions of previous definitions also expand the scope of surveillance. PATRIOT §802’s definition of “domestic terrorism” (amending 18 USC §2331) raises concerns about legitimate protest activity being prosecuted as terrorism, especially if violence erupts, while additions to three existing definitions of terrorism (int’l terrorism per 18 USC §2331, terrorism transcending national borders per 18 USC §2332b, and federal terrorism per amended 18 USC §2332b(g)(5)(B)) expose more people to surveillance (and potential “harboring” and “material support” liability, §§803, 805).
2. Overbreadth with a lack of focus on terrorism. Several provisions of PATRIOT have no apparent connection to preventing terrorism. These include:
1. Government spying on suspected computer trespassers with no need for court order. §217.
2. Adding samples to DNA database for those convicted of “any crime of violence.” §503. This provision allows collection of DNA for terrorists, but then inexplicably also allows collection for the broad, non-terrorist category of “any crime of violence.”
3. Wiretaps now allowed for suspected violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This includes anyone suspected of exceeding authorized access to a computer used in interstate commerce and thereby causing over $5000 worth of combined damage.
4. Dramatic increases to the scope and penalties of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. These include: 1) raising the maximum penalty for violations to 10 years (from 5) for a first offense and 20 years (from 10) for a second offense; 2) ensuring that violators only need to intend to cause damage generally, not intend to cause damage or other specified harm over the $5,000 statutory damage threshold; 3) allowing aggregation of damages to different computers over a year to reach the $5,000 threshold; 4) enhancing punishment for violations involving any (not just $5,000) damage to a government computer involved in criminal justice or the military; 5) including damage to foreign computers involved in U.S. interstate commerce; 6) including state law offenses as priors for sentencing; 7) expanding the definition of loss to expressly include time spent on investigation, response, damage assessment and restoration.
3. Allows Americans to be More Easily Spied Upon by U.S. Foreign Intelligence Agencies. Just as the domestic law enforcement surveillance powers have expanded, the corollary powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act have also been greatly expanded, including:
1. General Expansion of FISA Authority. FISA authority to spy on Americans or foreign persons in the U.S. (and those who communicate with them) increased from situations where obtaining foreign intelligence information is “the” purpose of the surveillance to anytime that it is “a significant purpose” of the surveillance.

While interceptions capture the voice portion of a telephone call or the data portion of an electronic communication, such as the content of e-mail, pen/traps capture just the outgoing digits dialed (the pen register portion of the technology) and the numbers of the incoming callers (the trap and trace portion of the technology). In CALEA terms, these are “call-identifying information.”

Court authorizations for interceptions are difficult to obtain for many reasons. Pen/traps are easy to obtain. While the government has to obtain court authorization to install a pen/trap, the role of the court in this review and approval procedure is merely “ministerial” — primarily a form of record-keeping. The government has a very low hurdle to meet to obtain judicial approval for pen/traps, and if that hurdle is met, the court MUST approve the order. Pen/traps are very useful in a criminal investigation, and inexpensive compared to a court-approved interception. So, it is not surprising that there are so many more pen/traps than there are interceptions.

to consider…..

and that gives Bush an out to warrantless spying

I guess scotty forgets his history

because it was a time of ‘WAR’ when NIXONs Spying was caught as well.

care to try for a NEW ‘WAR’ Rationale Scotty?

SEVEN DAYS IN DECEMBER:
ESPIONAGE AND TREASON IN THE WHITE HOUSE

In a scenario that seems straight from the pages of a Hollywood screenplay, the events that played out during seven days in December 1971 revealed that the Pentagon had poised itself against the White House. The Pentagon’s Chief Investigator W. Donald Stewart remarked: “When we broke [Yeoman Charles E.] Radford that night, that’s where I got the Seven Days in May idea. I said Jesus Christ, here’s the military actually spying on the President of the United States . . . this is a hanging offense.”

Even Nixon himself declared that the Joint Chiefs had committed “a federal offense of the highest order.” Oval Office meeting 12/21/71

Discovery of the spy ring and not the Watergate break in was the beginning of the end of the Nixon presidency.

Authors Len Colodny and Tom Shachtman provide the framework with which to understand these seven pivotal days. While an article cannot explore the great details regarding this historical event, this site provides documentary evidence in print and streaming audio and video. These resources present the military spy ring from its discovery through its cover up and beyond — providing a comprehensive understanding of this unprecedented event in American history.

http://www.watergate.com/stories/spyring.as

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007627.php

Folks, this is a Republican-controlled House of (Corporate) Representatives. There is no way in hell that anything will come of this as long as Karl Rove is in the White House threatening members of Congress. (He’s working over Senate Republicans for now, but if it looks at all like this thing could gain any momentum, he’s going to come down hard on Speaker Hastert and new Majority Leader Boehner to put an end to it.)

I’m not trying to be pessimistic. Just realistic.

Now, if we can all somehow shame the Republicans into trying to defend not pursuing this, then maybe something can happen.

She’ll put on a dog and pony show, but in the end it won’t accomplish anything but to gain some goodwill with independent voters. I’ll put money on it.

kudos to Mr. Feingold for getting it right and backing it up factually…that’s the kind of argument I like.

Ratted out by other members of the Texas A&M student newspaper? What were they thinking? Don’t they know a journalist’s first duty is to cover for the administration?
They’re not going to go very far in today’s “new” media.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PressRelease30Jan2006.html

And listen to what the President said on June 9, 2005: “Law enforcement officers need a federal judge’s permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist’s phone, a federal judge’s permission to track his calls, or a federal judge’s permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.”

This is some very increminating stuff. Russ Feingold is the man.