1) Was not used for terorism
2) Did not protect federal court and attorney rights
3) Did not protect victims of domestic or international civilians caught
up in terroristic acts (esp before 911)
4) Sabotaged the work of corporations
5) Countered the protection of victims attempting to come forward to trial
5) Covered up the acts and wrong doings of perpetrators who may have come from the military (child and domestic abuse)
6) For the this reason, A new DEMOCRATCY shall prevail in the US.m LR
7) Surveillance has not been used for anything under the SUN not war.

Feel Sorry for US and other who cannot find Peace.

IT wasnt john mark at all his story did not work out at all because he states that he was with john benet when she died and that it was an accident and yet it is proved that john benet died in her brothers bed…
If you agree with me or have anything to say or ask me about or you know evidence please email me, me and my parents are looking deep into this case my email adress is italian.princess.jess at hotmail.com

If the transmissions from Greece were being sent to a phone in Maryland, someone must know — or at least be able to ask — whose phone that was, and where it was located. If the Greeks asked, what was the answer? And there must be phone records of calls made to and from that phone.

There must be some state law being violated in receiving illegally tapped phone calls in Maryland — wasn’t some variation of that what got Linda Tripp into trouble during Monicagate? Wouldn’t that be something that state and local law enforcement, and the phone company, would want to know about and look into?

Investigating the story might not reveal all or even some of the answers, but it might force the feds to have to block the investigation by claiming that it was a national security issue, which would confirm they were the ones who tapped the Greek phone system.Otherwise, they’d have to make at least a token effort themselves to find out who was doing it, or else it would be pretty obvious they didn’t actually want to know the answer, which again would confirm that they were in on it

http://www.alternet.org/story/40485/

By Paolo Pontoniere and Jeffrey Klein, New America Media. Posted August 19, 2006.

European investigators are tracking the mysterious deaths of two security experts who had

uncovered extensive spyware in their telecommunications firms.

—-
http://www.alternet.org/story/40485/

I agree with the concerns you list, but I’m willing to lay it on the line. I’m telling the Bush administration and its supporters that it’s “put up or shut up” time. You want warrantless wiretapping? Fine. Prove that it’s legal. Prove that you aren’t monitoring anyone other than known or alleged terrorists. And no, you don’t have to reveal state secrets. Just show us who you’ve been monitoring.

Besides, I can always borrow a Republican trick and at the end of the day, say “Sorry. I’ve decided not to support the program.”

Be careful what you wish for. If, in an attempt to satisfy people who impose those conditions, they do release the lists you ask for, what guarantee will there be that the lists will be accurate and complete? How do you know that the list will contain ONLY those people with “known al Qaeda ties and/or affiliates”, and not all the other people they did this to? “What’s Bush got to hide?” You mean besides his open disdain for telling the truth? You mean besides the fact that he doesn’t want it publicly documented that he’s a liar? You mean evidence that he broke the law and violated his oath of office?

I understand your point, I really do. But given that this president has demonstrated time and again to those who will open their eyes and their ears that he can’t be trusted to reveal the truth, I would be hesitant to give him ANY way to continue doing these claerly illegal, unconstitutional things. But one thing that would be good about your request: listening to them explain why they can’t (won’t) do it.

Comment by Briseadh na Faire — August 17, 2006 @ 11:17 pm

Nope. You’ve pretty much summed it up.

My feelings are still hurt because I could not get Mr. Big to admit the slight credibility problem with the fact that Bush is so concerned about speed when it comes to international calls, but isn’t the least bit concerned about it regarding purely domestic calls. Oh, he tried to take Bush’s side, but failed miserably.

I got a good laugh this morning when I saw a clip of Gonzales on CNN saying there was oversight of the program. What a fool. Oversight by members of your own administration doesn’t count. And informing a small (what…8 members?) group of Congresspersons of your intentions, and then swearing them to secrecy, is not oversight, either.

Finally, after much thought, I’ve decided to tell the Bush administration and the trolls here that I will support warrantless wiretapping on two conditions:

1- The admin allows a bipartisan group of Congresspersons to look at the lists of people/groups they’ve monitored thus far. Hey, the program is legal, right? What’s Bush got to hide?

2- 99% of the targets on that list are al Qaeda operatives, or people that are affiliated with al Qaeda. Remember what Bush said: “The electronic monitoring was limited to people with “known al Qaeda ties and/or affiliates.”

Thank you for standing up for the constitutition of the United States. You, by your ruling on the illegal wiretapping, have given me a new breath of hope for the future of this country I love so much. I just wanted you to know you are not alone.

We;d have a Repubnocrat.

and god forbid it’s hillary. that would extend the shelf-life on “blame clinton” for at least another quarter century.

So not all judges are yet corrupt.