Posted by Eva, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2007 at 10:54 pm

I saw this; it's pretty sad, and a futher indicator of just how far afield the Cheney/Bush regime has gone, as regards the maintenence of basic human rights, and privacy.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2007 at 4:09 am

There is no "basic human right" to privacy for public acts. There is a constitutional right to limited privacy within limited scope. Only an idiot demands that the people tasked to protect us must blind themselves to even overt acts.

Posted by amazed, but not surprised., a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2007 at 8:22 am

Wow...people really think that decisions arise from a vacuum? That one month after a change in Presidency all decisions arise strictly from the new Administration? That before Bush there was nothing already leading up to the request?

Amazing...the same people who think Bush is stupid think he somehow transformed all people and policies in 28 days after taking office.

Completely amazing.

Posted by Here we go again, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2007 at 8:27 am

Eva, please study a little of the truth about WHO the "warrantless wire taps" were and are for, and a little history about our "privacy rights" throughout our country's history.

You may also have noted the deafening silence of every other democracy in the world as it pertains to criticizing the "warrantless wiretaps" of the USA. Could it be because nobody wants to draw attention to how much less "privacy" they have from their OWN govts?

Posted by Patriot, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 15, 2007 at 10:20 am

do two wrongs make a right?

Posted by Anonymous, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 15, 2007 at 10:45 am

Are we a country which believes in the rule of law and checks and balances? It isn't that some wiretaps are necessary but that they were done illegally without court supervision. Do you support the Constitution or not?

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 15, 2007 at 8:44 pm

Every nation exercises at least nominal control of cross border traffic. The only expectation of secrecy in cross border communication is the diplomatic pouch.

Posted by give me a break., a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2007 at 12:24 pm

What I find hilarious is that the very people, like both Clintons, who decry the "warrantless wiretaps" of NON-citizen known or suspected terrorists calling into the US from OUTSIDE of the US are the very ones who stay mum on the fact that the Clintons "warrantless wiretapped" USA CITIZENS who opposed them...guess political warrantless wiretapping is ok, but any tapping done to save lives isn't.

Posted by give me a break., a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2007 at 12:25 pm

By the way...please find the part in the Constitution that says wiretaps must be done under court supervision..tell me which part it is..then we will talk. Or is it that it is CONSTITUTIONAL for every President to be able to fire Attorney Generals at will...except when Bush does it, suddenly it is unconstitutional?

The hypocrisy is disgusting.

Posted by just thinking, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2007 at 12:38 pm

I have been there!!!!

Any one else know wghere the NSA is?????

Posted by Hey, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2007 at 1:36 pm

"Give me a break",

Please present some evidence for your claim about the Clintons. It's clear from the article and the government documents cited that Bush's program included records of domestic phone calls, not just international calls as you suggest.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, in full:

"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."

The Fourth Amendment requires that law enforcement lay out what they're looking for and why. It prohibits the sort of data mining that the Bush administration employed (employs) in this case.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Hey, Hey, show us where we are guaranteed the right to secret communication across the national borders.

Posted by Hey, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Walter,

Perhaps you read my post incorrectly. I said:

"It's clear from the article and the government documents cited that Bush's program included records of domestic phone calls, not just international calls as you suggest."

Why should I address the international aspect when you haven't addressed the purely domestic aspect?

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2007 at 4:28 pm

I question the definition, however I believe we need to redefine privacy within the context of current technology. I can make no claim to privacy for something I make no attempt to keep private. The courts err when they find such a right.

Posted by eric, a resident of Mountain View, on Oct 17, 2007 at 12:45 pm

The ease with which the converted accept and DEFEND the governments right to spy on its citizens explains the Soviet rise quite nicely. The very things that the right--properly--used to criticize our cold war adversary for are now accepted easily and enthusiastically. Bizarre.