None of you know with certainty just what conversations and what information is being assembled and who it is being assembled against. len, you are assuming things not in evidence. In this instance, you are in the minority, both politically and intellectually. Where I see a need for additional powers during wartime, this question is not cut and dried. If the world situation someday calms down, these additional powers granted to the government should go away. No argument. Period.

You guys can argue until the cows come home, but there is no way to know just what is being done behind the scenes in the name of "homeland security".

Actually it is you that are in the minority as most have no problem with the surveillance program.....one could extrapolate from that that you're in the intellectual minority as well.:D

But seriously, what am I assuming? That they only surveil people conversing with terrorists?
Tell me then how you knew they weren't surveiling you or other US citizens before this?

Well...........same reason.

When you eliminate oversight, you invite abuse.

len...

A suggestion:

1. Read post; recommend reading twice

2. Think about response for awhile

3. Post response

4. Do not transpose #2 and #3

I said I could understand the need during wartime, but the need should "go away" if things ever return to normal. You really have a problem with that?

If so, what? Should increased survellience be made part of our national fabric?

That's cute Bob, but again I am NOT in the minority on this and since you singled me out I assumed you disagreed with me. A generic "extra measures in wartime" comment does not tell me your stance on the program.

Glad to hear you agree with me on this.

I would of course prefer this program not exist, but I don't see the treat going anywhere soon....you?

len

Neither do I, but as jorian said, the lack of oversight invites abuse, and that is my primary concern.

Somehow, we must have accountability. How to accomplish that, I am not certain. Anyone have any ideas?

Sure, they are called warrants.

No one has ever argued credibly that NSA warrants are a hindrance to intelligence gathering. Because you can obtain them retroactively, they are incredibly flexible. Moreover, they are easy to obtain, with only the smallest fraction of a percentage being turned down.

What they do do is provide a record of who is being spied on and why, and someone from another branch that signs off. The Bush admin doesn't want a record, and they don't want to share power, however slight, with anyone else.

Fed Income Tax started as a short-term solution to raise wartime capital - for the Civil War. Now permanent. Very few federal powers go away, even as their original justification is long forgotten.

Power corrupts... absolute (read: no independent oversight or limitations) power corrupts absolutely. algorithim of human nature.

on topic... it has long been said (Greeks?) that one has achieved wisdom when he realizes that his knowledge isn't perfect, and he must strive to be open, objective and continue learning. many remain in denial.

didn't do your homework, did you? *all* international calls are (and have been for a while) monitored. every single one of them.

not that there is anything wrong with that ...
:rolleyes: Andy