August 6, 2007 1:40 PM PDT

FAQ: How far does the new wiretap law go?

Just before leaving town for a month's vacation, a divided U.S. Congress acceded to President George Bush's requests for expanded Internet and telephone surveillance powers.

Over strong objections from civil liberties groups and many Democrats, legislators voted over the weekend to temporarily rewrite a 1978 wiretapping law that the Bush administration claimed was hindering antiterrorism investigations.

To help explain what the Protect America Act of 2007 means, CNET has prepared the following Frequently Asked Questions, or FAQ list.

What does the new Protect America Act actually do?
The new law effectively expands the National Security Agency's power to eavesdrop on phone calls, e-mail messages and other Internet traffic with limited court oversight. Telecommunications companies can be required to comply with government demands, and if they do so they are immune from all lawsuits.

It also says, as George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr notes, that 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants are not needed for Internet or telephone "surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States." What that means is that the National Security Agency can plug into a switch inside the United States (when monitoring someone outside the country) without seeking a court order in advance.

How long will this law last?
The law signed by Bush is set to "sunset" in 180 days. That addition was tacked on as an amendment after last-minute negotiations among politicians and the Bush administration, who remain at odds over how a permanent law should be worded.

"Our main objective at this point was to ensure that a bill passed that would give us the tools we needed to continue to fight the war on terror," a spokeswoman for Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell told CNET on Monday. "The politics of it were such that that was the concession we were willing to make in order to get this bill passed sooner than later."

Translation: If the protracted skirmishing over the Patriot Act renewal is any indicator, this won't be settled easily, quickly or amicably.

Why did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership bring this bill to a vote over the weekend, instead of delaying it until fall or killing it outright?
The short answer? Political concerns. House of Representatives rules let the majority party control the schedule of votes, so Pelosi had the power to push back a vote indefinitely. In fact, Pelosi even said the legislation "does violence to the Constitution of the United States."

Many Democrats were worried about rushing to approve a bill just before Congress left town for a summer holiday. "Legislation should not be passed in response to fear-mongering," said Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey.

But in the end, the Democratic leadership became fearful about appearing weak in the so-called "War on Terror" and interfering with intelligence gathering, and scheduled the vote before they left town. Liberal publications such as Mother Jones responded by saying: "The Democrats can rest easily over the August recess knowing that they haven't left themselves vulnerable to political attacks. The rest of us can worry about whether the NSA is using its enhanced surveillance authority to spy on Americans." An article on was even less complimentary.

Weren't there some concerns about a recent court ruling?
Yes, although details remain murky. House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told Fox News last week: "There's been a ruling, over the last four or five months, that prohibits the ability of our intelligence services and our counterintelligence people from listening in to two terrorists in other parts of the world where the communication could come through the United States." Because the ruling--and even the existence of a ruling--is not public, there's no way to tell what's really going on.

A subsequent Los Angeles Times article says it was a ruling by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that imposed new restrictions on the National Security Agency's ability to intercept communications that are between people overseas, but that "transit" U.S. data networks operated by Internet service providers and telecommunications companies. The newspaper, citing an anonymous source, said the FISA ruling dealt with a request for a "basket warrant," meaning a kind of dragnet approach rather than warrants issued on a case-by-case basis for surveillance of specific terrorism suspects.

The Washington Post elaborated on the impact of the ruling, saying its effect was to block the NSA's efforts to collect information from a large volume of foreign calls and e-mails that pass through U.S. communications nodes clustered around New York and California.

The FISA court is relevant because Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in January that the Bush administration would seek its approval for future electronic surveillance.

What does this mean for lawsuits against the telecommunications companies for allegedly opening their networks to the NSA in violation of federal law?
It may be too early to tell. The Justice Department declined to comment about the various pending suits, and the ACLU said it was still assessing the effect of the new law on its case.The law does immunize telecommunications companies going forward, but does not exempt them from legal liability before this week. So the court challenges would become weaker but could, at least in theory, continue.

CONTINUED: Privacy advocates' take…
Page 1 | 2

See more CNET content tagged:
NSA, law, vote, FAQ, Democrat


Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Wait for it, wait for iiiit....
Queue the comments that say, "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." The implication that if you don't want Big Brother Government prying into your business, you must be doing something wrong. Hey, why not put a camera in your bathroom, or your bedroom, so the NSA can make sure you're not doing anything wrong? You could be making bombs or plotting an attack in there! You oppose? You must be with the terrists!

The second thing to realize is who gets to decide whether something is wrong. If you're George W., opposing the war is wrong. You can bet the NSA listens to Cindy Sheehan's phone calls. If you're Hillary, then owning a gun is doing something wrong and she'll direct the NSA to listen to the phone calls of gun owners.

Are war protesters doing something wrong? I don't think so. Are gun owners who want guns for protection wrong? I don't think so. But then, I'm not the Decider.

It's time to end warrantless spying on American citizens and authoritarian government.
Posted by chris_d (195 comments )
Reply Link Flag
They're not spying on U.S. citizens who don't make calls to terrorists.
This comment doesn't make sense. A lot of the surveillance involves foreign nationals who are living here. I'm sorry but if you're an Iranian talking to people in Iran, you'd better expect to have your phone calls checked. It's only common sense. It's not "big brother". It's America trying to protect itself.
Posted by lingsun (482 comments )
Link Flag
Take a deep breath
Everybody needs to stop and think.

How did the 9/11 terrorists pull it off? They got in the country on visas and remained after they expired; they got legitimate ID documents from states; they communicated by e-mail, phone and IM or text messages.

How come the US had no clue. Because they didn't enforce the visa or illegal immigration laws; because each of the 50 states they had different standards as to who could get documents that implied they are in the country legitimately; and, because we have such stringent laws on communications survellience that, in some places, it is illegal for you to record a conversation unless you tell the other person you are doing it. Even in your own home or office.

Sure progress is slow on the others. This is the last loophole being plugged. Today there is the capability for a cellular call originating from a phone OUTSIDE the US to make calls without being detected as a international call. I see it all the time. But, then, I live on the border.

Most of the drug and people smugglers caught have cell phones and can communicate at will. Most folks who read these pages are savvy enough to dream how VoIP can take advantage of this gap in survellience. It is possible for a VoIP phone to place a call to a US phone completely undetected because the last hop is through the rabbit hole I have just described. The present system sees it as a call made within the US to a phone in the US. This latest law does much to plug that hole.

Unfortunately, most of the people in the US don't live here and they don't see or hear about the armed gangs that are protecting their cargos of humans or drugs. Gangs that have better communications and armament than our National Guard or Border Patrol. Gangs that are available, for a price, to protect any smuggled shipment - including terrorists and their materials.

What is possible makes it scary. These people are not interested in the border area, it's Chicago, Minneapolis, Denver, Omaha, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Boise, St. Louis, Tulsa and other big cities in the heartland.

Let the government plug the loophole, and if anyone in the government knowingly and willingly violates that law, then prosecute them.
Posted by GEBERWEIN (75 comments )
Link Flag
RIP Bill of Rights
Lets cut to the chase and just do away with the Constitution all together. Nobody in "our" government seems to respect it anyway, and as far as they're concerned, it just gets in their way.
Posted by anomalator (83 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You'll be the first..
And you'll be the first in line to vilify the government for
incompetence when a nuke goes off in an American city. "How
come they didn't find out about this before it happened?", you
and you ilk will lament. You'll also be the first to demand
impeachment when it comes out they could have found out in
time except they couldn't get a warrant in time. "How stupid can
they be!" you will howl at the top of your voice.

Your ilk would be funny if you weren't so dangerously naive.
Posted by lkrupp (1608 comments )
Link Flag
CNET is officially one of "Them"
It's interesting to read an article and manages to give every
single individual or organization full immunity for turning our
country into a tyranny ridden police state. We know that nearly
all mainstream press is controlled by four mega corporations
that have been specializing in yellow journalism since the false
ratification of the 16th and formation of the private bank better
known as the Federal Reserve (which still has refused to identify
over 80% of it's members).

Nope, CNET is not a true independent non-bias news source,
but a line towing Bilderberg / NeoCon organization that is doing
its part to ensure that the citizens of the world think that losing
all our civil liberties is okay. RFID chips in every person in the
world is a great technological development we should be excited

I remember when CNET was pure and edgy, and wrote articles,
all articles that read nothing like the blathering fluff pieces for
the end of our freedoms. You best believe that when an internet
startup needs venture capital to operate, it will sell its soul to
stay alive, and that's is the rest of the story.
Posted by drtyrell (26 comments )
Reply Link Flag
"Live Free or Die" NH state moto
here are some others...

"Thus Always to Tyrants" - Virginia
"Virtue, Liberty, and Independence" - Pennsylvania
"By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty" Massachusetts
"Freedom and Unity" - Vermont
" Liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable" - North Dakota
"Liberty and Prosperity" - New Jersey
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain" - Iowa
"The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness" - Hawaii
"Liberty and Independence" - Delaware
"The people rule" Arkansas
"We Dare Defend Our Rights" - Alabama

nuff said...
Posted by dondarko (261 comments )
Reply Link Flag
If you're calling Afghanistan your call should be tapped
People making phone calls to foreign countries that support terrorism should have their phones tapped. The same is true if you're calling Muslims overseas. Back in WWII they put thousands of Japanese citizens in concentration camps. This is nothing compared to that.
Posted by lingsun (482 comments )
Reply Link Flag
When Bush calls his buddies in Saudi Arabia, the conversation needs to be recorded and analyzed by our oh so incompetent intelligence agencies. After all, the majority of the foreign insurgents killing Americans in Iraq are Saudis.

So the government is supposed to know if the person on the other end of a call in England is Muslim?

Why stop the totalitarian train there?

How about if an American who happens to be Muslim, calls another American Muslim? They must be up to no good because as every brain-dead inbred racist knows, all, or at least most of the Muslims support terror. So we better spy on them also.

Lets not stop there. We should tap all Midwestern residents whenever they make a call. Let us not forget who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma.

Hmm, I still do not feel safe. Lets tap every call and put surveillance cameras everywhere, including everyones bedroom, because people need to know what the rest of us are up to 24/7.

Or, lets make things easier on everyone. All the cowardly idiots who think a false sense of security is more important then the freedoms that millions have fought and died for, should move to China. The government policies are closer to their liking, and I know the government would love to have more lemmings. All who voted for this travesty should be jailed upon the inevitable conviction for treason. Then the rest of us can make reasonable and intelligent safety measures that do not destroy the constitution.

Isn't it ironic that Bin Laden is more free and safer from the US government then American citizens are?
Posted by The_Decider (3097 comments )
Link Flag
Yahhhh!!! That is a good point. let's lock all-o-dem Mooslims up!
None of them outsiders are to be trusted! By the way most every
nation in history has and still does support terrorism they just call
it protecting their national interests.
Posted by Machaira (19 comments )
Link Flag
I thought Afganistan was an ally
When did that change?
Posted by davez2006 (17 comments )
Link Flag
Bush Needs People Like You
Is there any line that you would not cross? Are you so afraid, so cowardly that you would support any measure? Does freedom mean anything to you?

Your benchmark is an obscenity, and in your small, fascist world anything that does not rise to that level is okay. Has it occurred to you that others might have higher standards?

It is people like you that become informers, ratting out their neighbours in the vain hope that someday they won't come for you! There is no Al Qaida, there is only blowback from the many, manyatrocities that the bush junta has inflicted on the world. People like you, cowardly little worms, make the bile rise up in my throat. You are nothing but a frightened cipher. If you want to give up your freedoms go ahead, but don't try and take mine.
Posted by gary_7vn (15 comments )
Link Flag
Left-leaning reporting
Okay folks, calm down. Any proof that the "evil" Bush has ever
listened in on any phone calls he shouldn't have? Hmmm... I
didn't think so. Second, how do you think we can stop terrorists
plans ahead of time... or should we just wait until the next "9-
11." Third, this concept that somehow the "evil" Bush has come
up with wiretapping (warrant-less) in nonsense. Have you ever
heard of Project ESCHELON? That was conducted during the
Clinton administration (and maybe before, who knows?)
<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

Finally, how about some balance in the reporting? All the outside
experts and opinions are against the wiretapping. This is more
about the political ramifications of the bill than what it actually
does. These reporters need to get outside of the Bay Area
political bubble and realize that there is more to life than the
fate of the Democrat party (and the plots of the "evil" President
Bush.) End rant. Thanks for listening.

Everyone, have a nice day. Really.
Posted by Alpah Trion (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Since when is freedom only the province of the "left"?

I remember when even republicans believed in freedom.
Posted by The_Decider (3097 comments )
Link Flag
Really rational
What is the point in bringing up Clinton. Is Cnet supposed to
report on something that took place over 8 years ago? The real
issue is that no government can be or should be trusted and
this administration has done more than any other to make
oversight by the very people that they are supposed to serve
impossible. So I think a little skepticism is reasonable. or should
we just wait until American citizens start disappearing off the
streets and held in undisclosed locations without charge or
trial? Oh wait that already happened.
Posted by Machaira (19 comments )
Link Flag
ESCHELON is not what you think.
ESCHELON started in the 1960's. It is only for military use. It can not be used to prosecute anyone. Evidence collected by ECHELON can not be used in a court of law.

ECHELON can not be used against a citizen or legal resident of the United States, nor can it be used on anyone in the United States.

Before the new law, the Executive branch had the right to wiretap on anyone they wanted at any time. The Executive branch just had to file for a FISA warrant within 72 hours of the search.

Any request by the President for powers beyond this is proof that he has violated his oath of office. Anyone in office that supports this is a traitor.
Posted by ralfthedog (1589 comments )
Link Flag
How much processing power do they have?..
...cause if they **** everybody off, I think they may run out quickly... *cough!*encryption*cough*

We have too many reasons to encrypt stuff already. If ISP's had their heads on straight (didn't worry about your traffic on the connection that you payed for i.e. blocking port 80, http, throttling torrents, etc...) And we had faith that we would see due process always, and our government was more transparent, I wouldn't mind.

None is the case. If only we had a revised networking protocol stack...

IP w/ null/random ports
anything (I intend to leverage p2p to host my own social networking profile)

OpenDNS' cooperation will be needed as well...
Posted by ethana2 (348 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I hear peoples cell phone conversations all the time
No wire tap is needed! Most people don't care about privacy. The other day some lady was talking about her medical test results in the grocery store line. Do you wanna know if she was positive for hepetitus B?
Posted by bobby_brady (765 comments )
Reply Link Flag
None of my business
So she does not care, but I bet an insurance company would. This example is irrelevant. The point is whether or not the gov should spy on people in a wholesale manner. The key phrase is "false positives". Do you really want to go to gitmo cause someone, in secret, thinks you are a bad guy. I have friends who are Palestinians, should they spy on me? That's a rhetorical question.
Posted by gary_7vn (15 comments )
Link Flag
Bush PWNS his liberal puppets
Mwahahahaha! The Democrats puppeted the voters when they said "Bush is ruining your rights and we will fight it". The Dem voters actually believed this, and elected them. Idiots... Now the Dem voters look like they were duped. No way around it. Must be nice to have an army of puppets who will believe anything you tell them.
Posted by gerhard_schroeder (311 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Do you believe the lies
of Bush, Cheney, Gonzo, et al?
Posted by The_Decider (3097 comments )
Link Flag
Thawte offers free email certificates that will allow a reasonably
safe way to encrypt and authenticate emails. Visit:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

if you want more information.
Posted by rbannon (96 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Encryption is the fast track to gitmo
The easiest way to get yourself on a list is to send encrypted messages. This red flags you big time. Who is this guy? What is he hiding? What does the message say? Who is he sending it to? Start a file, let's get into his life.

If I sound paranoid it's because I have to be. They are watching, they are making lists. Don't send encrypted emails. They don't like that.
Posted by gary_7vn (15 comments )
Link Flag
Thanks a lot washington
Thanks a lot Washington for sticking out
for the PEOPLE. May be you'll find the WMD or osama yeah right. It will be interesting to see when these backdoors given to the agencies are found by hackers what's gonna happen then. I tell you what! nothing No one will be responsible and with the law telecommunications companies will be liable free. Good job Ass..les
Posted by julius027 (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Does it matter?
It doesn't matter what is signed or allowed as for the past years, the administration has not been playing by the rules anyway... sigh...
Posted by mgmchan (9 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Oath of Office.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

When any President takes office, he takes an oath to first and foremost preserve, protect and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States. This is more important than stopping terrorists, cutting taxes, or preventing a Nuclear bomb from detonating in New York harbor.

The United States can survive any attack from terrorists. If we forsake the Constitution, we will no longer be America.

I do not believe the man in office has lived up to his oath.
Posted by ralfthedog (1589 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Hey, nobody watching so ...
how 'bout listening in on that daughter of yours?

Ever wonder what Bill Gates is telling people these days?

What's really bad is when the whole of America suddenly realizes that's they're on a party line, what will that do to private speech?
Posted by CharlesRovira (97 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Great Article
Thanks for the information Cnet!!
Posted by chasejackd (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
It's my understanding that all VoIP traffic is considered international in nature (or can be routed out and back into the country). I think it's now open season on VoIP.
Posted by Amairgen (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The Question Is Not How Far Does It Go;
The question is how far will this, and other administrations, bend it, abuse it, lie about it, cover it up, enhance it, ignore it, lie about it, conspire about it, etc. Good luck to those innocent civilians who get strung out in a supersecret investigation, cloaked in the 'national security' smoke of this law.
Posted by dayebreak (27 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The law isn't a big deal at all
First of all, it's what these organizations actually do (legal or not) that matters. Then, it's a matter of what you believe the organizations do with the information they gather.

Beyond all of that, if there were such a broad listening net, winnowing through the untold petabytes of information would require a ridiculous amount of processing power. Just think of how much CPU speech-recognition takes---and that is ONE voice, not millions of voices in various languages and dialects. And that's not including e-mail or videos, or any type of encryption.

So, if such resources did exist, they wouldn't bother checking every person because of the volume of data and effort required.

Therefore, I don't see the law as being such a big deal.
Posted by bluemist9999 (1020 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Great comment
Great comment and concept.
Sadly the news media does the nation a disservice by flaming the fuels of passion through creative writing. What they say is the truth; but, it's just those parts they want to have known so they can form public opinion. Which is more fun than simply reporting it.

One great big news media has said they intend to do just that. A top Gannett News Service executive made remarks about that goal in a conference for teachers in Rochester NY a few years ago. Gannett publishes a lot of newspapers, including USA Today. Go figure.
Posted by GEBERWEIN (75 comments )
Link Flag
Not a big deal?
A law that gives incompetent liars who have put themselves above the law unfettered authority to tap anyone making an international call on mere suspicion with no oversight is not a big deal?

A law that is in direct violation of the bill of rights is not a big deal?

Where do you people come from? Are you so cowardly that you can't think through your irrational fear? When did it become OK to act like the soviet union did?
Posted by The_Decider (3097 comments )
Link Flag
All Kinds of Prices
There are all kinds of prices to pay for the political and personal
freedoms that we Americans have heretofore taken as our
collective, God-given rights. And I'm not referring to our right
to buy as much gasoline as we want to as much as I'm talking
about the more fundamental and timeless rights that are
Constitutionally established.

We can pay with our lives by going overseas to stamp out
would-be intruders headed for our country or that can attack us
from afar, and/or we can pay right here at home by having to
put up with the occasional individual or group that pushes their
freedom of speech right too far, or abuses our understanding of
"free enterprise" by pushing the boundaries of what we would
consider fair competition. Occassionally we will even pay the
ultimate price right here at home - terrorism with loss of life
directly from the citizenary. Is it worth it? For me the answer is

I firmly believe that the level of security we had prior to 9/11,
domestically, was more than adequate. Adding endless amounts
of domestic security, above and beyond what we had before
9/11, will never guarantee that the U.S.A. will not be infiltrated
from time to time. I think the personal rights that we believed
we had prior to 9/11 were already on some kind of a line
between what could be considered reasonable and not, and I do
not believe that adding more than that will yield anything good
for the American people in the long run, including security.

Some might argue that the relative safety we've had since 9/11
is all because of more stingent domestic security practices, but I
think that simply going after Bin Laden [remember him?], and
subsequently Sadaam, together did far more than anything we've
done domestically to keep things relatively quiet on the home
front. Prior to 9/11 we had all of the departments and
subdivisions that we needed to handle domestic terrorism, did
they need improving, and perhaps even some reorganizing?

Intended or not I see that the U.S.A. is moving headlong toward
a bout of facism that we've never experienced before and I'm
decidely leary of this new development on the heals of 9/11. We
have already given up more freedoms than we even fully
understand (but thanks for the info anyway CNET), and giving
away more is not going to net a corresponding level of security -

I believe in and trust our current president, but will the next
president be trustworthy, will the president that leads our
country when I'm dead and gone be trustworty? I think that real
Americans will avoid even putting themselves in a situation
where they will almost inevitably, sooner or later, be fighting
their own government to preserve their personal freedoms.
Posted by rbiz (49 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Perplexing comments
How can you trust Bush? His actions has weakened America.

The recent report on the strength of the real al qaeda in Pakistan shows what a huge mistake going into Iraq and ignoring Bin Laden was.

Not to mention the lies he spouted to start his personal war.

He is the one demanding for all these attacks on our freedoms and considers the constitution to be merely a piece of paper.

Every single thing he has done as president has been a failure and made things worse.

How can you trust someone that trusts Gonzales?

How can you trust someone that allows his vice president to be responsible to no one?

What has he done to gain your trust, yet you can also see how messed up our country has become since 9/11.

How has gong after Saddam made us safer?

He was never a threat to us.

He was not involved in 9/11

Attacking Iraq have created more terrorists and destabilized that country and the region.

Attacking Iraq and totally ignoring Bin Laden has allowed him to regain strength and he is as big of a threat today as he was in 2001.

So once again, how in the hell do you trust and support this clown?

But most perplexing of all:

"I think that real Americans will avoid even putting themselves in a situation where they will almost inevitably, sooner or later, be fighting their own government to preserve their personal freedoms."

This is the path that Bush put us on.
Posted by The_Decider (3097 comments )
Link Flag
Geek Press Beats MSM, Again
This is coming from an experienced political blogger and observer of the MSM: this kid McCullagh runs rings around any mainstream news outlet you could name--he's better than WaPo, NYT, any of the TV networks, and the press services (with the possible exception of McClatchey). This is journalism the way it's supposed to be done: scratching the surface, going into detail, and handling the toughest questions without getting distracted by the superficial or by the spin coming out of any camp.

Geeks, you're lucky to have a resource like this available in your primary news outlet.
Posted by bdonohue1 (25 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The real problem....
is not that we shouldn't do everything we can to protect the Nation and Citizens from Terrorism, it's that the US Government Bureaucrats have proven time and again that they are over zealous and can't be trusted.

The latest example is the dips---t from TSA saying he is single handedly going to scuttle the Registered Traveller Program.

I am not a liberal, not quite a conservative either, but I come down on the side of the civil liberty folks on this one.
Posted by kenny-J (53 comments )
Reply Link Flag
wiretapping services
OOnce again it just shows thqat no matter who you put in office, they'll promise you the mmoon but give you junk.
Posted by technofreek (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Terror wins again
Though tragic the loss of life when terrorism struck on 9/11, more tragic is the loss of freedoms that America has suffered since. The attacks gave those who would see our freedoms perish a giant push forward. Even the Democrats are afraid of looking weak on the "War on Terrorism". We cannot ignore the threat but we cannot nor should we allow the threat to take from us that which makes this country great, Bin Laden and those like him win with each freedom erroded away. It seems that we must continually be at war with something. War on Drugs was the fear monger of the 90s now it is the war on terror. When will we quit going to war, and begin living in peace? Why must our politicians rule by fear? I am tired of the charade.
Posted by jhmblvd (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Wiretap law
My comment is this. Congress shouldn't be allowed to go on their summer break as long as we are at war. Additionally, when laws are being decided and congress is afraid to do something because of an August summer break, they shouldn't be allowed to leave!
Posted by mizellie (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Yes we are being tapped.
Yes we are being tapped, a computer is looking at our phone conversations and texts and e-mail. And you know I don't care about that because I am a good guy.
What I do care about is the people doing the tapping don't like oversite, and that bothers me allot. We all(even intellingence gathering comunities), should be accountable to someone.
Posted by bhrater (23 comments )
Reply Link Flag

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot



RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.