Is ATT your internet provider - the NSA knows

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

That would be the Bush era.

Completely expanded and reinforced since then with broad support of Congress, passed and reinforced into law under a Demoncratically dominated Congress, and most recently supported by Obama. He could have ended it if he wanted to do so. He did not.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Completely expanded and reinforced since then with broad support of Congress, passed and reinforced into law under a Demoncratically dominated Congress, and most recently supported by Obama.

You do tend to confuse legalized wiretapping as approved by Congress with ... They even had a secret court to approve wiretaps. But even that was too much restriction for extremists. The secret court might not approve some wire taps - even though they approved all but maybe three. So extremists demanded illegal monitoring. And called that good.

These are not ongoing with Obama. Only monitoring (as best we can say) is being done with court approval. We know George Jr routinely monitored anyone they wanted for any convenient reason. We know that Qwest even refused while AT&T did it gleefully. That includes foreign leaders, top UN leadership, and, well doing things legal or honest was always a problem for George Jr and his extremists. And we know the Supreme Court will decide if Ashcroft can be prosecuted for it.

Mission Accomplished, extraordinary rendition, and torture was justified by outright lies because a political agenda was more important than America. After all, Project for a New American Century proved they were the good guys. Rationalizing made even torture acceptable.

A reality so harsh that one must ignore that history. Mission Accomplished says so much about honesty, respect for law, and the massacre 4500 American servicemen for their political agenda.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by tw

You do tend to confuse legalized wiretapping as approved by Congress with ... They even had a secret court to approve wiretaps. But even that was too much restriction for extremists. The secret court might not approve some wire taps - even though they approved all but maybe three. So extremists demanded illegal monitoring. And called that good...

I do agree with you that there is a stark difference between authorizing wiretaps outside of FISA, which occurred in the last administration as opposed to within the limits of FISA, which is now the practice (to the best of our knowledge).

Where Obama failed was his flip-flop on telecomm immunity during the heat of the campaign in 08 when he voted for theh FISA amendments that included the immunity.

Excluding the illegal actions of the past, there is not a hell of a lot of difference between the two national security policies.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Excluding the illegal actions of the past, there is not a hell of a lot of difference between the two national security policies.

A major difference is going to court to first authorize a wiretap. And to stop wiretapping even British and Australian diplomats. And stopping extraordinary rendition (international kidnapping), eliminating secret overseas prisons, and routine use of torture (as any Nazi would so love).

American wacko extremists have subverted attempts to close Guantanamo. As if those prisoners would be a serious threat inside an Illinois maximum security prison. Political rhetoric used to protect trophies of the dumbest American president - George Jr. Wacko extremists love Guantanamo especially when extremism justified imprisoning 600 innocent men for the greater glory of a political agenda. A wonderful example of the Project for a New American Century.