Poll: Most Americans Support NSA's Efforts

hanged from the highest pine tree that can be found in the State of Vermont.

but maybe you're right.

Didn't get the latest memo from "the pack".

Don't let them know about..................

argument about the public being too well informed about government issues.......

TONI

the NSA activities. That's why Congress gets informed of the activities so THEY can fix abuses privately. Not to leak it for political gain

of which you are part of.....can you imagine your chagrin if you should EVER have to admit that you WERE wrong?

We'll both have to wait for history to be written one way or the other now won't we?

TONI

if they want to spy on me, it's okay. I mentioned before that I would gladly give up some of my privacy rights to protect our country more than has been done. What would YOU sacrifice for country? Or are you one of the "Other people" who let "other people" do the protecting for you (such as our military) but only if you can quarterback YOUR way?

TONI

try biologicals, dirty bombs
and i fought 2 tours nam.
i didnt lose friends there to be over run because of mealy mouthed fools who never did squat( not refering to you)
some memebers here run ther mouths off about how bad it is here why they stay beats me if they hate it so much why stay, i know why because we protect them allow the the priviledge of liveing here.

to bad they havent earned it.

and STILL you didn't find something to ''nice'' to say to him

He was making the point that there's more to the terrorist threat than a bomb here or there. Think airliners ramming into skyscrapers. It could happen.

And the Constitution is not violated with this. It's not a privacy issue. The issue is the security of the country that enables your comfortable existence.

not an american

" didnt lose friends there to be over run because of mealy mouthed fools who never did squat( not refering to you)"

but take your time read it again.
no where was i dissing him he served alot here havent and they think they have more knowledge then the troops.

I recognize the threat of ?biologicals, dirty bombs? you point out, but my concern for their threat is a measured one as I sit and wait for the Iraqi WMDs to showup. I also recognize that folks, like Osama and his 40 Thieves, will always be envious of America and Americans and seek to do us harm. After all, envy is one of the seven deadly sins. I do not fear folks like Osama nor any of those who share his beliefs. Theirs is a fatally flawed philosophy, and they will eventually self-destruct because of it.

I am more concerned that their flawed philosophy, like the ?biologicals, dirty bombs? you refer to, will work to infect, contaminate and irreparably alter our American way of life for the worse. JP

as to wmds Iran's on the Virge of making a nuke how long b4 they sell/give it to there fellow "peace full" Muslims?
and Saddam had gas look at the Kurds.

i rather be over cautious then to say were sorry we didnt think those calls ment anything

The 1979 SCOTUS clearly found that there is NO more reasonable presumption of privacy in the phone numbers you dial or calls you receive than their is in your actions on a busy city street.

I am aware of the 1979 SCOTUS findings on the presumption of privacy regarding phone numbers, but the SCOTUS is not and has not always been infallible when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.

Recall that slavery was the SCOTUS approved law of the land for many years. So was segregation. So was genocide against Native Americans. So was Japanese-American interment camps.

Blanket searches are unreasonable, however 'evenhanded' they may be, in the traditional criminal law enforcement context. See, e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91-2, 92 n.4 ('79) (invalidating a blanket patdown search of all patrons in a tavern, even though there was probable cause to search the bartender and the premises). The ill that the Fourth Amendment prevents is not merely the arbitrariness of police discretion to single out individuals for attention, but also the unwarranted domination and control of the citizenry through fear of baseless but 'evenhanded' general police searches.

Fourth Amendment protects the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The essence of that protection is a prohibition against some modes of law enforcement because the cost of police intrusion into personal liberty is too high, even though the intrusion undoubtedly would result in an enormous boon to the public if the efficient apprehension of criminals were the sole criterion to be considered. 'The easiest course for [law enforcement] officials is not always one that our Constitution allows them to take.' Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 595 (Stevens, dissenting).

As for me personally, Evie, a straighter arrow never coursed through the Fabulous Fifties, If-It-Feels-Good-Do-It-Sixties, Synthetic Seventies, Go-Go Eighties, Dot.com Nineties and on into the New Millennium. As a result, I have been responsible for scores of NSA Analysts nodding off at their workstations for many decades now. I never have believed I was above the law, nor have I ever believed that the law was above me. I respect the law and will accept no less then the law respecting me. JP

The NSA barely has the resources to check out every suspicous pattern that may emerge. It hardly has time for the rest. The SCOTUS is not always right, but it is on this. After all, the phone companies sell your info to lots of people with your "consent" -- the government is just another one interested in the info.