CNN has a page open now for commenting on spying

[bonito]

Link http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1k.html

[TheGunslinger]

1. Thanks!

Never.

I repeat: Never

[cry baby]

2. Thanks - will gladly comment, and say Merry Christmas to NSA.

[babylonsister]

Done and thanks.

Under NO circumstances do I want my government to SPY on any U.S. citizen without proper authorization from a third non-partisan party. The president was selected, not named king, and last time I looked, this is not a dictatorship.

[helderheid]

3. my comments

Undo no condition should secret eavesdropping on U.S. citizens be acceptable. "Give me liberty or give me death." This kind of behaviour by our government means the terrorists really have won. It's the death of our Democracy.

[benburch]

4. My comment

"When a President orders spying on an American Citizen without probable cause sufficient to receive a warrant from a secret court, then that President has violated his oath of office and needs to step down."

[w8liftinglady]

5. great responses,everybody

[BuyingThyme]

6. My response:

After a warrant is legally issued.

Why do you ask such a stupid question?

[NewJeffCT]

38. sounds similar to my response

though, i was a bit wordier.

[Bonhomme Richard]

7. Couldn't help but think that the the list of names.................

will promptly be turned over to NSA and added to thier software.

[BulletproofLandshark]

8. Here's mine

"Secret eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without a warrant is illegal, unethical, and immoral and should never be tolerated. We left monarchy behind during the American Revolution, despite what the president may believe. Anyone who would sacrifice their civil liberties for a temporary (and false) sense of security is a fool and a coward."

[Walt Starr]

9. Here's mine

Wiretaps and secret eavesdropping is only acceptable as it exists under the current law. Mr. Bush has the authority to begin a wiretap immediately and seek a warrant up to 72 hours later under the FISA statutes.

Instead, we have a president who thinks he's a king and above the law. That makes this president more dangerous than those he claims are the threat from whom he is protecting us!

[TriMetFan]

10. I said we don't live in the former U.S.S.R.

[rpgamerd00d]

11. Here is my email to CNN:

I feel that the Patriot Act threatens our civil rights and that it needs to be removed. Our government should never round up innocent people only because of their religion or ethnicity, and we should never stifle free expression. In addition, the NSA wiretapping that is occurring is a direct violation of our Right to Privacy provided by our Constitution. The President today stated they are not "monitoring", they are "detecting". This means, in laymans terms, that they are using computers to analyze every single phone call made my Americans, and not just calls from those under some kind of suspicion. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. We should never give up a freedom for the sake of safety. Its a risk, but its what our country is all about - Freedom. What people forget is that American Citizenship is hard - its supposed to be hard. That's what makes it great. If American Citizenship wasn't hard, then it wouldn't be the best place to live on Earth. Our founding fathers used a phrase: "Give me Liberty, or give me Death." It means, I would rather die than live without my freedoms and liberties. And every good American agrees with that sentiment.

[BobRossi]

12. Thanks, here's mine:

Never. This administration has become the very enemy that it purports to defend America from.

[fooj]

13. My comment...

It is NEVER acceptable unless a warrant has been issued. This isn't about terrorism. This is about DISSENT. Wake up!

peace.

[BuyingThyme]

14. They're doing the story now.

[justabob]

15. here's mine

Secret eavesdropping is not ok... ever. There are a lot of reasons why, but I think the Fourth Ammendment to the US Constitution is the clearest, and most important one. Have you read the Constitution lately? I highly recommend a quick read.

I want to know why no one in the press has commented on the fact that during the conference today, Bush basically said he was above the law and that because he is president he can do whatever he wants. You people realize he just declared himself dictator, don't you? He basically just threw 225+ years of American principles and tradition out the window, and did so proudly proclaiming his righteousness. Is this ok with you, the reader of this note, or you, CNN? Doesn't this deserve a bit of attention? No, I guess not, because all you guys see fit to talk about is holiday gifts for techies, santaphobia, and deja vu.

Thanks for nothing,
justabob

[helderheid]

16. oooh good one!

[justabob]

21. thank you nt

[CrispyQ]

28. Excellent!!

You should consider sending this to your local paper as a LTTE!

:yourock:

[justabob]

29. Thanks

I might try for LTTE, but it's the Dallas Morning News for me locally, and somehow I don't see this, or anything remotely like it, making it to print, but thank you!

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. done. Here's what I said......

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security"....Benjamin Franklin

ENOUGH SAID!

[understandinglife]

18. Here's mine.

Bush confessed to crimes on National Radio/TV -- Mirandize and book him.

Here's George Walker Bush's confession:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/politics/17text-bush.html

Here's the law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa

Here's the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04

Cut the claptrap, yammer-yamering and Mirandize and book him ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5621982

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW IN AMERICA.


Peace,
UL

[helderheid]

19. yea!!!!!!!!!!!

:bounce: :toast: :applause: :yourock:

[Dinger]

25. Oh My . . . Hope Like Hell This Gets On!

Oh my God, AWESOME!

Here's mine - I'm almost embarrassed to post it, after your well-thought response, but here it is:

Eavesdropping on U.S. citizens? Are you crazy? That,
my Bu$h-loving CNN would NEVER be acceptable!

[w8liftinglady]

31. Awesome e-mail..

Wwhen are they going to post these?

[sojourner]

20. my response -

When we decide to become a dictatorship, with a gov't sponsored/controlled media and when citizens' rights are seen as a threat to the security of the gov't. OH! Wait! Is that what we've become? --- Not really kidding, sadly.

[Triana]

22. Hi NSA...

Never. The Fourth Amendment to the Consitution spells this out in detail, however our President apparently thinks he is above the law and has repeatedly disregarded the constitution and the laws he SWORE TO UPHOLD when he was sworn in as President.

In response to Dick Cheney's assertion that "if we'd done wiretapping and spying on U.S. citizens before 9-11, we might have been able to prevent it", I have THIS to say:

ARE YOU AWARE that the 9-11 hijaackers were NOT U.S. citizens? They were Saudis.

I repeat: They were NOT U.S. citizens.

So how does their doing what they did justify our government spying on U.S. citizens? I DON'T THINK SO!

And another thing regarding prevention of 9-11:

Bill Clinton certainly was more attentive to the issue of terrorism than bu$hco ever THOUGHT of being.

CLINTON had daily meetings with the intel community to keep up with what was going on with terrorists - what they were up to. EVERY DAY he did this.

When bu$h got in the White House, guess what happened?

Those daily meetings STOPPED immediately -- and they haven't happened since except for Dick Cheney personally visiting CIA HQ on a daily basis to pressure them to come up with SOME reason (flimsy or otherwise) to invade Iraq *after* 9-11 (even though Iraq had not a damned thing to DO with 9-11)

And that PDB George Bu$h received on August 6, 2001 - the one that said "al Queda Determined to Strike Inside the US" - bu$h ignored it.

HE DIDN'T EVEN READ IT.

It's really sad how the bu$h administration got caught with its pants down on terrorism. But how does THAT justify their spying on their own U.S. citizens to "prevent terrorism"? How's that going to help?

The bu$h administration's #1 priority when it arrived at the White House was TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH and that is where 110% of their attention was and NOWHERE ELSE at that time.

And, sure enough, that's when we got attacked. THEY TOOK THEIR EYE OFF THE BALL. They were too busy eyeing greenbacks instead.

Now, if bu$hco had not been so lacadaisacal about the threat of terrorism when they first came into the White House, maybe THAT would helped prevent 9-11.

And JUST HOW does their failure to keep close tabs on the issue of terrorism prior to 9-11 justify their spying on U.S. citizens? IT DOESN'T.

What about that idea of an "Office of Homeland Security"?

It was BILL CLINTON'S. This came directly from the Hart-Rudman recommendations on terrorism. That committee was formed and driven by BILL CLINTON. NOT George Bush, BILL CLINTON.

And the final report that committee submitted - full of recommendations on what to do to deal with the threat of terrorism, WAS SUBMITTED to George Bu$h on January 31, 2001.

Guess what he did with it?

Circular file.

IGNORED

NOT even read

Until AFTER 9-11 when bu$h oh-so-reluctantly formed the OHS.

SO...

How will allowing our gov't to spy on us Americans citizens help stop terrorism then -- if our own government's failure and lack of proper priorities - the same gov't what wants to tap our phone calls and read our emails -- is the REAL culprit?

To review:

1. the 9-11 hijaackers were Sauds and NOT U.S. citizens so using 9-11 as an excuse to spy on U.S. citizens is redicilous. It makes no sense.

2. bu$hco didn't do their job. Their pants were down, and al Queda stuck a piece of dynamite up their rear ends and lit it.

And the NSA (HELLOOO NSA!) spying on me or you isn't going to prevent that from happening again.

Here's what you do:

GET A PRESIDENT WHO DOES HIS JOB and stop allowing him and his administration to use idiotic EXCUSES, McCarthy-like tactics, and dictator-like government policies to usurp civil liberties and to justify spying on our own citizens when there IS NO JUSTIFICATION for it.

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, illegal, and George W. Bush ought to be IMPEACHED for having done it, underhandly, underneath the view of the RULE OF LAW - the same law HE SWORE TO UPHOLD when he took office.

THERE IS NO WAY, I'm going to swallow the jizz Dick Cheney is selling regarding this issue. He'll have to get Monica for that because the rest of us are NOT swallowing.

HAPPY *********HOLIDAYS***********

[Odin2005]

23. My E-mail:

Ben Franklin had a famous quote: "Anyone who trades essential liberty for temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security."

Eavesdropping on citizens is fine as long as one gets a warrent. If President Bush was really doing this just on terrorists, there would be no problem getting a warrent. That fact that he wants to keep who he is eavesdropping from the eyes of a judge suggests he is looking at innocent people. This reminds me of J. Edgar Hoover's stacks of records of people he didn't like. The president is acting above the law, this is grounds for impeachment. This country fought for its freedom from arbitrary rule; we don't need another King George.

[Giant Robot]

24. Here's mine

Never and let me briefly explain why.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution: 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.

That should be clear enough.

[vanboggie]

26. I too cited the 4th

After saying "read the below, then arrest and impeach those who violated it."

[Judi Lynn]

27. Also, you might want to vote on their question of the day,on spying

Do you agree with President Bush that secret wiretaps are needed to protect the American people?

Yes_______ 41%____ 30303 votes

No________59%____ 43403 votes

Total:_____ 73706 votes

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WHY on earth would 41% vote IN FAVOR of _Bush's spying on Americans? Something's a little strange here!

On edit:

www.cnn.com

(Lower right part of the page)

[indepat]

30. I challenged CNN to get to the bottom of this by finding out who the 30M

were: were they mostly grave threats to national security or mostly just those who had demonstrated of voiced dissent? :shrug:

[mwb970]

32. Here's my response.

NEVER, assuming by "secret" you mean "with no judicial or Congessional oversight, with no warrant, violating the Constitution and the law put into place after Watergate to prevent exactly this kind of abuse".

Who does this president think he is? Who told him he could ignore the Constitution (you remember, that "god-damned piece of paper" that is the basis of our nation)? Who told him that he could break any law he wants whenever he feels like it?

These are the actions of a king or dictator, NOT an American president. I am outraged! BUSH MUST GO - and soon!

[Nickster]

33. Got mine in. Mentioned 4th amendment, Rule of Law, Impeachment, and

of course, mentioned that they should ask themselves whether they(journalists) were targets of the illegal wiretaps, since any other situation would have been easy enough to do following existing law.

[dutchdemocrat]

34. Here's what I sent.

Secret eavesdropping on U.S. citizens should only be acceptable with a court order from FISA. As per George Bush's comments in Buffalo in 1994.

_____

President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall
Buffalo, New York

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
_______

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=50711&keyword=wiretap&phrase=&contain=

[More Than A Feeling]

35. "It is acceptable when the administration actually bothers

to follow the laws set down by congress concerning such wiretaps. Ignoring Congress and the courts is never acceptable. George W. Bush is not a king, and he is not above the law."

[Supersedeas]

36. done

[Javaman]

37. here is mine...

It's become almost comical, the daily corrupt republican of the day.

Now, in complete violation of the U.S. Constitution, the basic principals by which this country was founded, the president feels justified in totally disregarding our rights as citizens and chooses to spys on us.

Where in all the legalize out there, does it give the president the right and moral high ground to break the law for his own personal cause?

If his mission was to wage a war on "terror" and the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, then he must be a terrorist himself, because he voilated one of our basic freedoms, namely the 4th amendment. Which guarantees no undo search and seizure with out warrent.

His complete disregard for this law amounts to dictatorial abuse of power and as a result, is an impeachable offence.

I am sick with grief over this matter. Our rights drip away, as the president marches forth upon his own personal crusade against his own countryman.

[Mojorabbit]

39. I responded yesterday and I actually wrote a props note to Arlen Specter

The world is upside down.