1 Umm...we're not talking about not listening to terrorists. We're talking about having some reasonable checks and balances in place to make sure executive power is not abused. At an event aimed at talking up the Patriot Act in April 2004, Bush addressed the question of wiretaps. "Now, by the way," he said, "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." That certainly seems to be different from what Bush is saying now -- that over the past three years, he has authorized and repeatedly reauthorized the "interception" of communications without warrants. Due process, respect for the law i.e. congress the legislative body that represents the people-- these are real American values

2 Yeah, except that I suspect that when he said that he was talking about regular people, as opposed to terrorists. I mean, if I hear that this is happening to political enemies of Bush's, it'll be a whole different kettle of fish. But my understanding is that it's limited to harvesting information that comes from active members of AQ and similar groups calling people here in the states. And, yeah: I do think that groups that might be planning to fly planes into buildings, bomb embassies, explode subways, etc. call for more scrutiny than ordinary Americans. And it sounds to me like oversight is occurring: that key legislators are being informed of what's going on. For crying out loud--Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. FDR interred people during WWII. The rules are different during wartime.