As for rearranging the FISA deckchairs, is it more of this kind of oversight you crave? We can’t trust a twice elected chief executive to do his Constitutional duty, but we should trust a single unelected judge to make laws up as she pleases?

To ensure national security – complete and resolute – one cant banter about civil liberties. The government must rule with a strong (if not iron) hand, must be free from the bureaucratic chains and must be vigilant in pursuing and detaining any individuals or groups suspected of planning, organizing or implementing crimes against our government, especially with regards to national security. Including those who give aid or comfort to the enemy. If necessary the executive must consolidate more power to minimize the impact of bureacracy from the other branches of government in a time of war.

I for one dont want to live in a society under those conditions. Even prisons seems to have breaches in security – and a lockdown on the united states with our swiss cheese borders and security issues will successfully do one thing – oppress the people, reduce their representation and lead us down a path which will be far more difficult to change then the actions that lead us there.

The Bush Admin runs the country – lock, stock & barrel – unfettered with control of the House, Senate and now judiciary (4 liberals, 4 conservatives & 1 moderate). There is no reason the Admin could not approach Congress and adopt changes to effectively deal with terrorism and protect civil liberties. Furthermore, there is nothing stopping the Admin from breaking the laws – if they firmly believe it is in the best interest of national security – why not risk punishment (if you get caught) from an appreciative public. The Kennedys wiretapped everyone and their mothers, it was found to be unconstitutional and I dont recall reading about any impeachment hearings or arrests related to that. Iran-Contra ended up with…?

Either the Admin really cannot control their people (hence all the damn leaks), they are leaking with purpose or they are doing things that are so questionable even their cronies are having a tough time with it.

There is always a way to do this within the law. We cannot and should not allow precedent be set for an executive power that is not checked by the two remaining branches. For 3 years the admin has been stretching the limits of executive power with the only check being the DOJ – Alberto Gonzalez. We (meaning our reps) cant even be briefed on how far they stretched due to national security concerns.

All I am looking for is a FISA-type oversight for domestic spying. You could even setup a temporary warrantless surveillance for 15-30 days while the panel is reviewing the evidence – followed by a required formal request for a warrant. After 30 days if you cant prove the need – poof! shut it down.

I recognize the need. I understand it is a changing world and the existing laws and constitution dont account for these changes (oops – I guess Im no constitutional constructionist). But I find the tact of the Admin disturbing. If one affirms to preserve, protect and defend the constitution (that includes the Bill of Rights) – one cant disregard sections regardless of the reasoning, even at the risk of national security. The Bill of Rights is meaningless if some constitutional rights are more important than others.

The Jihadis are not as clever as you think. At least some of us who were asleep have woken up. 9/11, 3/11, and 7/7 were strategic blunders. For them. The fight they spoil for is coming anyway. The sooner it comes the better for us.

After the WMD strike all this handwringing about FISA is going to look more than foolish, it will be seen as a deep betrayal. Civil libertarian extremists have built a sand castle and the tide is coming in. They can move up the beach or get washed away.

We must take action, not lament the futility of what we might do to protect ourselves, or worry how it might offend those who threaten us. Waiting or appeasing this threat has already been demonstrated not to work.

If we consider jihadis the problem – how far do we take the bloodlust in eliminating the movement (i.e., people that offer aid & comfort).

If there is a WMD strike on US soil, both Bush and jihadis will pay in kind. The level of restraint in retaliation will be based on global opinion to the chagrine of rapturists. Despite what the experts say, a US strike will fulfill the jihadis wish list – significantly erode western idealism and democracy. This is why I want the congress to reign in Bush. Contradiction? Not at all. Under the existing surveillance program, how difficult would it be to send coded messages through non-jihadis inside and outside this country? They would literally have to monitor every non-caucasian in the USA and then decipher the chatter.

The only saving grace is that even the most sophisticated planners are plagued by blunders and blunderers – hopefully that is enough.

Then why not? Because if the congress does not challenge overreaching (stressing overreaching as a potentiality not fact) executive power, if they do not demand some type of objective oversight (other than DOJ) to domestic spying (that according to Bush isnt happening), we begin (again emphasize begin) eroding the fabric of this democracy (or representative republic if you prefer).

This is not a ten year or even fifty year assault on western civilization – the jihadis are (and know how to be) patient. It may take 200 or 300 years for islam to infiltrate every second and third world nation, that is if we manage to avoid or survive mutual annihilation.

1500 years later islam is still a growing force despite its unchanging dogma. Christianity fell prey to secularism and communism is hanging around thanks to a billion plus chinese.

Sadly the one glimmer of hope is Hamas. But they shine like a black hole right now. I suspect Isreal is going to be the center of controversy before the year is out.