[oceanview]

she knows alot more about it then you do. and so does Mark Levin. the "law" is always open to interpretation - does the white house have to consult with the ACLU and the Times to get their OK on it too? do we need the ACLU and the Times to agree, does that make it "legal"?

clearly, this program was "lawyered" up at every level - DOJ, NSA, revealed to congressional committes, periodically reviewed and re-authorized, etc. the fact that some parties might disagree with the legal advice DOES NOT MAKE THE PROGRAM ILLEGAL. Its just being done for political purposes.

[Wolfhound777]

yeah, I'm sure she does and they will self police themselves too right?

[Wolfhound777]

...clearly, this program was "lawyered" up at every level - DOJ, NSA, revealed to congressional committees, periodically reviewed and re-authorized, etc.

The above is laughable. Lawyered up by the ones that want unlimited power to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without oversight. The argument they used for this trampling of individual rights was that obtaining warrants was too time consuming and that they needed to move more quickly on matters of terrorism investigations. Granted, that's a problem. But the typical government solution is a much bigger problem. Rights be damned, just do away with them and we can act immediately. If timely consideration of warrants so that investigations can progress quickly as needed is the issue, then form a standing committee of judges "on call" and available 24/7 for just this purpose. Or figure out some other way to close the time gap. I don't have a problem with the government gathering intelligence to fight terrorism, but there has to be independent oversight when it comes to US citizens and there has to be accountability.