I'm sure everyone has seen this.

So yeah, serious stakes.

1.6 million projected dead in NYC for a nuclear strike. Not good.

I'm sorry can some mod fix my comment.

I thought it came out ok in Preview. Obviously not.

Sorry.

Link to NY Post on Feds nuclear prep for a strike on Manhattan

I fixed the HTML in Jim's comment #1.

"A Qassam has already been fired in to Israel. Still waiting for that massive response Sharon promised..."

If I have this right Sharon is giving these people enough rope to hang themselves with.

It's not time yet to "respond".

It's not time yet to "respond".

Yeah - Sharon's waiting for a higher bodycount. What a great strategy.

...if Hamas was ever to become a dominant force in Palestinian politics, that would be the end of the peace process.

That's actually pretty funny. (Almost as funny as Syrian claims that anyone connecting Syria with political assassinations in Lebanon does so only to ruin Syria's reputation.)

Arafat and now Abbas have been claiming, for years now, that---along with the return of all of the West Bank and Gaza, and the redivision of Jerusalem---all Palestinian refugees and their descendents have the inalienable right to return to their former homes within pre-1967 Israel borders.

What part of "Israel must cease to exist" continues to be misunderstood?

A bomb exploded Saturday in the Basque region of France, after a threat was called in by the ETA. No injuries were reported.

Basque region of Spain. ETA is extorting Basque businessmen: next time will be in your car.

Thanks for the correction J Aguilar, you are correct...it was Spain. An error on my part.

Since we are in correcting moods. You are falling into a pharsing trap- Bush did not use it 30 times, he re-instituted the program 30 times. Just pointing out that you imply that 30 cases were effected, when in fact the number is probably on an order of magniutude we dont know.
Second, what is with the "but" in the sentence regarding "but leader of congress" how about an "and" there. But implies that Bush had a political and moral right to his action, which he lacks. I would prefer a "thus" but dont expect that much.

"But implies that Bush had a political and moral right to his action, which he lacks."

How can you make that definitive statement with our limited information?

Whether or not the President broke the law, pales in comparison to the leak of classified information. To me, the leak represents a new evil permeating our government. Treason is serious business, but no one seems to care about that in lieu of smearing the President once again. It will be interesting to see who leaked when the "investigation" being called for by dumbass dimmicrats is over. Should only take a year or two. My guess is that it came from their side of the aisle. After all, they have no morality or loyalty to this country. Its all about regaining power. God Bless America and our Warriors.

What are the stakes if Bush is wrong?

NSA people listen in to private conversations that have no relevance to terrorism.

What are the stakes if Democrats are wrong.

1.6 million people dead in NYC from a nuke.

Kind of puts it in perspective doesn't it?

[Thanks Lewy for fixing my mistake]

Jim;

I think you are, perhaps knowingly, oversimplifying the problem here.

How do we know that the spying is being done solely for the purpose of "fighting terrorism" and not another, more mundane or proximal reason, like monitoring political dissent or opposition?

In the past 20 years, the Republicans, Libertarians and Conservatives have been at the forefront of safeguarding citizen's privacy rights WRT these issues. It is interesting that now, when they do not feel themselves threatened by this any more, it no longer becomes a problem.

Ask yourself how you would feel if a Democratic or Liberal president were in Bush's shoes, doing what he is now. Ask yourself if the points you are arguing now will apply equally to the next Democratic President as well.

"How do we know that the spying is being done solely for the purpose of "fighting terrorism" and not another, more mundane or proximal reason, like monitoring political dissent or opposition?"

Er, how do we know the army is being used to fight terrorists, and not dragging political dissenters from their homes and shooting them in the street?

Lets not forget Congressional leadership was briefed many times on this, including in 01,02 when the Dems ran the Senate. Either they were ok with this program or were too politically cowardly to challenge it.

No, Mark, I don't buy that.

First, it seems that the Dems didn't in fact agree with the policy, as Jay Rockefeller's note indicates. They may have been willing

Second, I don't think they were give the full set of facts.

Third, they may have been constrained from speaking about classified information.

So don't try to dismiss this a Democrat vs. Republican problem.

You're rhetorical rebuttal question does nothing, either, to clarify your response to my question. If the Army drags someone out of their home, a legal and physical trail of evidence is left behind documenting their actions, all of which is contestable in a court of law.

But for clandestine operations, this is not the case.

Once again, where are the real Conservatives and Libertarian voices here?

Hanging sentence:

[They may have been willing] to give the President some lattitude at the beginning, but then of course Congress flipped Republican shortly thereafter.

And whether the Dems abdicated their responsibilites or are "playing politics" now is irrelevent to the basic question of prinicple and legality: both sides do this.

"First, it seems that the Dems didn't in fact agree with the policy, as Jay Rockefeller's note indicates. They may have been willing "

And yet they did nothing to oppose it. Their political cowardice yields results they will have to live with. Sure, they will close the Congress for a secret session to bash Bush's unpopular Iraq policy, but not to question what they are suddenly portraying as Bush's Caesarian like grab for imperial power?

"Second, I don't think they were give the full set of facts."

It was in their power to demand a full set of the facts.

"Third, they may have been constrained from speaking about classified information"

Just as they are in any intelligence hearing. There are ways around that built into the system.

"But for clandestine operations, this is not the case."

Thats absurd, if the NSA were shredding their records they would have a real problem down the road. Jail time. Congress was briefed, the Intelligence Committee could have demanded these records if they wanted them, and the freedom of information act will open them to the rest of the public at some point, opening everyone involved to litigation.

"And whether the Dems abdicated their responsibilites or are "playing politics" now is irrelevent to the basic question of prinicple and legality: both sides do this."

Nonsense. This is a power struggle between branches of government. Congresses power is political by nature, the Presidents also political but much more Constitutionally endowed. If Congress was too cowardly to attempt to wrest power from the executive, they can hardly come back post-facto and make a stink.

And Andy I think you're oversimplifying to suggest that the program might be monitoring political dissent or opposition. These are international communications and unless John Kerry really was taking orders from Jock Chirac, its a form of fearmongering.

We know from the El-Hage case that the Clinton administration was wiretapping American citizens abroad (and seizing evidence from his home in Kenya). Without a warrant. With the subsequent approval of a U.S. court. Whether El-Hage is in Kenya or Manhatten when it happens seems to be small beer. El-Hage could just as conceivably been talking politics in Kenya.

Regardless of your opinion of the domestic spying program, it's actually straightfoward how one should judge the current hoorah. Members of Congress including members of the opposition party were given details of the so called 'domestic spying program'. Those members of Congress chose not to come forward with the story and make a public accusation that the President was engaged in illegal activity, and so far as I can tell did not even privately threaten to do so in order to leverage the Executive office into scaling back or ending the program.

Simply put, the oversight mechanisms were in place. Any talk on the part of the opposition party about having an investigation now or whatever is simply political brinksmanship.

And any leaks of this program are criminal and potentially treasonous. None of the evidence presented so far shows that program was being undertaken for scurilous reasons. Instead, all we have seen is that in some 500 cases involving (I've heard) roughly 6000 intercepts in which a domestic actor (citizen or non-citizen) contacted a known or reasonably suspected Al Queda agent, the NSA was authorized to immediately begin intercepting (at least) electronic trafic from that actor prior to obtaining a warrant from the normal national security courts.

There is no evidence that the US did any of the following:

a) Use this information in a court of law.
b) Target non-violent political dissidents.
c) Engaged in profiling of law abiding US citizens.
d) Attempted to intercept the traffic of opposition parties in the US for the purposes of obtaining political advantage.

Or indeed anything other than attempt to discover whether such electronic traffic constituted an immediate danger to US security. Lacking any compelling evidence of a pressing jepordy to US civil rights, and especially knowing that the program is subject to Congressional oversight, a person dealing with classified information who leaks it to the press for the purposes of making such information public acting solely on thier own opinion over what is apparantly a debatable legal point is not acting in my interest nor are they fulfilling their duties. They are instead engaging in a self-righteous act which is quite possibly a danger to the USA. There are some things which my government does which I do not want to know about simply because if I know about them, then there is a good chance my enemies know about them as well.

Nor is the press in my opinion wholly without culpablity in this matter, though admittedly much less so than in the Valerie Plame affair (or countless other recent leaks) when no reasonable person could imagined that leaking her name was necessary to reveal that a crime had taken place.

I admit to being uncomfortable with this process because I think that similar results could be achieved through existing national security courts which would provide much greater oversight and security to the process, but I think that the fact that such intercepts have no legal standing (you could not present them as evidence in court) and the fact that such actions are roughly equivalent in my mind to a police officer discovering an activity which a reasonable person could construe as a crime in progress mean that the actions probably would withstand Constitutional scrutiny (however 'grey' the area might be). I also recognized that the existing national security courts are hardly streamlined affairs not designed to deal with actionable intelligence, and that political opposition to even moderate streamlining of the process (through the patriot act) is high, and further that if the President didn't sign such an authorization and as a result allowed some terrorist cell leader to slip away and an attack on the US mainland to occur that the howls for his impeachment would echo from both sides of the isle.

Some have asked why I'm not more outraged. I think I've addressed that question, but simply put its because its a small program which appears to be targeted on people who have foreign ties to known enemies of the United States, and that counter-terrorism operations cannot be conducted at all times like mere law enforcement for a very simple reason.

In law enforcement, the principle duty of the government is to see that those that commit the crime are apprehended and that justice is served. In counter-terrorism operations, the principle duty of the government is to see that no crime can be committed in the first place. If the government waits until after the crime has been committed, it has failed in its duties and its too late. Particularly in the case of a suicide operation, the perpetrators may already be dead.

And less anyone think this is a new argument or a new policy (via instapundit):

"The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place"

The release of this sensitive information is appalling. I was so upset about it I had to make a joke article on my blog about it. (Not the giant snowman attacks town piece, the one under that)

This is politics, plain and simple. While I oppose making the Patriot Act permanent, and fully support a free and open society, if Osama picks up the phone and calls the U.S., we need a complete record of what went on. GW needs to take the Dems to the mat on this one -- the feigned indignation is outrageous in my opinion.

All the leaks are making me mad too, but the really interesting thing is how the news has completely devolved into taking points plus an occasional tragedy or missing white woman story here and there.

It's to the point where I don't pay much attention and head straight to the blogs to see some intelligent discussion on the issues of the day. You can get NO understanding of this issue by watching a news report or reading a newspaper. It's just sad.

Was the news always this bad and I just didn't notice, or has it just gotten worse over the last 3 to 4 years as it seems?

"Was the news always this bad and I just didn't notice, or has it just gotten worse over the last 3 to 4 years as it seems?"

It seems to me that it's always been this bad, but that could be simply because I first became news aware in about 1980 when the press was having a big coniption over Reagan.

I'm told that it was better in times past, but I've no reason to believe that and some substantial historical evidence that it just isn't so. As far as I can tell, its simply that the MSM managed to weave the Emporer's clothes and its only lately that anyone has had the guts to call them on thier nakedness.

IMO, nothing recently has changed. For my part, I lost what little respect I had left for the press on Jan. 26, 1992 when I watched CBS help the Clintons lie to the American people on Sixty Minutes. It's latter been revealed that this impression of mine was in fact true, and that Sixty Minutes producers knew that the Clintons were lying and in effect conspired with the Clintons to make a dishonest campaign commercial and pretend it was a news program and in the process violated every conventional standard of journalistic ethics - including thier own. That event for me rates right up there with Walter Cronkite's calculated act of sedition on February 27, 1967 as the nadir of American journalism ethics.

In perfect world, Walter Cronkite would have hanged for his tragic actions of Feb. 27 (and I say that with full sincerity) - instead, he is hailed by his fellow members of the press and by the enemies of the United States as a hero on account of them.

It was 1968.
If you are going to make insinuations that are better left on hack blogs, you might want to get the date right.

About the NSA warrantless surveillance of US citizens. Of course it does not bother Republicans, as long it is their Big Brother spying on citizens with no oversight.
From the NY Times, |
"Mr. Specter, who has said he will hold hearings on the program soon after the confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court nominee, Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., said he did not believe the president's decision to inform a handful of members of Congress was sufficient.
"I think it does not constitute a check and balance," he said. "You can't have the administration and a select number of members alter the law. It can't be done."
Mr. Specter also predicted that the domestic spying debate would spill over into Judge Alito's confirmation. On Monday, he sent the judge a letter saying he intended to ask "what jurisprudential approach" the judge would use in determining if the president had authority to establish the program.
"The fat's in the fire," Mr. Specter said. "This is going to be a big, big issue. There's a lot of indignation across the country, from what I see."
Mr. Bush, Mr. Gonzales and Lt. Gen. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the nation's second-ranking intelligence official and a former director of the National Security Agency, which conducted the surveillance, stepped around questions about why officials decided not to use emergency powers they have under the existing foreign surveillance law. The law allows them to tap international communications of people in the United States and then go to a secret court up to 72 hours later for retroactive permission. "

I would disagree with Jim Rockford. For the President of the US to set himself above the rule of law means much more than the following.

"What are the stakes if Bush is wrong?
NSA people listen in to private conversations that have no relevance to terrorism."

Are we fighting to preserve democracy, or is democracy already dead? If Bush can make law at his whim, then the checks and balances of representative government are already gone. Given the 72 hour retroactive rule in existing law, the likely reason that the Bush administration did not submit to judicial review was that their actions could not withstand such review. This would not be the first Republican administration to abuse government power to spy on domestic opposition.

Tom perhaps you missed my link to the Clinton Adminstration making the identical argument. As we are all going to see shortly, i think, this is going to be perceived as less a case of Republicans not caring about civil rights, but of Democrats again going out on a limb to protect terrorists rights. Just as in the 'torture' scandal, Dems try to frame things like the poor ordinary Joe on the street in being victimized. Perhaps to some lefties AQ members are just poor ordinary Joes deserving of Constitutional protection, but thats not what the Constitution says, that not what Congress's declaration of war stated, and its certainly not something the American people are going to buy. Is it really so shocking that the president is listening to our enemies communications during a war?

This would not be the first Republican administration to abuse government power to spy on domestic opposition.

Also it seems that Clinton exersized the same authority. Was it against the law when he did it too? Apparently there's been bi-partisan presidential agreement that it's not.

The fact that we're getting these leaks now tells us that it's more about political gotcha games than a serious policy dispute.

Full disclosure: I voted for Clinton twice and Gore once. I had to draw the line at Kerry, and no second chances for Gore (yikes!) either.

"It was 1968."

You are of course right. My bad. I apologize for the typo.

"If you are going to make insinuations that are better left on hack blogs, you might want to get the date right."

I'm not insinuating anything.

insinuate: "To introduce tortuously, sinuously, indirectly, or by devious methods; to introduce by imperceptible degrees or subtle means."

I don't think I was being subtle about my opinions at all, nor was I indirect, devious, or circumspect. Nor did I beat around the bush; nor did I try to insert something by means of a confusing or obscure argument. Nor did I hide my contempt behind fair words or try to convince someone to accept my argument while concealing my real feelings. I stated full my convictions about as firmly and clearly as they can be stated. In short, I was about as far from insinuating as one can be. I was flat out and openly accusatory, and I'm flat out accusatory in full confidence that my opinions rest on well established facts.

Don't use big words unless you know what they mean.

Mark, following your link leads to the Cato Institute and conservative outrage at Clinton's "warrantless searchs". Where is the consistency? Will the Cato Institute now argue that what was an outrage for Clinton is A-OK for Bush?
Some caution for kneejerk supporters from Cenk Ugyr
"The President and his Attorney General claim that the President has the "inherent authority" as commander in chief to violate FISA and the Fourth Amendment. They also say Congress's authorization of military force after the September 11th attacks gave the President broad authority to ignore the strictures of this federal law and use whatever force internationally and domestically that he saw fit.

This obviously leads to the question of ... what other laws has he felt compelled to ignore? What other statutes does he feel authorized to violate? What other amendments have proven inconvenient and been sidestepped?

If the President feels he has the authority to clearly break one federal law, how many others does he feel he has the authority to break? If the President doesn't need to abide by the Fourth Amendment, does he have to abide by any of the rest?

And if you're a Republican who adores this President so much that you will stand by his every decision, I urge you to finally use some caution here. If you set the precedent that a President can ignore any of the amendments he feels impede the security of this country, what will stop a Democratic president from ignoring the second amendment to take away the guns of potential "enemies of the state"?

If this President has used the FBI and the Pentagon to spy on anti-war and other political opposition groups domestically, what will stop a Democratic President from spying on right-wing militia groups and pro-life organizations that might turn violent?

President Bush is playing his favorite game -- opening up Pandora's Box and seeing what flies out. If you thought that was a bad idea in Iraq, wait till you get a load of it here.

Once you allow the President to be above the law, there is no telling what could happen. Even if you like this President, there will one day be a President you don't like quite as much. It's almost as if the founding fathers were right to limit the powers of the executive branch. Smart fellows, those founders were. Maybe it's not such a good idea to ignore that little constitution they wrote."

"Mark, following your link leads to the Cato Institute and conservative outrage at Clinton's "warrantless searchs". Where is the consistency? "

I dont care what the Cato institute thinks, i was pointing the the direct quotes from the Clinton adminstration.

"This obviously leads to the question of ... what other laws has he felt compelled to ignore? What other statutes does he feel authorized to violate? What other amendments have proven inconvenient and been sidestepped?"

Why dont you ask Senator Rockefeller. Im sure he tell you if its not too politically risky for him.

"If the President feels he has the authority to clearly break one federal law, how many others does he feel he has the authority to break?"

He's not breaking any laws. The law does not bind him in the first place. You're failing to grasp the Constitutional argument here. He's not violating the 4th amendment. He is excercising the power granted him by the Constitution as Commander in Chief to combat a congressionally identified enemy we are at war with.

"If this President has used the FBI and the Pentagon to spy on anti-war and other political opposition groups domestically,"

If Nancy Pelosi is feeding information to Osama Bin Ladin what then? See, I can throw out completely unsubstantiated charges as well.

There's nothing new under the sun:

Wiretapping to protect the security of the Nation has been authorized by successive Presidents. The present Administration [LBJ] would apparently save national security cases from restrictions against wiretapping. We should not require the warrant procedure and the magistrate's judgment if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable.

Justice White in Katz v. U.S. (1967) (via Volokh)

This is what the President did. Its what other Presidents have done. What's different here is that Congress, in FISA, treats international terrorist organizations differently than agents of foreign governments, requiring warrants for one, but not the other. Should America have the same warantless surveliance options available against al-Qaeda that America has against Qod?

"Will the Cato Institute now argue that what was an outrage for Clinton is A-OK for Bush?"

The question can be turned around. Is what was not outrageous for Clinton, outrageous for Bush in what is argubly far more compelling circumstance.

It's hard to suggest that anything about this case is 'clear', in that it deals with one of America's most highly classified programs and we know almost nothing about what went on except what we are hearing from the NYT, but from what I've heard so far its pretty clear to me that the 4th ammendment wasn't violated. The NYT's lays the moral outrage on thick, but much like Pravda there coverage is often more interesting for what it doesn't say.

I'm more courious as to whether FISA was violated (and why), which from my journeyman's perspective it seems to have been, but the folks with legal training seem to find that a debatable point.

This obviously leads to the question, "Where any laws in fact violated in the first place?"

This question stands in direct contrast to the lengthy slippery slope argument you make based entirely on innuendo, which rises to a fever pitch of hysteria in this statement:

"If you set the precedent that a President can ignore any of the amendments he feels impede the security of this country, what will stop a Democratic president from ignoring the second amendment to take away the guns of potential "enemies of the state"?"

For starters, how about 'the guns'?

Seriously though, do you have any facts backing up all that speculation and alarmism?

And are you now going to become a defender of the Cato Institute and a critic of Clinton? I think it only fair that you answer that question before I once again try to explain what you see as a lack of consistancy. There is no since trying to give an honest answer to a dishonest question.

"And are you now going to become a defender of the Cato Institute and a critic of Clinton? "
Certainly, I agree with the Cato Institute's defense of constitutional rights and criticize the Clinton administration's use of warrantless searchs, especially since FISO warrants are available retroactively making the "no time" arguement ludicrous.

About those "completely unsubstantiated charges"("If this President has used the FBI and the Pentagon to spy on anti-war and other political opposition groups domestically,"
If Nancy Pelosi is feeding information to Osama Bin Ladin what then? See, I can throw out completely unsubstantiated charges as well.) see this from the NY Times (MSM organ and untrustworthy I know)...

"F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: December 20, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show.

F.B.I. officials said Monday that their investigators had no interest in monitoring political or social activities and that any investigations that touched on advocacy groups were driven by evidence of criminal or violent activity at public protests and in other settings.

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, John Ashcroft, who was then attorney general, loosened restrictions on the F.B.I.'s investigative powers, giving the bureau greater ability to visit and monitor Web sites, mosques and other public entities in developing terrorism leads. The bureau has used that authority to investigate not only groups with suspected ties to foreign terrorists, but also protest groups suspected of having links to violent or disruptive activities.

But the documents, coming after the Bush administration's confirmation that President Bush had authorized some spying without warrants in fighting terrorism, prompted charges from civil rights advocates that the government had improperly blurred the line between terrorism and acts of civil disobedience and lawful protest.

One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

The documents, provided to The New York Times over the past week, came as part of a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.

The F.B.I. had previously turned over a small number of documents on antiwar groups, showing the agency's interest in investigating possible anarchist or violent links in connection with antiwar protests and demonstrations in advance of the 2004 political conventions. And earlier this month, the A.C.L.U.'s Colorado chapter released similar documents involving, among other things, people protesting logging practices at a lumber industry gathering in 2002.

The latest batch of documents, parts of which the A.C.L.U. plans to release publicly on Tuesday, totals more than 2,300 pages and centers on references in internal files to a handful of groups, including PETA, the environmental group Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers group, which promotes antipoverty efforts and social causes.

Many of the investigative documents turned over by the bureau are heavily edited, making it difficult or impossible to determine the full context of the references and why the F.B.I. may have been discussing events like a PETA protest. F.B.I. officials say many of the references may be much more benign than they seem to civil rights advocates, adding that the documents offer an incomplete and sometimes misleading snapshot of the bureau's activities.

"Just being referenced in an F.B.I. file is not tantamount to being the subject of an investigation," said John Miller, a spokesman for the bureau. ...
A.C.L.U officials said the latest batch of documents released by the F.B.I. indicated the agency's interest in a broader array of activist and protest groups than they had previously thought. In light of other recent disclosures about domestic surveillance activities by the National Security Agency and military intelligence units, the A.C.L.U. said the documents reflected a pattern of overreaching by the Bush administration.

Im still waiting to see where the president ordered any 'spying'. Or anything at all. This looks suspiciously like the FBI keeping an eye on groups linked to violence and crime. God forbid. I expect if the Young Republicans were burning down Hummer dealerships they would be investigated too.

Quite right Mark Buehner, the only thing Tom Volckhausen’s post serves to remind us of is of the Left’s greater propensity to use and excuse the use of violence as a form of political protest.

Thorley & Mark,
Those vegans are reknowned for their violent propensity and should always be surveilled (unless of course they are Republican vegans). Why, vegans have even been known to mutilate carrots!

Clearly in your world anything Bush does is a priori correct and exempt from criticism. He could be surveilling your wife in the shower and you would find a rationalization to excuse it, so I will not waste anymore time discussing civil liberties with people who do not grasp the concept.

I am just thankful that the Founders understood the dangers of unchecked executive power. We need a new word, because calling people who argue for removing limits on government power "conservative" is NewSpeak. Conservatives used to argue for small government, not for unlimited government.

Whatever Tom.

It's pretty simple. Suppose you are an anti-abortion group. You're an innocent group engaged in free speach and peaceful protest. You happen to go to big anti-abortion rally in Atlanta. There you march with a group that the last time they were in Atlanta got two dozen of their members arrested on charges ranging from resisting arrest, trespassing, and obstructing the functioning of a lawful business to assault. In addition, the leader of this group is a known associate (High school friend of, used to attend church with, former member of the group) of a guy whose wanted for questioning in three arsons and two murders.

Now, your group may be completely law abiding, but if you march in protest with THAT group, the FBI has a reasonable desire to find out who is in your group, how you might be linked to the other group, what activities your group is involved in and whether or not anyone in your group might also be an associate of the fugitive in question.

This is going to happen no matter who is in the White House, completely without the need for White House approval, with or without the Patriot Act and is IMO completely appropriate police work. The better question than the one you asked is "What should stop the FBI from investigating potentially violent militia and anti-abortion groups?"

Similarly, your group may be real pacifists, lawfully protesting this war and any war. But if you go down and march in a parade organized by International ANSWER in which alot of unsavory characters also march with alot of agenda's that go well beyond ending the war in Iraq, and along side people who carry signs like, "We Support Our Troops When They Frag Thier Officers", and "Regime Change in Washington", and "Bush Must Die", then you do not have a reasonable expectation that the FBI isn't going to take an interest in your activities as well. (Note, all three signs would constitute felonies of one sort or the other, namely sedition, conspiracy to commit treason, and assault.)

The violent activities of the fringe groups that go to so called 'anti-war' rallies are well documented by the blogsphere by groups like 'protest warriors' both by eye witness testimony and photographic evidence. You can be sure that the FBI does the same thing, and they have every right to do so. Likewise, the close association of International ANSWER to foreign powers hostile to the US is also well documented, as is the naked hostility displayed in the comments of websites like CodePink, Democratic Underground, and MoveOn.org. So, it is not at all surprising that the FBI would keep tabs on these groups, especially after 9/11 and even more to the point especially after the Seattle WTO riots.

You can pretend that has something to do with Bush all you like, but all that demonstrates is your blind anti-Bush hysteria. If you would go to other threads, and if you'd stuck around for any length of time you would have heard plenty of criticism of Bush from virtually everyone here. It just isn't the same criticism of Bush you offer, but frankly failure of us to agree with you is not proof of our irrationality.

"Clearly in your world anything Bush does is a priori correct and exempt from criticism"

Clearly in your world anything that happens in any department of the government is part of Bush's plot to take over the world and reign as a bloody tyrant. Now you tell me who the irrational one is.