As hard as it may be, it looks like the Clintons are the biggest hypocrites in politics.

The linked article talks about Bill Clinton listening in on the conversations of some of their political opponents back in 1992. This is exceptionally relevant considering the fact that she is a huge opponent of the so called "wire tapping" that the National Security Agency was conducting against terrorist phone calls originating overseas.

TheHill.com - GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping

So to sum it up... listening in on political opponents illegally is okay. Listening in on terrorists from overseas planning to commit ungodly acts against our country is not. Who should I vote for now?

Let me start off by saying that I'm not really defending Clinton, I just thought I'd bring up the other side since you so boldly phrased your post the way you did. You did hit the nail on the head, however, when you suggested it would be pretty hard to determine the "biggest" hypocrite in politics.

First, the article is pretty vague about how it actually went down. But it seems as though there was one tape, and we don't actually know who recorded it, although it's to be assumed the Clintons had a major role. I know you say that it's "exceptionally relevant" and the article states it's illegal, so it's wrong. It shouldn't have been done. But it really doesn't affect me as much as the current president's wiretapping. Why? Because Clinton listened to one call....Bush is letting people listen to all American's calls if they so wish, without a warrant. I understand trying to catch the terrorists and everything...but why can't you just get a warrant? Keep it all legal, you know? Then there wouldn't be any questions. I believe the timeframe to get a warrant was 24 or 48 hours after the fact....yet Bush said it was too restricting and really needed to be able to go after the bad guys without any walls in his way.

Throw on top of that the recent Washington Post article that says Bush was trying (and maybe had some?) to do wiretapping as early as six months before 9/11...which poses two problems: One, it wasn't a response to terrorist attacks and therefore could be seen as a general spying on Americans, and two, if it was in place, it failed to do the thing they claim it's doing now: prevent a terrorist attack. Because 9/11 ended up happening.

"Listening in on terrorists from overseas planning to commit ungodly acts against our country is not."

This statement isn't really accurate because that assumes that the wiretapping program has only been targeting terrorists overseas. You may remember a story in the USA Today in May of 2006:

"The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime. "

This is really trying to figure out the lesser of two evils, and in the grand scheme of things, I don't want the president of my country doing anything illegal.

__________________
http://www.myspace.com/onecubicleover

Wiretaps aren't exactly what you think they are...

Under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) the requirements for a wiretap order were more minimal: The FBI didn't need probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to install a tap, but only had to certify to a judge that information resulting from such a warrant would be "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. Section 214 of the Patriot Act doesn't change this standard but broadens the reach—making the FISA pen register/trap-and-trace power available in both criminal and foreign intelligence investigations, so long as the government merely certifies that the information obtained would be "relevant to an ongoing investigation.

"pen register/trap-and-trace" These are two means of 'wiretapping' under the Patriot Act and the 1978 FISA. "Pen registers" ascertain phone numbers dialed from a suspect's telephone; "Trap and trace" devices monitor the source of all incoming calls. Neither reveals the content of communication.

So wiretapping under the Patriot Act doesn't actually allow the FBI or the NSA to 'listen' to your conversations necessarily. What these means allow is for the NSA and/or FBI to gather information on who/where you are calling and who/where you are being called from. If it looks like you're getting a lot of calls from Afghanistan, they can use that information and any other relevant information about you (do you frequent pilot training courses and fundamentalist meetings, etc...) to request a warrant to tap the conversations you are having over your phone lines.

Honestly the only real increase in ability the Patriot Act offers is that FBI/NSA can tap multiple phones you may use, whereas under FISA they had to request a tap for each individual phone line. So if you use a PDA, cell phone, work phone, and house phone they can monitor who/where you're calling, and who/where you're being called from on all your means of communication.

Another thing we need to realize is that the FBI and NSA only have a limited number of personnel working their communication interception divisions. People say "the government" will use Patriot to listen to 10s of millions of Americans' phone calls. The NSA only has 200 - 400 employees dedicated to this mission...I don't know about you, but I can't see 400 people listening to the millions of phone calls a day that take place in America.

The other thing is that if you aren't a terrorist sympathizer, and aren't calling Iraq, Iraq, Syria, etc... daily and you just call your mom and girlfriend a few times a week (and even maybe order a pizza), I don't think some underpaid NSA technician really doesn't have time to listen to your conversations. He/She's probably more interested in the dude calling his cousin in Somalia to coordinate the next big attack.

There is a lot of info on the Patriot Act (and specifically the wire tapping section) out there. Even the groups against the Patriot Act don't have a whole heck of a lot of factual ammo they can use to show how "bad" the Act is. All they can say is the government "may" or "might" or "can possibly". Now whether or not all members of our govt. follow the rules is another story. But the Patriot Act doesn't give the Bush Administration a blank check on listening to your 2 hour phone conversation with your mom on how to bake a better cookie.

but she makes really good cookies!

i'm not personally worried about my phone calls...but about phone calls in general. if the NSA is "amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime," then they're obviously not going to be able to "certify to a judge that information resulting from such a warrant would be "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation."

some checks and balances would be nice, that's all i'm saying. they gotta do what they gotta do...but when you're changing laws to do what you gotta do, something is up...especially when you started before a terrorist attack and obviously weren't able to use the information to prevent it.

__________________
http://www.myspace.com/onecubicleover

I agree that we need checks & balances, but from what I've read the Patriot Act is just an elaboration on the capability of the FBI, NSA, and now Homeland Security. I think a lot of the effort is still wasted, and needs more focus, but then again I don't work there.

I would say that even if this program was somehow in place before 9/11 that it is entirely feasible that we wouldn't have been able to do anything about it or even detect it. You'd have to actually stumble upon the exact phone calls taking place between the terrorists. And from what I remember about the 9/11 hijackers, they had already been given their orders, and once in our country they were basically detached, and no longer really in communication with overseas elements or cells. So we'd have had to tap their domestic phone calls...that's a little harder to do, and harder to stumble upon.

Imagine opening up your computer (if you worked at NSA or FBI)...you have 12,000 new emails (intercepted messages) just for that day. You work from 7am to 7pm. Would you be able to sort through 12,000 emails, decipher which ones were credible threats, and which ones were hoaxes? That is about 1/4 of what a typical analyst goes through on a daily basis at any of our intelligence agencies.

Being able to say that message # 1,095 about flying planes into buildings is more credible than message #9,543 about brining VX gas into a major sporting event arena seems pretty challenging. And that is just one day’s worth of detected suspect messages. Talk about earning your meager salary.

Finding bad guys is a lot harder than most people appreciate. I say, give them as much opportunity as legally possible to secure our country.

I agree...it's a tough job. I wouldn't want that kind of responsibility. This reminds me of the book "Why America Slept." Although I haven't finished reading it, it talks about members of law enforcement who had opportunities to stop terrorists well in advance of 9/11, but just couldn't have known for sure what they were capable of. That being said, don't you think it's a little silly that the administration takes credit for no other attacks on our soil since 9/11? I mean, they can't always determine which threats are credible...so how are they responsible for us being "safer?" Not to mention the attacks on U.S. interests and allies in the years since 9/11...doesn't that still hurt us? And random incidents at airports like the guy who completely bypassed security in Charlotte in the beginning of August....they never did find that guy. That's just one of many examples that we're not actually safer than we were. What if he was a terrorist? We would've had another plane flown into an important building somewhere, but because he happened to not be a terrorist (which we don't actually know but must assume since nothing bad happened that day), the administration is "keeping us safe." It's all politics. Use what gives you an advantage, ignore what doesn't. Well, now that I've gotten entirely away from the original topic, I think I'll stop.

__________________
http://www.myspace.com/onecubicleover

Back on subject (wiretapping and the Clintons)

There is some evidence out there in a lot of areas that the Clintons are dirty. But then again, who isn't in politics?

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the former President was listening to more than what this article suggests, and I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary was aware of it (or if she's currently engaged in such acts).

Based on things I've read from here and there, it seems the Clintons are willing to do whatever it takes to get what they want.

The idea of Hillary as president is scary...not because she's a woman but because she's a Clinton. I guess if this article is true we can only hope that she isn't doing some of the same things....and doesn't start.

As long as you don't think the other party is immune to the same thing, I agree.

__________________
http://www.myspace.com/onecubicleover