Greggbert wrote on February 26, 2008 04:40 PM: The burden on a private company is to refuse to assist in an illegal search of it's customers records. These companies all made a choice. They chose to cooperate with government authority at the expense of their customers constitutional rights.

Quest made a different choice, and were corageous to protect their customers by asking for a warrant.

Where is personal responsibility on all this? Why shouldn't quest be rewarded for being the only company that acted legally?

Conservatives claim personal responsiblity is the driving force in all their decisions from bankruptcy reform to their votes against amnesty. Why do they change their tune when the benefit of the anmnesty is a large corporation?

Carl Kelley wrote on February 25, 2008 06:09 PM: Aint politics great!!! Everybody knows where they were on 911 and shudder when they think of it. Yet we have politicians who are blocking the FISA bill. These people are argueing that this bill will somehow invade our privacy. In other words, give me privacy or give me death. I say, take my privacy if it means America survives and we don't have another 911. Of course, if you have secrets you need to keep quiet that override the national interest, I'd really love to know what could be so important. Seems the word privacy in communications is just a way of letting those who are doing something wrong get away with it. Long as you don't have anyone sneaking onto my property and looking in my bedroom window, you can listen to anything I have to say on the phone, just don't interrupt when I'm talking; It's rude. However, if I somehow get connected to a terrorist on my phone (I don't think I know any) I want someone to listen quietly but then tell me when we have some "privacy". How many subjects can a person be involved in anyway that they need a phone. Lunch, Dinner plans, dates, appointments, business deals etc etc. And who in foreign intelligence wants to know about your business? Wanting all this privacy crap sounds like the Mafia has on so many occasions when they take the Fifth Amendment. Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!!!
When are we going to wake up and smell the enemy? Seems our worst enemy is our own partisan politics. We are at War and we need to let our warriors have a fighting chance. If I have to give up my privacy to save their lives, so be it!

Dissent wrote on February 16, 2008 10:21 AM: This may be one of the most irresponsible editorials I've read in a while. The telecoms had every reason to believe that they needed warrants. Qwest refused to participate, remember. And the telecoms stopped cooperating when the government didn't pay its bills on time. This "patriotic" argument just doesn't fly in the face of the facts as we know them.

And trial lawyer fodder? I wish that the highly overworked and highly underpaid lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Center for Constitutional Rights had the kinds of "friends" in Congress that the editorial suggests that they have, but these are not private sector lawyers.

The LVRJ should apologize to the lawyers whose reputations they impugned and apologize to their readers for misleading them on an important issue.

gary wrote on February 16, 2008 07:16 AM: This article is factually inaccurate. Obama and Feingold were present and voted against granting immunity to the government and telecoms.

FedUp wrote on February 15, 2008 07:59 AM: douglas-
Since the terrorist bombers were all killed in their terra-ist attack, and we have the confessed mastermind in custody... Don't be such a dolt! National security is everyone's prerogative, but even MORE important is the safegarding of what makes this country so great, and that is THE CONSTITUTION!!! Now, please, defend your position that subjugating the constitution is the best way to protect and defend the constitution.

Douglas Democrat wrote on February 14, 2008 11:35 PM: douglas,

I would point out that your own words have just classified the President of the United States as a terrorist sympathizer.

The President said that American lives will be lost if Congress does not change FISA. But he also said that he would veto any FISA bill that did grant retroactive immunity. No immunity, no FISA bill. If the FISA bill is critical to national security, pass it without the immunity provision, then bring the immunity provision up in a separate bill. As it stands now the President is, by his deeds, "protecting terrorist bombers".

Hear that sound? It's you being hoisted by your own petard.

douglas wrote on February 14, 2008 10:35 PM: those who by word or deed, intentionally aid and abet self-avowed enemies of this country, are they themselves equally culpable.

the driver of the getaway car is equally guilty as the bank robber. in this case, those who protect terrorist bombers are beneath contempt.

aksmith wrote on February 14, 2008 04:33 PM: Fascists intimidate phone companies into coughing up information that they should not be coughing up. They have a responsibility to protect their customers' information unless there is a valid court order in effect. But now, the fascists in Washington are intimidating phone companies to fight the fascists of Islam, so that's okay?

Save immunity for Bush and Clinton cronies. The phone companies should have known better and nothing should be handed to the government unless there is a valid judicial warrant. There is always a federal judge (or even a FISA court judge) on call 24 hours per day. Not a very high hurdle to keep things legal kids. And the phone companies know this.

FedUp wrote on February 14, 2008 03:07 PM: douglas-
What do you mean destroy this coutry? Do you mean eroding our freedoms and liberties? Do you mean blatant disregard for the Constitution? I'm willing to fight for my freedoms, and if that means holding ANY other citizen's feet to the fire of Constitutional muster, then burn, baby, burn! If that's not American, please, enlighten us!

John F wrote on February 14, 2008 01:54 PM: The usual spin.

Anyone who would facilitate fascists who would destroy our way of life are enemies of the United States. Those who use the fear of terrorism to destroy our Constitution and cower in the face of the terrorists should be an emberrassment to anyone with a modicum of honor.

Further, anyone who would say that those who place preservation of the Constitution above their own safety are aiding terrorism is obviously more afraid of terrorists than tyranny. What cowards.

Read All Comments