Ozzy, Please explain the difference between Bush saying he can now wiretap anyone he pleases without judicial oversight and the previous lawful reality where there was a judicial oversight. Both allowed immediate investigation of any suspected terrorists. The law allowed a time period for an immediate investigation and then the FISA court would rule if the investigation was legitimate. And in almost every case the FISA court was okay with the investigations. Why? Because the government was actually investigating threats. The law (which protected the rights of Americans) would still allow the government to IMMEDIATELY wiretap anyone it suspected of being a threat to us. That means there is absolutely no hindrance to our government investigating a valid threat against us. Bush claims the reason they do not want judicial oversight is that the process is too slow for them to conduct investigations that require immediate action on their part. This is BULLSHIT. It's a ridiculous excuse to fool those who do not want to examine the law. They already had the legal right to wiretap suspected terrorists and to do it immediately. So, what can we presume? By not allowing judicial oversight, Bush has entered the realm of suspicious deceit. If he can wiretap anyone he pleases, then how do we know that he is not wiretapping his political and business enemies? I have to presume that is exactly what he is doing, otherwise he had the law on his side to do legitimate IMMEDIATE investigations with judicial oversight. How do we know that Bush is not listening in on his political and business enemies? WE DON'T IF THERE IS NO JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT!!! Ozzy's claim that by continuing judicial oversight we weaken our defense is preposterous and founded in the belief that the lawful method was hindering investigations. Ozzy, I look forward to seeing you provide factual proof how the legal method (with judicial oversight) was a hindrance to the war on terror.