1 Narda Zacchino, deputy editor, San Francisco Chronicle (Chair) Mike Connelly, executive editor, Sarasota Herald-Tribune Kenneth Paulson, editor, USA Today Delia Rios, national correspondent, Newhouse News Service, Washington, DC *George Rodrigue, vice president/managing editor, The Dallas Morning News *past Pulitzer Prize winner

2 Is there an echo in here? Is there an echo in here?

3 Um. Thats not treason.

4 Libs hate monitoring of Al Queda contacts in the US.

5 But I don't read any of these publications, and they are all going out of business. Ah, the beauty of it all.......

6 I fail to see how this damages our security one iota. Like Al Qaeda suddenly says--wait, I'll stop phoning Ahmed in Arizona, for fear of the warrantless wiretapping, even though it was well known that the US had broad FISA wiretapping powers prior to 9-11, that were expanded by the Patriot Act. If the program is necessary, and exposure ends it, then you might have a case. So far, exposure hasn't ended it. All it has done is raise the question--why didn't the president ask Congress for this power? Or why didn't the president go through FISA? For my part, I'm glad that the NYT published this, and it is eminently worthy of a Pulitzer. The press must function as the watchdog on our liberties. As Hamilton said in the 8th federalist--"Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates...will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free..."

7 It wasn't known that there was an efficient program in place, or how that program operated. Now terrorists have been alerted to take extra precautions. That means that the first direct evidence you, jd, see of the damage done by the traitors at the Gray Lady will probably be the next major terror attack on this country. The NYT has a history of lying and treason; google Walter Duranty. We didn't need for the NYT to issue a direct warning to jihadi terrorists in order to help Risen sell books. This is like saying that publishing convoy sailing dates during WWII wouldn't have been treasonous because it was well known that convoys would be sailing. Perhaps if you took off your Democrat partisan hat and put on your American thinking cap the issue would be clearer for you, jd.

8 Did anyone get arrested for droppping this dime? I know the Old York Times was looked at until the news died down. The MSM seem to be connected to the New World Order (NWO). I guess Mr. Bush did not go alone with something the NWO wanted, and there lies the reason perhaps. That U.N. tax of ten cents a barrel of oil for world peace has not happened. Why? I don't know folks, I'm just thinking out loud. Will the U.S. bypass the U.N. again? The NWO does not like countries acting alone. They are all part of the team, and Bush on at least one subject did not go along, and caused France, Germany, Russia to lose a lot of money. It has been a few years now, will they all make nice, and play for the same team? Terrorists, whom Iran loves to support, were alerted. Iran may become part of the Nuke club due to contracts. Contracts in Iran give the same above mention countries money. Just like Iraq. I'm just bringing up topics because I do not like the NWO, the U.N., and the MSM; Also, I am at work and have to much time to think.

9 Before 9-11, any attentive person knew that over 17K warrants had been issued under FISA, and after 9-11 this was expanded and made even more user friendly. What did Al Qaeda learn from the NYT disclosure? That there were more warrants. We didn't learn how this program "operates" did we? I've seen speculation about data mining, but no usuable intel. Nothing remotely comparable to troop ship sailing time, which is just inflammatory rhetoric. All Al Qaeda learned from the NYT disclosure is that the president was wiretapping without Congress' knowledge, in direct contradiction to Congress' intent as expressed in law, and without a warrant, as required under the 4th amendment. Maybe if you took off your Republican partisan helmet, and put on your freedom-cherishing, liberty-loving American hat, maybe you'd see this correctly. JD

10 Look jd, I understand that the MSM serves a purpose. But they've assigned themselves various titles like 'objective', 'unbiased' and 'equitable'. Instead, they play word games and use improper terms like 'domestic wiretapping'. They imply more than they say by acts of ommission, misleading and sometimes employing flat out falsifications. If we need watcdogs like this then we wouldn't need watchdogs like blogs to keep an eye on the MSM. So far we have had many indications that there are those in Congress, the FBI, the CIA, the DIA and every other acronym out there that no one can be trusted to keep certain national security issues secret. It's absolutely no surprise that those members of Congress who were involved were few. We've never had an enemy quite like this. I would think it calls for stronger or more secretive measures. The NYT writers, Risen and Lichtblau, had an awful lot more information than was printed and it took the NYT a year, a year!, to decide that they might have to edit the story. You say that "Before 9-11, any attentive person knew that over 17K warrants had been issued under FISA, and after 9-11 this was expanded and made even more user friendly." If this is the case, then why was the story so worthy of a Pulitzer? Hell, any attentive person knew. Right? The NYT is in the sensationalism business. Listening in on phone calls made to terrorists is nothing new or exciting. But put the label 'domestic wiretapping' on it, provide an air of indignation and make the story reminiscent of a past President's transgressions and POW! you've got a story. This whole thing is horsesh*t. Prove to me it hasn't been done by every President during times of war AND peace, but in this case - it's the evil Bush regime. Meh.

11 Oyster--the 17K warrants were FISA warrants. FISA was established in 1978 in response to two things--the rampant abuse of wiretaps by the FBI and by presidents, Dem and Repub, in the 35 years studied by the Church commission, AND the need to have a fast, sub-4th amendment procedure to monitor spies and, an afterthought, terrorists. FISA set up a rapid approval process, in which a federal judge was permanently in Washington (on a rotating basis) to approve these warrants. It was so easy to get one that prior to 2001, only one had been turned down! And while the turnaround time was 24 hrs for approval, the FBI and AG could, if they felt it necessary, conduct the wiretap in advance for 72 hours while waiting for approval. So no waiting was necessary. This IS a real issue because the Constitution forbids searches without a warrant. I'm someone who believes that the Constitution means what it says (yes, I'm against Roe). Why did the president need to go around FISA? Why did the president not ask COngress for a new law (he would have gotten it. Hell, he'd get it today. Just ask. That's what checks and balances are all about). Yes, in wartime, presidents have taken broad powers. Lincoln closed newspapers, etc. But this is a war that will last our lifetimes and beyond. We must not have an executive out of control. And it IS domestic wiretapping--in the sense that I only care about it when one of the people being monitored is in this country. The president's right to surveill abroad is not checked by any constitutional limit. His power to do so at home is--or should be. We would be safer if we didn't have a constitution. We would have less crime if the police could search any home, any time they wanted to. We'd be a lot safer if the cops could confiscate everyone's guns. But because of the constitution, they can't. Thank God.

12 And they also gave the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE to a known terrorists leader YASSIR ARAFAT and our fomer jerk in the whitehouse JIMMY CARTER

13 I agree giving it to Arafat was a huge mistake. And of course, they also gave it to former terrorist Menachem Begin, right? The Irgun wasn't planting flowers, it was planting bombs. Bombs that killed innocent and guilty alike. Read some of Jablonsky's own words to know how deeply the underground embraced the slaughter of civilians as a necessary strategy in achieving nationhood. One could say that Begin deserved it for choosing peace after a lifetime of war. That would also depend on how one sees the settlements, Sabra and Shatila, and the ugly Lebanon war as a whole. Michael Deaver threatened to resign if Reagan didn't stop the shelling of civilians in Beirut by the Israelis. RR picked up the phone, called Begin, shouted at him, and thirty minutes later, halfway around the world, the guns that had killed so many innocents suddenly were silenced. It's a riveting moment in Deaver's biography but it also raises the question-Begin gets the peace prize, and then does this?

14 jd, the arguments I've heard are not about being able surveille for 72 hours while waiting for approval, nor that it only generally takes 24 hours to gain approval. These are things that can't be argued. The issue is that the process of getting to that point where the wait is so short and so favorable and so streamlined is cumbersome and demanding. Understandably so, but only to a degree. Even if it was so good and so efficient it was also obstructed by others in disallowing communication between organizations - one who might apply for the FISA warrant and the other who might not. But even so, you're operating under the impression that what was being done was illegal. There are far smarter people than you or I, constitutional scholars and lawyers, who can't agree on the lawfulness or constitutionality of the program. The arguments from both sides are quite good, but we only hear the arguments that the media agrees with unless we're willing to dig for information ourselves. Personally, I'd err on the side of our safety. However, that's my personal opinion.

15 Oh, and for Carter, who has been justly criticized on a number of points, I think the peace prize was mostly about Camp David, as well as his postpresidency work on disease and disorder. What he has done with the guinea worm is truly amazing. Compare his post presidency activities with those of any other president, except perhaps Hoover, and they have been remarkably selfless. Habitat for Humanity? Election monitoring? While many presidents simply retire, or travel the world making millions, this guy, love or hate his presidency, has done a world of good. Also--Camp David was his finest hour. He brought a lasting (if cold) peace between Egypt and Israel, nations that had fought major wars in 47-8, 56, 67, and 73, along with numerous border fights. Nobel prizes have been given for a lot less. the world is a better place because of Camp David. Even Carter's opponents acknowledged that.

16 Fore!

17 Oyster--good points. The process for getting the warrant needed to be streamlined--and it was, by the Patriot Act revisions. If further change was needed, why not do it the legal way--by asking Congress? Moussaoui's case showed that there were problems with the interp of FISA by FBI/Justice lawyers (they turned down the field office request for a FISA warrant to look in his computers--it MIGHT have stopped 9-11)--not the federal judge. We still don't know who did that--they should have been fired. But we haven't held anyone accountable for 9-11 failures or Iraq intel failures. Maybe we never will. But the difficulty of agencies communicating was CREATED by the president's warrantless wiretapping. The FISA court, when told of the illegal (ok, questionably legal) wiretapping, said, hey, you can't have any of that crap in our courtroom, because we are following the law. So no evidence obtained without a warrant can be used to get a warrant. This does create difficulties, I agree--but the difficulties were created by the president's decision to, at best, dodge the law. Again, we would all be safer, against terrorism and against crime, if we didn't have that pesky constitution. If we strip searched everyone within 10 miles of the president, we could almost guarantee we'd never have another assassination. Thank God we don't. Balancing liberty and security is never easy--and should never be done by one branch, without the knowledge and usually the consent of the others. That's the way the constitution works.

18 Give him enough rope .... Fore!

19 They dont gove prizes or awards for those who have earned them they only give them to the ones who show how left-wing they can be after all they gave the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE to terrorist leader YASSIR ARAFAT and to that idiot JIMMY CARTER and they gave a oscar to that idiot MICHEAL MOORE for his junk film BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE and they ignore the real good films to award trash like CHICAGO,AMERICAN BUETY,SIDEWAYS,and MILLOIN DOLLAR BABY