Documents released Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union show that the FBI investigated gatherings of the Thomas Merton Center for Peace & Justice in Pittsburgh because the organization opposed the Iraq war, both groups alleged in a written statement released Tuesday.

Your article does not quite follow the facts.  You stated:

Freedom of Information requests have shown several groups to have been spied on.

The Article says the documents are from the ACLU, not that they obtained them through FOIA.  In addition, both groups seem overtly cautious to use the word Alleged.  Which indicates it is possibly an unamed source type of thing that cannot as of yet be proven.  It also does not say what type of 'spying' went on.  It could quite literally be simply that the FBI checked them out to make sure they were not a front group, which has been going on since the beginning of the republic under both Democrats and Republicans.

In short, there is a lot of smoke, and it seems to be coming mostly from the ACLU, Michigan Peaceworks and Thomas Merton Center. But so far, no flames have been seen.

the loony lefties need no proof doc, they just asume anything bad about bush must be the truth.

Just look at the headline if this article.

the loony lefties need no proof doc, they just asume anything bad about bush must be the truth.

True, but perhaps if we discect the errors, then some such as Aswayopens, can start being more critical, and less willing to buy stuff that is just empty rhetoric.

AsWayOpens:

I have to ask you (though, from your activity on past posts, I actually expect no reply) why it's "illegal spying" and a terrible outrage when Bush wants the NSA to keep an eye and ear on particular people (suspected terrorists and their familiars) by listening in on certain phone numbers and calls to or from a certain part of the world, but when CLINTON had the NSA intercept ALL phone calls and ALL e-mails coming and going in the country, it was hunky-dory. The projects were called "Eschelon" (phone calls) and "Carnivore" (e-mails).
Go ahead and impeach Bush....you idiot libs will find out that just about EVERY president has used that power at some point during his administration, not that that will matter to any of you, because you just hate him to an unreasonable level.

I think this blog is illegal. Actually I can't prove that... well, and actually I know it isn't, but maybe if I can make enough people take it for granted they'll be more apt to believe as I do, not as AsWayOpen, the evil villain writing allegedly illegal blogs, believes.

After all, it doesn't matter whether smear is deserved, only if it sticks.

I do find one thing interesting in the link:

A local peace group is offering a pre-emptive strike in response to domestic spying programs and

The funny thing is that Aswayopen was complaining about Bush doing pre-emptive strikes on another article of his. So it's ok for some to do pre-emptive strikes but not Bush? Keep in mind that pre-emptive is not just for attacking with weapons.

Many in this lovely country of ours have already figured out that these taps are illegal, guys.

Many in this lovely country of ours have already figured out that these taps are illegal, guys.

No, many have ASS-U-MED it.  YOu have not offered any proof and indeed there is none even in your links as the FBI doing checks on organizations is Perfectly legal!

Many in this lovely country of ours have already figured out that these taps are illegal, guys.

But not one of them did anything about it, nor are they working to stop them now. They are merely trying to get Prs. Bush punished for it.

I haven't heard one peep about discontinuing the surveilance from any elected official who says the taps were wrong. They'll spread their verbal vomit about how wrong they think it is, but what do they do to stop it? NOTHING.

What did they do before the press made it a political issue...
NOTHING.

So, my AlwaysClosed friend, what does that say about them?

So much more than NOTHING.

This country is chocked full of people in the judicial branch who hate Bush. Do you really, really think that this couldn't be pushed legally if it was as obvious as these people think it is? President Clinton couldn't avoid it with a 60% approval rating and all he did was get a hummer.

verbal vomit

I like that Ted! Have a nickle Awo

Aswayopens, you haven't answered my question. Allow me to reiterate:

Clinton had the NSA intercept ALL phone calls and e-mails, and no one said anything about it. That was in peacetime, too, don't forget.
However, your Boogeyman Bush wants the NSA (same group Clinton used, if you'll notice) to listen mainly to suspected terrorists and certain phones and numbers to and from certain people and places, in WARTIME.
Yes AWO, wartime, when those certain people want very much, fanatically, in fact, to kill us (which includes YOU, by the by) and destroy this country, and suddenly it's the Second Coming of the Gestapo.

Why was it okay for "Peace-at-all-cost-because-war-would-hurt-my-popularity-numbers" Bill but not "Screw-the-polls-lets-get'em-before-they-get-us" George?

Top Ten Myths About the Illegal NSA Spying on Americans :

MYTH: This is merely a "terrorist surveillance program."

REALITY: When there is evidence a person may be a terrorist, both the criminal code and intelligence laws already authorize eavesdropping. This illegal program, however, allows electronic monitoring without any showing to a court that the person being spied upon in this country is a suspected terrorist.

MYTH: The program is legal.

REALITY: The program violates the Fourth Amendment and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and will chill free speech.

MYTH: The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) allows this.

REALITY: The resolution about using force in Afghanistan doesn't mention wiretaps and doesn't apply domestically, but FISA does--it requires a court order.

MYTH: The president has authority as commander in chief of the military to spy on Americans without any court oversight.

REALITY: The Supreme Court recently found the administration's claim of unlimited commander in chief powers during war to be an unacceptable effort to "condense power into a single branch of government," contrary to the Constitution's checks and balances.

MYTH: The president has the power to say what the law is.

REALITY: The courts have this power under our system of government, and no person is above the law, not even the president, or the rule of law means nothing.

MYTH: These warrantless wiretaps could never happen to you.

REALITY: Without court oversight, there is no way to ensure innocent people's everyday communications are not monitored or catalogued by the NSA or other agencies.

MYTH: This illegal program could have prevented the 9/11 attacks.

REALITY: This is utter manipulation. Before 9/11, the federal government had gathered intelligence, without illegal NSA spying, about the looming attacks and at least two of the terrorists who perpetrated them, but failed to act.

MYTH: This illegal program has saved thousands of lives.

REALITY: Because the program is secret the administration can assert anything it wants and then claim the need for secrecy excuses its failure to document these claims, let alone reveal all the times the program distracted intelligence agents with dead ends that wasted resources and trampled individual rights.

MYTH: FISA takes too long.

REALITY: FISA allows wiretaps to begin immediately in emergencies, with three days afterward to go to court. Even without an emergency, FISA orders can be approved very quickly and FISA judges are available at all hours.

MYTH: Only liberals disagree with the president about the program.

REALITY: The serious concerns that have been raised transcend party labels and reflect genuine and widespread worries about the lack of checks on the president's claim of unlimited power to illegally spy on Americans without any independent oversight.

When there is evidence a person may be a terrorist, both the criminal code and intelligence laws already authorize eavesdropping. This illegal program, however, allows electronic monitoring without any showing to a court that the person being spied upon in this country is a suspected terrorist.

The thing that triggers the electronic monitoring is contact with or by a person outside the US considered to be a terrorist or legitimate terrorist suspect. The program does not "spy upon" people randomly. That contact creates the suspicion. I'll grant you that the content of such conversations could be preserved, unheard, pending a FISA warrant. I don't know enough about the logistics to say whether that could constitute an exploitable weakness and create enough of a delay for a terrorist plan to be activated, despite claims that FISA warrants are granted instantaneously & without question (which raises the corollary question, "What's the point of a FISA court?).

REALITY: The program violates the Fourth Amendment and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and will chill free speech.

It would certainly chill "free speech" with terrorists, which in my view is the same kind of "free speech" as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It's legality in the context of the war on terror is yet to be determined.

MYTH: The president has the power to say what the law is. REALITY: The courts have this power under our system of government, and no person is above the law, not even the president, or the rule of law means nothing.

I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that "myth" to be true, except the President's opponents in the course of mischaracterizing the program and his intentions.

MYTH: These warrantless wiretaps could never happen to you. REALITY: Without court oversight, there is no way to ensure innocent people's everyday communications are not monitored or catalogued by the NSA or other agencies.

Aside from the physical impossibility of doing so. And for the further fact that any such taps would be useless to the feds since they would be inadmissible as evidence for any domestic purpose. Unless it's usable, it's pointless and, dumb as the feds are, they're not completely stupid. Your reality here is itself a counter-myth.

MYTH: This illegal program could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. REALITY: This is utter manipulation. Before 9/11, the federal government had gathered intelligence, without illegal NSA spying, about the looming attacks and at least two of the terrorists who perpetrated them, but failed to act.

This oversimplifies the character and extent of our foreknowledge and conveniently ignores the blinders we had intentionally put in place to be sure the left hand did not know what the right hand knew (remember Jamie Gorelick). There is no certainty that any program would have prevented 9/11, but having such a program in place would have made detection and preemption of the 9/11 attacks much more likely. That very unwillingness to even inadvertently expose our citizens to monitoring was one of things so spectacularly exploited by Bin Laden on 9/11.

REALITY: Because the program is secret the administration can assert anything it wants and then claim the need for secrecy excuses its failure to document these claims, let alone reveal all the times the program distracted intelligence agents with dead ends that wasted resources and trampled individual rights.

Can you give us the name of a single individual, just one, who's individual rights have been "trampled." Any completely innocent Americans who have been harmed?

MYTH: FISA takes too long. REALITY: FISA allows wiretaps to begin immediately in emergencies, with three days afterward to go to court. Even without an emergency, FISA orders can be approved very quickly and FISA judges are available at all hours.

This criticism is legitimate, but only if it is assumed that the President's power during time of war remains subject to FISA. I would have expected a firestorm of MSM coverage of that Supreme Court ruling you referred to in another Myth point, so I don't know whether this question has been answered.

REALITY: The serious concerns that have been raised transcend party labels and reflect genuine and widespread worries about the lack of checks on the president's claim of unlimited power to illegally spy on Americans without any independent oversight.

The President has never claimed the unlimited power to illegally spy on Americans - he's claimed that the power to conduct electronic monitoring of contacts with real or potential terrorists in limited circumstances as part of the war on terror is legal. He swore to uphold the Constitution and I don't believe he'd knowingly and willfuly defy it.

Thanks for sharing the DNC talking points.

Reply By: AsWayOpensPosted: Sunday, March 19, 2006

Let me give you a clue, and I will not even charge you $250 for it.

Prove any one of those realities. Anyone.  Show how it is applicable.  Then you will have an arguement, instead of propaganda.