Senator Harkin said he was proud to be the first co-sponsor yesterday -- Tom Harkin. Others have said to me, "I'm not ready to sign on, but I really like it." ... It seems to me appropriate, when the spin machines are out there and people are using various language, to come out and reiterate my reasons for doing this. I think that the press decided immediately that somehow this was a bad thing for Democrats and a good thing for conservatives. The facts don't bear it out. You don't have the polls to prove it. The way my colleagues are responding to me uggests to me they're thinking about this, that they feel that there has to be some accountability. So the instant decision about what the story is, actually, I think is going to backfire on those who made up the story. I don't get the feeling that I had on Monday about this -- yes, people were concerned -- I'm not getting that. And if the right wing really believes in this country that -- Rush Limbaugh and others -- that they can somehow turn the president's reputation around by saying, "You're darn right he violated the law, and it's a good thing," I think they're just as confused as they are about their Iraq politics. People aren't buying it anymore. So not only do I not regret it, I felt an absolute obligation to do it.

Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that-- (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at-- (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or

.....a US person must either be a US citizen or someone lawfully admitted to the US for permanent residence. If someone resides in the US on a visa and not a green card, they do not qualify, nor do they qualify if they get a green card under false pretenses. FISA authorizes warrantless surveillance in its opening chapter:

And no, you don't arrest your intelligence sources until they have quit providing worthwhile information or indicate they themselves are going to commit a dangerous act.

I don't know if you're being disingenuous, or you just have a real problem with veracity.

charlie, still behind.

What if the call was in code and that code told them to do a terrorist act? After the taped call, what if they don't indicate on an electronic device that they are going to commit a terrorist act?

They are people receiving call from terrorist or phoning terrorists.

but he's been eavesdropping domestically on American citizens

against unreasonable searches,

Secondly, I have seen NO evidence that he has done so [eavesdropped domestically on American citizens], although I will concede the point for this discussion.

And finally, and again and again. Show me a totally domestic telephone call/whatever that has been listened to/whatever.

You make the claim that a crime has been committed. Show me the crime. And a mere recital of claims is not proof.

Dark Avenger - I see you are still protesting a crime that has not been admitted to, or proven.

I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything.

Again. Show me some warrantless domestic to domestic spying, which is what the Left is claiming.

You understand the point, you just don't want to admit it.

Al - The folks you mention [tortured prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib] are not covered by the US criminal justice system. They are not Pow's.

Show me some warrantless domestic to domestic spying, which is what the Left is claiming.