And I say - well done...

It's somewhat passive aggressive, but the results are the same. By allowing the current wiretapping bill to expire, we've effectively guaranteed that court orders will be required going forward according to this rather aggrieved WSJ Op-Ed.

I would have preferred a more active victory for civil liberties, but I'll take anything I can get if it keeps Bush from listening to American citizen phone calls without a warrant.

So, while I'm absolutely no fan of Nancy Pelosi (and the Democratic party in general), at least they've gotten this one right. Funny, but didn't the Republican party used to stand for individual rights? It's a damn shame we've come to having only National Security and fear-mongering to run on...

clipped from online.wsj.com We've long held that a President doesn't need a court order under the Constitution to order such wiretaps. But the reality is that, because of these lawsuits, the telephone companies now won't cooperate without the legal protection of a court order. That's how pernicious these lawsuits are. We asked one phone company executive what he'd do, after Friday's expiration, in response to a government request for cooperation. His answer was blunt: "I'm not doing it. If I don't have compulsion, I can't get out of court [and those lawsuits]. . . . I'm not going to do something voluntarily." Having talked to telecom executives, we can tell you this view is well-nigh universal. Mr. Reyes claims that existing wiretap orders can stay in place for a year. But that doesn't account for new targets, which may require new kinds of telecom cooperation and thus a new court order. Mr. Reyes can make all the assertions he wants about immunity, but they are no defense against a lawsuit.