"most" is your word.
The article states SOME, and then refuses to say how many are actually accidental numerical issues.

It says SOME. Not "most".


Sarge. You are GROSSLY misstating what the article is actually saying.

Parts of the Patriot Act, including a section on "roving wiretaps," expire in December. Such wiretaps allow the FBI to get permission from a secret federal court to listen in on any phone line or monitor any Internet account that a terrorism suspect may be using, whether or not others who are not suspects also regularly use it.

I have no problem with "roving wiretaps" involving an ACTUAL warrant.

But "secret federal courts"?
Using the word "permission" as opposed to "warrant"?
There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with that picture.


ROFLMAO!
You are GROSSLY misquoting the story, bordering on "lying".

You claimed "most" when the article actually says "some".
The article just talks about the EXISTENCE of the Patriot Act program.
The legality of that aspect of it, and HOW MANY of the warrantless wiretaps are of that nature, also has yet to be seen. I believe the latest is a judge ruling that Bush's warrantless wire-tapping program must stop.

Unfortunately, the current administration is being incredibly tight-lipped about it, asking for maximum openness from the U.S. civilians but an insistence that the government's tactics not be questioned.

EXACTLY my point.
And for the record, I have yet to see anybody show an example of this happening with the democrats in power. Plenty of allegations against the democrats trying to excuse the republicans by implying that the democrats are guilty of it too, but no explicit naming of an issue that the democrats allowed violation of checks and balances.

You are correct I did misinterpret the article. The article says that the FBI makes mistakes in SOME wiretaps. And in those SOME mistakes, an indeterminable amount is due to technical issues.


First, since the writing of the article, the Patriot act has been extended. Second. THe Secret federal court is actually the Special Court that was established by the FISA of 1978. Furthermore, the law states:

Upon an application made pursuant to section 1804 of this title, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested or as modified approving the electronic surveillance if he finds that—

Yes I mistakenly used one word. You by checking the article uncovered that mistake. And then you yourself went on to misrepresent the use the word as well.
By trying to imply that only some of the mistakes were technical, when in actuality the word some was used to represent the amount of mistakes. The FBI said that there were some mistakes.

And furthermore you continue to try to use this article in conjunction with the NSA Foreign Surveillance Program. It is not the same thing!!! It is not now, nor has it ever been the same thing!!! So who is really lying!!!!!!!!!!

dmk