Salon attempts to expose secret domestic surveillance as potentially far more sweeping and criminal than many of us would have imagined, and the news organization's efforts are largely successful. Like others here, however, I find that the abundance of anonymous sources in this story leaves many questions unanswered. Still, I rate it highly for presenting this information in a straightforward and neutral manner. In terms of intelligence reporting, this ranks among the most thorough and detailed. I think we can expect more from Salon on this in the near future, as failure to follow up would be massively irresponsible.

While I applaud Salon's enterprise on this story, I'm not convinced that the evidence at hand is sufficient to back up the strong allegations made in this report. I would like to see more credible, named sources across party lines, and more factual, verifiable evidence before reaching a definitive conclusion. Salon's own partisan leanings also raise some questions about the fairness of this report; though I have my own doubts about the Bush administration's integrity, I think we owe it to ourselves to dig deeper before making such broad statements. To be continued, I hope.

An in-depth article about Bush’s domestic surveillance program, Main Core. Using extensive quotes from former insiders, it delves into exhaustive detail, revealing the potential that Main Core may involve more extensive spying of Americans by the Bush administration–up to 8 million citizens–that anyone ever suspected. Although civil liberty groups such as the ACLU would like to see a full investigation it may never happen. Quoting: ‘The Democrats’ reticence on such action ultimately may be rooted in congressional complicity with the Bush administration’s intelligence policies. If what we know is frightening enough, how bad is what we don’t know?

Jane Mayer, author of The Dark Side, mentions spying insiders who remain unhappy with the extent of illegal conduct within the program. She says their voices are starting to be heard publicly. Perhaps Tim Shorrock relies upon those sources in this Salon article. He writes about evidence that spying and information gathering has been more widespread than imagined and that it dates back to the Reagan presidency. Salon reports that civil liberties advocates and aides to Democratic congressional leaders propose that a bi-partisan investigative body be appointed to establish reforms aimed at preventing future abuses. The article provides proven details and a few suppositions; probably enough smoke to establish that a smoldering fire ... More »

Interesting piece, to say the least. Much remains to be uncovered regarding intentional suppression of CIA information, prior to the invasion, that showed rather clearly Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the US. The other angles mentioned in this story help to fill out the picture.

Unfortunately I don't think there is the political will or courage to actually pursue any serious investigations into the wrong doings of Bush et al.

The article serves journalism by investigating the subject of illegal domestic surveillance and emergency plans to incarcerate any citizen secretly thought to be "subversive." Several leaks of authentication of such illegal and secret activity are presented. Democratic party complicity is mentioned as part of the lack of backbone that appears to exist regarding investigating the surveillance. If other media would pick of the story, pressure to investigate might grow.

With this much speculation, so many dark hints and unnamed sources, I really did expect something about aliens at Area 51 to come into it eventually. Worthy of the finest traditions of supermarket tabloids, this is far below what I expect of Salon. It's also long and boring. If you get off on ghost stories, go ahead and waste your time. But trust me, these hearings will NEVER happen.

This student piece has minimal journalistic merit. The author has no knowledge of history, except what has been fed to him. He shows no sign of having heard of Presidents Lincoln, Wilson or FDR, whose wartime conduct makes Bush look like a civil libertarian in comparison. He does not know who Senator Joe McCarthy was, just accepts the statement of someone from a lobbying group, without reading to learn that McCarthy only was concerned about Communhists in goverfnment, and did much less than Wilson to put Communists and Socialists in jail.