The vid that made the semi-finals is:

FROGs WOW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n23eu95NQE

Please watch and comment! If you cant comment...at least leave me a smile! ;)

Untill next time...........Helives!

WASHINGTON - Bowing to President Bush's demands, the Senate approved and sent the White House a bill Wednesday to overhaul bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.

The relatively one-sided vote, 69-28, came only after a lengthy and heated debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks. It ended almost a year of wrangling over surveillance rules and the president's warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The House passed the same bill last month, and Bush said he would sign it soon.

Opponents assailed the eavesdropping program, asserting that it imperiled citizens' rights of privacy from government intrusion. But Bush said the legislation protects those rights as well as Americans' security.

"This bill will help our intelligence professionals learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they're saying and what they're planning," he said in a brief White House appearance after the Senate vote.

The bill is very much a political compromise, brought about by a deadline: Wiretapping orders authorized last year will begin to expire in August. Without a new bill, the government would go back to old FISA rules, requiring multiple new orders and potential delays to continue those intercepts. That is something most of Congress did not want to see happen, particularly in an election year.

The long fight on Capitol Hill centered on one main question: whether to protect from civil lawsuits any telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on American phone and computer lines without the permission or knowledge of a secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The White House had threatened to veto the bill unless it immunized companies such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. against wiretapping lawsuits.

Forty-six lawsuits now stand to be dismissed because of the new law, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. All are pending before a single U.S. District Court in California. But the fight has not ended. Civil rights groups are already preparing lawsuits challenging the bill's constitutionality, and four suits, filed against government officials, will not be dismissed.

Numerous lawmakers had spoken out strongly against the no-warrants eavesdropping on Americans, but the Senate voted its approval after rejecting amendments that would have watered down, delayed or stripped away the immunity provision.

The lawsuits center on allegations that the White House circumvented U.S. law by going around the FISA court, which was created 30 years ago to prevent the government from abusing its surveillance powers for political purposes, as was done in the Vietnam War and Watergate eras. The court is meant to approve all wiretaps placed inside the U.S. for intelligence-gathering purposes. The law has been interpreted to include international e-mail records stored on servers inside the U.S.

"This president broke the law," declared Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.

The Bush administration brought the wiretapping back under the FISA court's authority only after The New York Times revealed the existence of the secret program. A handful of members of Congress knew about the program from top secret briefings. Most members are still forbidden to know the details of the classified effort, and some objected that they were being asked to grant immunity to the telecoms without first knowing what they did.

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter compared the Senate vote to buying a "pig in a poke."

But Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., one of the bill's most vocal champions, said, "This is the balance we need to protect our civil liberties without handcuffing our terror-fighters."

Just under a third of the Senate, including Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, supported an amendment that would have stripped immunity from the bill. They were defeated on a 66-32 vote. Republican rival John McCain did not attend the vote.

Obama ended up voting for the final bill, as did Specter. Feingold voted no.

The bill tries to address concerns about the legality of warrantless wiretapping by requiring inspectors general inside the government to conduct a yearlong investigation into the program.

Beyond immunity, the new surveillance bill also sets new rules for government eavesdropping. Some of them would tighten the reins on current government surveillance activities, but others would loosen them compared with a law passed 30 years ago.

For example, it would require the government to get FISA court approval before it eavesdrops on an American overseas. Currently, the attorney general approves that electronic surveillance on his own.

The bill also would allow the government to obtain broad, yearlong intercept orders from the FISA court that target foreign groups and people, raising the prospect that communications with innocent Americans would be swept in. The court would approve how the government chooses the targets and how the intercepted American communications would be protected.

The original FISA law required the government to get wiretapping warrants for each individual targeted from inside the United States, on the rationale that most communications inside the U.S. would involve Americans whose civil liberties must be protected. But technology has changed. Purely foreign communications increasingly pass through U.S. wires and sit on American computer servers, and the law has required court orders to be obtained to access those as well.

The bill would give the government a week to conduct a wiretap in an emergency before it must apply for a court order. The original law said three days.

The bill restates that the FISA law is the only means by which wiretapping for intelligence purposes can be conducted inside the United States. This is meant to prevent a repeat of warrantless wiretapping by future administrations.

The ACLU, which is party to some of the lawsuits that will now be dismissed, said the bill was "a blatant assault upon civil liberties and the right to privacy."

Untill next time...........Helives!

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has revised its policy for recruits who must get waivers for past bad behavior, but officials stopped short of eliminating waiver requirements for petty crimes, The Associated Press has learned.

After a lengthy review, the Defense Department bowed to insistence from the services that they be allowed to set their own guidelines for what offenses trigger a waiver. Instead, officials say the Pentagon will unveil a policy Wednesday that improves and simplifies the reporting process, grouping the waivers into four broad categories.

Several officials spoke about the new policy on condition of anonymity because it has not yet been released.

Last year, under the continuing strain of Iraq and Afghanistan, the number of recruits with waivers for bad conduct increased. Senior military leaders at the time suggested the department might be able to eliminate waiver requirements for some less serious crimes or lay out guidelines for what offenses demand a waiver.

After months of discussion with the military services, however, that did not pan out.

Marine officials, in particular, said they were reluctant to relax their standards for requiring waivers.

Instead, officials have now decided to create four waiver categories for major misconduct, misconduct, traffic offenses and non-traffic offenses. Under the new policy, each branch of the armed forces will set its own guidelines on what behavior requires a waiver, as long as it can assign each offense to one of the four categories.

Marines are known for their more strict waiver requirements, which result in a higher percentage of their recruits needing a special exemption to join. The most glaring difference is that one-time marijuana use warrants a waiver.

Thus, roughly half of Marine recruits require waivers to join, largely because more than a third of recruits require a waiver for previous drug use.

In pressing for waiver changes last year, military leaders said they wanted to streamline what can be a complicated, lengthy and cumbersome waiver process. The new policy — in development for nearly two years — will allow the Pentagon to better compare how recruits with certain waivers perform.

Last year, Lt. Gen. Michael Rochelle, the Army's deputy chief of staff for personnel, said a review of the process was necessary to make the military services more consistent. At the time, he noted that many recruits who were arrested as juveniles for what can be considered youthful indiscretions — minor fights or theft — are forced to get waivers even if they were never convicted of the crime.

"There are really anomalies out there," he said.

Overall, about three in every 10 military recruits must get a waiver, according to Pentagon statistics. About two-thirds of those approved in recent years have been for some type of criminal behavior — mostly minor infractions.

In addition to waivers for bad behavior, recruits also may need waivers for a host of reasons including health problems such as asthma or flat feet, low aptitude scores — and even for some tattoos.

Getting a waiver approved requires paperwork and at times lengthy investigation, from detailed health screenings and doctor referrals to testimonials from neighbors and relatives about past bad behavior. Depending on the seriousness, the final decision can be made by senior recruiting officers or higher-ranking commanders.

The policy changes come as the Army on Tuesday celebrated the 35th anniversary of the all-volunteer force, and as the services continue to meet their recruiting goals on a fairly consistent basis.

Standing in the sun-drenched Pentagon courtyard Tuesday, Gen. George Casey, chief of staff of the Army, swore in 15 new recruits and re-enlisted 16 soldiers for another tour.

He said later that any changes in the waiver policy will make the process better and "it will allow us to move a little quicker."

Casey, who joined the Army 38 years ago, entered when the draft was still in effect. These days, he said recruits who volunteer to enlist often face questions about why they are joining.

As he looked out at the soldiers — most of whom can expect to see combat in Iraq or Afghanistan — he said they believe in their ideals and believe "they can make a difference."

___

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil

~~~~~~~~~~~

Ummm people...........This is called "profiling"!

Untill next time...........Helives!