Dear FRONTLINE,

Great program! Amazing the negative comments that you have received. We would not have this great country of ours if these people had been in charge instead of our founding fathers. Maybe if they had paid a little more attention in high school history class they would have a better idea of what makes this country so special.

Their willingness to give the government unchecked power to snoop into the lives of the innocent Americans, dishonors the thousands of service members who have given their lives to keep this country free. I can not think of anything more cowardly.

Land of the free and home of the brave? Sometimes I wonder...

John Riddick
Denver, CO

Dear FRONTLINE,

I am a new fan of your great show. I belive that we need a news program that is free of any corporate influence. That being said, the erosion of our civil liberties is a both vital and I feel, quiet topic in the American public. I observe that most Americans are willing to take off their shoes, wait longer in airport lines, or be randomly searched by security authorities as long as it is being "done" in the name of "security." Back in the beginning, the British Redcoats would barge into your home and have you house one of their soldiers, with no permission from you. At the end of the Civil War we put the head of a Confederate prision on trial for war crimes and mistreatment of prisoners. Who are we? That is the only question that matters at the end of the day. Who are we? When we look at ourselves in the reflection who and what looks back at us? Is it Americans defending themselves or the enemy in denial? Do we even want to find out the true answer? If we have the courage to find out, I belive we do; after all we are Americans!!

Michael A Villacres
Queens Village, NY

Dear FRONTLINE,

The federal government had tremendous surveillance authority even prior to 9/11; Congress granted the intelligence and law enforcement "communities" even more power -- significanlty more power -- then the FBI and NSA enaged in activities further and further beyond waht they had been given. The folks who decry this Frontline program are very naive. Yes, the government has a duty to protect us. But there are checks and balances -- and levels of accountability -- that many of our so-called "protectors" have no use for whatsoever. The threat of terrorism does not warrant unlimited fishing expeditions into our communications. The FBI and NSA have continually abused their authority and, sorry to say, they cannot be trusted. Thank you Frontline for this important project.

Steve Peacock
Point Pleasant, NJ

Dear FRONTLINE,

It strikes me that the main issue of the documentary was whether or not the president has any limits when it comes to a time of war. Habeas corpus, the 4th amendment, and the Constitution in general are integral to our legal system, and the idea that war indicates the president need not pay any attention to them whatsoever is chilling.

Such is Yoo's argument: the commander in chief's power supersedes any law deemed unnecessary or a hindrance to the pursuit of the war.

Frontline's question seems to be: is that really true? If it is true, then the further question is whether or not we are any longer truly in a democracy that is run by checks and balances. Rather, the result seems to be tacit marshal law.

So the issue is not whether or not an innocent was caught up and unlawfully imprisoned in the net (though people such as Maher Arar certainly were), but whether there are limits and checks on executive power.

W. Swedlow
Alameda, Ca

Dear FRONTLINE,

I find it interesting that so many conservatives are willing to waive the Fourth Amendment yet so unwilling to waive the Second!

Columbus, Ohio

Dear FRONTLINE,

Perhaps more shocking than the show, at least for me, were the responses and the willingness of some to surrender rights and protections. As for the assertion that if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear, I disagree. In order to believe that you have to assume that everyone in government is good and would never do anything wrong --like abuse their power--. It also suggests a willingness to trust completely, not just the current administration but all who come after them.

Saint Louis, Missouri

Dear FRONTLINE,

I watch Frontline regularly, and most of your stories are examples of superb journalism. With this story, however, I am bewildered by some of the weaknesses in the reporting. First, there is assumption that personal privacy protection as specified in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is extended to all our activities and dealings. Much of our business intercourse are a matter of public record. Our taxes, home mortgage, address and all legal dealings are public information free to be accessed by anyone.

Second, the question should have been asked, are our regular business activities such as shopping at a store our private information exclusively. Isn't it also the information of all parties of the transaction, which could include a credit card company and a credit card or check processor, a bank and or finance company. The list of parties could get quite long. Checking into a hotel, taking a cab, and renting a car, are not private activities. When the Constutiton was written, I believe the intention of the framers were to prevent the authorities from physically entering our homes and those areas where we have a reasonable expectation of privacy without a warrant, and then using it unethically against us. We live in a different time with technoligical advances that the writers of the Bill of Rights could not have imaged. The direction your report should have taken was to ask where in all the communications technologies does one have a reasonable expection of privacy, and how is it being violated. One should not have an expectation of privacy taking a very public trip to Las Vagas. Another question could be, were the these 'victims' in this report unreasonably inconvenienced by what the FBI did in Las Vegas? One of the features of your story that was of relevance, in my opinion, regarding privacy was the NSA listening in on private telephone conversation of Americans. This is an area that privacy is expected, traditionally. This should have been the focus of your reporting.

Marcell Robateau
Boston , MA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thanks for this insightful, disturbing documentary; it should be a warning to all freedom-loving citizens.

I find disturbing the ignorant partisanship that inevitably filters its way into these educated exchanges. Uninformed comments like "it seems that most of the negativity about this video is from people that don't like Bush" and "we haven't been attacked since 9/11" have no place in this conversation. My advice is to save that sort of bootlicking, partisan cheerleading for "O'Reilly Factor" and other Fox fare. Such inane comments make the educated reader long for a "dittohead" filter to reject these trite posts.

This discussion is not about President Bill Clinton's administration, it is not pro-Democrat -- it isn't even left-wing or liberal-biased. It is a discussion about liberty, privacy, and technocracy. It is an unanswered question that will shape the future of our democracy: How much freedom are we, as Americans, willing to surrender in exchange for increased security within our borders? I, for one, believe there are prescribed limits.

Partisan thinkers forget what is at stake: the fundamental principles of liberty and privacy, both of which are guaranteed by the Constitution. These principles are neither left nor right, Bush nor Clinton. They are the pillars of our government, the keystones to our Constitution. It is our duty as Americans to protect these rights as did our forefathers, many of whom died in the preservation of these sacrosanct tenets of government.

I would add that the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear argument" is nothing more than holier-than-thou one-upmanship. If this viewer learned only one thing from this program, one would hope it would be the criticality of the miscast Las Vegas dragnet. Such mistakes bring to the fore the core question of how we control these tools of technocracy and, within that structure, who serves the role of ombudsman.

One would think a man charged with the defense of this country and its citizenry (and, by extension, its Constitution) would have a better understanding of the issue and a greater zeal for the protection of these civil liberties. I fear this type of thinking is commonplace within the defense and intelligence communities -- indeed, the executive branch as a whole. As a result, checks and balances from the legislative and judicial branches are (and always have been) essential components of our finely crafted government.

Thanks again for bringing this matter to the public airwaves.

R. Jenkins
La Crosse, WI

Dear FRONTLINE,

As lawyer, I was very disappointed by the completely shallow legal analysis this show displayed.

Much, if not all, of the information the FBI "mined" in Las Vegas was simply NOT private. If I go to a hotel, I have no guaranty that my stay there will not be made public. Witnesses may see me register. The hotel may sell my name to a marketing service. My car tags may be photographed in the parking lot. In short, public activities have NEVER been subject to privacy rights, and going to Vegas is certainly a very public activity. If you don't like that, stay in your hovel and don't move about.

I was equally shocked by the lack of any alleged "victims" from the so-called "spying." So the FBI "knows" the names of thousands of people who went to Vegas for New Years in 2003. Big Fat Deal. That and $4.00 will get you a gallon of regular gasoline these days.

Honestly, you people need to give some better thought to your projects. Some Frontline programs are fabulous. This one was a bigger dud than the alleged attack on Vegas in 2003.

Tom Renda
Rockville, Maryland

Dear FRONTLINE,

it seems that most of the negativity about this video is from people that don't like Bush.

We haven't been attacked since 9/11

enough said

Bobby Caruso
Spokane , WA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Kudos to everyone concerned with the program especially Mr. Headrick. It is a public service to every American. Special thanks to the brave and knowledgeable whistle-blowers, privacy rignts advocates and journalists who contributed to the effort. Knowledge of this information about government spying and the processes involved in deceiving the American public is an excellent weapon in the war on terror. Informed and free Americans, living without fear of our own government, are the best deterrent to radicalism of any kind. Thanks very, very much!

Corliss Crabtree
San Antonio, TX

Dear FRONTLINE,

How naive can Frontline be? The NSA has been capturing and filtering all electronic communications for decades. Then the story of the honeypot at AT&T. It just happens that the technician "got" a list of equipment in a secure room. I don't think so. It's the old "Hey look over there." Then the comparison to what the Constitution say about personal privacy and someone going to Las Vegas using a credit card to buy a airline ticket, rent a car and hotel room. You give up your privacy to companies when you do these things and no one seems to care, but when the government gets involved to keep people safe everyone has a cow.

Give me a break. Frontline you used to do better stories than this.

Mike Barstow
Barstow, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Why isn't Congress more upset about this? From the program I get the impression that ALL communications are suspect. That would include presidential and congressional communications. If the NSA data mines the governemntal communications, an unscrupulus "miner" (by executive order or on a freelance basis) could find sensetive personal information and effect public policy. It's scary and fundementally undermines democracy. Could you discuss this aspect of the policy in a future show?

Park City, UT

Dear FRONTLINE,

After this posting, I'm think I'm going to throw away my computer.

Will the American Public ever be concerned over this? Can our country ever again retrieve "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Or did we ever had such a moment?

Marc Moody
Honolulu, Hawaii

Dear FRONTLINE,

Excellent piece, as always. I am left wondering, however: Where is the outrage? How many people in this country could even tell you what the Fourth Amendment is, let alone why they should care about it? I am willing to bet that even George Bush had never read the constitution before taking office. If he did, he surely didn't comprehend a word.

Cheryl Graham
Wenatchee, WA