This won't change anything. All electronic communications are already monitored and it's going to stay that way.

From my understanding of this law, it basically says "It's OK, we know you monitor all citizens' communications and pass them to local law enforcement, just please don't store them for more than 5 years... unless you want to store it for longer, up to you." Which will be interpreted as giving carte blanche authority to monitor, disseminate, and store all citizens' communications.

What changes is that this is no longer a secret law, but now a law published on the books for all citizens and the entire world to see.

I read that and assumed it was about a gangster political and the partys policys.

You know why we can't have nice things? This.

You'd think there would be a stronger likelihood Obama would veto this considering he may have been the victim of domestic spying himself. Then again, "don't rock the boat".

Edit: youtube video of Russ Tice interview if preferred over the nbc link above.

Obama will most likely wait until the end of his term to push any executive orders to stop domestic spying. First rule of power is to keep it. When you have to pass the power to someone that you don't trust, then you try to prevent them from having the same level of power that you had.

Seems plausible and predictable. But it's a long time-honored tradition in many cultures to pardon their leaders that came before. Sure the pardon is generally issued from corrupt elements still somehow enjoying power left over from a previous leadership (eg what happened in Egypt a few weeks ago). I think in most countries, corrupt leadership expects (and generally receives) absolute forgiveness from their own country's law.

So while Obama may issue last minute orders to strip away powers from his successor, he simply doesn't need to because it's guaranteed he'll be safe no matter what. The last Bush in office didn't seem too concerned leaving all new powers he amassed during his term to his successor.

Iraq is not an exception because Saddam Hussein was removed and ultimately executed by forces outside his country. North Korea however is a good example of an exception to this rule because many of the members of their leadership are rounded up and summarily executed anyway almost as daily a cultural ritual.

Edit: changed "predecessor" to "successor" for correct word usage, though really equates to the same thing when talking about politics.

Why do they hate your freedoms?

Cuz they're fascists.