Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Bethesda Responds To Oblivion Re-Rating 341

Gamespot has details on Bethesda's response to the ESRB for their (some would argue) knee-jerk reaction to fan-added elements of Oblivion. From the article: "There is no nudity in Oblivion without a third party modification. In the PC version of the game only - this doesn't apply to the Xbox 360 version - some modders have used a third party tool to hack into and modify an art archive file to make it possible to create a mesh for a partially nude (topless) female that they add into the game. Bethesda didn't create a game with nudity and does not intend that nudity appear in Oblivion." They go on to state they submitted a 60-page document detailing the violence in the game. If anyone is at fault here, I think it's the ESRB.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bethesda Responds To Oblivion Re-Rating

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Thursday May 04, 2006 @09:19AM (#15261585)
    You know one day we'll look back on the pre-Bush era in America as a golden age of freedom, where we acted more out of the desire to maintain our freedom than out of fear, paranoia, and ludicrous overreaction. We are now approaching the point where even the POSSIBILITY of an product's use is grounds for censorship or federal legislation, no matter how many might use that product legitimately.

    Don't want the NSA monitoring your phone calls? Sorry, there is the POTENTIAL that terrorists could use it to call other terrorists.

    Want to use myspace to talk with your friends? Sorry, there is the POTENTIAL that a pedophile might use it to harm you.

    Want to mod your videogame? Sorry, there is the POTENTIAL someone could modify it to show more nudity or violence.

    Want freedom of the press? Sorry, there is the POTENTIAL that something the press reveals could compromise our security.

    Don't want the government to secretly demand all your Google search records, library book records, video store rentals, etc.? Sorry, there is the POTENTIAL that one of these could have been used by a terrorist to learn how to make a bomb.


  • This is insane. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by incubuz1980 ( 450713 ) * on Thursday May 04, 2006 @09:20AM (#15261587) Homepage
    People could paste a picture of "a partialy nude female" on their monitor while playing any game?

    All games sould be rated M?

    Hackers could possibly hack the ESRB website and add a picture of "a partialy nude female" on the site.

    Sould the ESRB website be rated M?
  • by Kelt ( 85402 ) <steve&casadavila,net> on Thursday May 04, 2006 @09:30AM (#15261657)
    As much as I agree, and many of those statements are true, the "going after video games" trend is a bi-partistan thing. One of the heads of the inquest recently over Hot Coffee was Hillary Clinton. Both sides want to be seen as "making the world safe for our children" and moreover, don't want to be labeled as "wanting to make the world unsafe for our children" in political ads.

    It's sad, but in the end the uninformed, uncaring voters are to blame.

  • by arkham6 ( 24514 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @09:31AM (#15261667)
    The ERSB is obviously over reacting to this 'hack'. This isnt blatant nudity, this is a form that has textures applied over it to give the appearance of wearing clothing. If you actualy SAW the 'naked' image, all you see are wierd looking psudo breasts, that are not even complete. There is no nipple, there is no obvious sexuality. And there is certanly no minigame where you get to boink anywhere ALA hot coffee.

    the ERSB is just rying to show they "putting their foot down" against nudity in games. Unfortunately they are doing it the wrong way, but that does not really matter to them. Walmart mom and k-mart dad don't really understand layered modeling and don't really care.
  • I'm pretty sure many people would enjoy living in a totalitarian regime that protects everone from being offended or shocked.

    Except that the step from being the offended person to being the offending person is really small... One always has to keep that in mind when whiching for a nanny state.

  • by lbrandy ( 923907 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @09:35AM (#15261702)
    You know one day we'll look back on the pre-Bush era in America as a golden age of freedom

    Kinda like I already look back on the pre-Bush era of Slashdot... where we didn't blame every single thing we could irrationally connect to the President on him, and get modded up for it.
  • by bunions ( 970377 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @09:38AM (#15261721)
    I swear, we have more in common with the Islamic fundamentalists we're at war with than we have differences.

    I can snap necks all goddamn day as Sam Fisher, but if there might be a possibility that a child might see OH CHRIST A BREAST HOLY SWEET JESUS FORFEND, everyone immediately jumps up their own butts.
  • by greyfeld ( 521548 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @09:38AM (#15261722) Journal
    Apparently, you are misunderstanding the difference between Oblivion and GTA's "Hot Coffee" content. GTA had the sexually explicit content, a man and women engaged in a graphical depiction of sex, built into the game. This content was released by TakeTwo in all versions (Xbox, Playstation, PC, etc) of the game. Yes it did take a 3rd-party hack to unlock the content, but the content was an actual piece of code included in the game when purchased at retail.

    Oblivion, on the other hand, does not have that content shipped with the game. It cannot be unlocked because it doesn't exist. What Bethesda did do, was make a tool set available so that players could make their own content for the game. There are dozens of player created mods available with new content that you can add to the PC VERSION ONLY. One of these player created mods happens to be a naked woman model.

    Bethesda is complaining that this content was not included in the product that they shipped and thus they should not be rated on content they are not selling. I happen to agree with that. How can they be held responsible for something they really have no control over? If you buy a circular saw and proceed to cut off your hand, should the circular saw manufacturer be held accountable for your stupidity?

  • by PFI_Optix ( 936301 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @09:38AM (#15261725) Journal
    2) Considering how most people seem to enjoy the concept of a nanny-state where their government will protect its citizens from "the bad people" (which may be Communists, terrorists, Socialists, homosexuals, hippies, pedophiles, athiests, intellectuals, liberals, etc), I'm pretty sure many people would enjoy living in a totalitarian regime that protects everone from being offended or shocked. Those who would not enjoy such a fate would likely be branded one of "the bad people".

    That's a little one-sided. Let's also add:

    conservatives, neocons, Christians, et cetera.

    There are just as many people out there who would like laws that silence those groups from expressing their potentially offensive opinions.

    Oh...and pedophiles are bad people.
  • by kaellinn18 ( 707759 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @09:43AM (#15261765) Homepage Journal
    MOD PARENT UP! Seriously, it's amazing how anything questionable on this site gets pointed back at Bush. Granted, he hasn't helped the situation, but this shit has been going on for decades. I wish people would stop being so naive. It's not the president; it's the whole system.
  • Mod Parent Down (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TooMuchEspressoGuy ( 763203 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @09:44AM (#15261784)
    The "security culture" that the parent speaks of isn't a purely Bush-administration thing. Clinton was just as bad (he passed the DMCA, for example, and helped work toward several "think of the children" measures.) Before that, the justification for anti-freedom laws was the threat of Communism. Before that, National Socialism. Before that, thwarting the Great Depression. And so on.

    There has been an anti-freedom faction in American politics ever since the Alien and Sedition Acts. Blindly blaming everything on Bush, despite his horrid presidency, will get you nowhere.

  • by Ender Ryan ( 79406 ) <[ ] ['' in gap]> on Thursday May 04, 2006 @09:49AM (#15261817) Journal
    To the folks at the ESRB, way to buckle under pressure. Now you're (almost) useless as a ratings board. You can't ever please the people who are using you as a scapegoat, it isn't only futile to try, it's also damaging.

    Fucking figures though... This kind of shit can be really scary in America. Go up against a jury of freedom-hating prudes, and you could be wiped out. But this sort of thing won't help.

  • by lbrandy ( 923907 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @09:55AM (#15261876)
    As much as I agree, and many of those statements are true, the "going after video games" trend is a bi-partistan thing.

    No, no, no. All crazy government interference started with GWB. Al Gore wasn't a huge supporter of the V-Chip and internet "controls" to "protect the kids". Tipper didn't go after explicit lyrics to "protect the kids". Joe Lieberman didn't start the first major congressional inquiry into violent video Games "for the kids".

    None of this actually occured until Bush. He is destorying the country.
  • by Dr Reducto ( 665121 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @09:55AM (#15261879) Journal
    This "golden age of freedom" you reference never existed. Every president for the past 50 years has took away precious rights.

    Clinton had a habit of pandering with the ever-so-popular "think of the children" in order to pass gun legislation in the wake of Columbine.

    Even in the 1970's, Jimmy Carter first authorized the wiretapping many pan Bush (not to mention the countless other presidents who have used it) for employing.

    Face it, the interests of those in power is to gain more power. It's not a left vs right thing.
  • by 'nother poster ( 700681 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @10:09AM (#15262017)
    Hm, lets see. What DOES the government have to do with the ESRB? Well, they have publicly announced in the past that if the industry did not regulate itself, they, the government, would step in and regulate them. This was the impetus for the creation of the ESRB. Later the government said that the ESRB needed to broaden their ratings enforcement or the government would step in and do so. Lately the government has said that they think that games are not being given ratings that are high enough for the ages listed due to the potential of mods, expansions, and hacks, and therefor will step in with legislative relief if the ESRB doesn't meet their unpublished arbitrary standards.

    So, what exactly does the U.S. government have to do with the ESRB? They are the Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of a self regulatory body that was created simply because of threats of legislative regulation of a sector of business in a free country. Pretty simple, see.
  • Free publicity (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Cyrgo ( 784568 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @10:10AM (#15262029)
    They should just suck it up, and enjoy the free publicity.

    Ah, but isn't Bethesda's response to the ESRB more free publicity?

    I think that Bethesda has done right, publicity-wise, by not sucking it up and continuing the fight on the media.
    As they fight, everyone else listens.
  • by zaguar ( 881743 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @10:11AM (#15262034)
    1) I'm pretty sure you're referencing the DMCA. This was a product not of the Bush administration, but the Clinton administration. No, I'm pretty sure he refers to the P.A.T.R.I.O.T act.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, 2006 @10:12AM (#15262042)
    Oh...and pedophiles are bad people.

    Fuck you. Pedophiles who give into their urges are committing bad acts, but bad acts do not inherently come from bad people--only wholesale surrender to their urges would. Pedophiles are just sick individuals, frequently under quite a lot of emotional distress from an attraction that they didn't choose, who need help rather than demonization.

    You are part of the problem.
  • by 'nother poster ( 700681 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @10:13AM (#15262052)
    But usually not until it's some of their friends and family, or even themselves, that are being sent to the prisons or dying. As long as it's the people they don't like being persecuted and killed they are fat, dumb, and happy.
  • by (A)*(B)!0_- ( 888552 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @10:17AM (#15262092)
    "So, what exactly does the U.S. government have to do with the ESRB? They are the Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of a self regulatory body that was created simply because of threats of legislative regulation of a sector of business in a free country. Pretty simple, see."
    You give a lot of creedance to idle threats made by politicians who have nothing to say so they spit out the easy, anti-free speech line. I don't have such a fear of such people. Any time legislators have tried to take it the next step and actually get involved in regulating video games, the courts have struck the law down.

    Lawmakers may threaten the ESRB but there's no reason to think that the ESRB should be affected by such threats. Do you actually think any politician wants the ESRB to meet their demands? No, of course not. The politician wants the ESRB to be done away with and the creation of a government body to handle suppressing free speech as a little notch in their bed post.

    Now, since you've gone to the trouble of defending the post I replied to - why is the main thesis of the point that Bush caused all of this when Lieberman, Tipper Gore, and lately, Hillary Rodham are the real root?

  • The Good Old Days (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shihar ( 153932 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @10:30AM (#15262200)
    I agree with parent. Remember the good old days of freedom? Can you recall how pleasant this world was when women stayed in the kitchen cooking a man his supper instead of going off to college and getting a job? Remember back when anarchists were jailed during World War I? Remember during the great depression when the federal government sweeped up a massive amount of power? Recall the good old days of World War II when the entire economy was turned to war and everyone of age was drafted? Recall how much more pleasant things were when we rounded up every single Japanese American on the west coast and put them in internment camps? Remember the pleasant days before the civil rights movement when them negros stayed with their own? Remember when we had nice clean segregated schools, buses, and water fountains? Remember the good old days of McCarthy when we hunted down those evil communist? How about the pleasant days of the Korean War where we drafted and killed Americans (to say nothing of Koreans) in the tens of thousands? Or how about the wonderful days of the Vietnam war where we drafted an entire generation and left our soldiers so fucked up that they would line up men, women, and children on the side of a road and shoot them all.

    Get a grip. I'll take today over pretty much any time in 20th century. I am not saying today is a utopia either. I am saying that all eras had their problems. In fact, I would say that this era is far less fucked up, even with Bush drunk at the wheel, then most of the 20th century. 50 years ago I wouldn't have been able to merry my current girlfriend in the south because she isn't white. Up until 30 years ago since the 1900, I would have stood the risk of being drafted and sent off into a meat grinder of a war.

    I am not saying you shouldn't be pissed at how things are, but don't hold up the past like it was some magical fairyland utopia because in a word or four, the past fucking sucked.
  • by inflamez ( 885475 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @10:43AM (#15262312)
    Included in Oblivion without 3rd party plug-ins / add-ons:
    Dismembered corpses; human skulls split apart by an axe; a person with his face crushed and his entrails hanging around; skeletons of babies trapped inside the catacombs of their own mother; and lots of other (very graphical) forms of violence .... Rated TEEN.

    And now we have (through a 3rd party modification of a mesh already in game):
    Nipples ... Rated M. Oh my god! Teh Horror! N I P P L E S . Ban it! O_o
  • by /ASCII ( 86998 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @10:52AM (#15262397) Homepage
    I have met my fair share of bad people in my life, but I have yet to meet anyone who considered themselves 'bad' or 'evil'. We have an amazing capacity to rationalize our behaviour. Most serial killers, dictators and child molestors consider themselves good people. Aside from a small group of mentally unbalanced, no one considers themselves 'evil'.

    In the end, the _only_ good meassure I've seen of an individual is what they _do_. In other words, it does not matter if a practicing pedophile says he loves children and thinks that what he does is good for the children, it only matters that he molests children and by doing so scars them for life. That makes him a _bad_ person. Even if he thinks that he does what he does to make children happy.

    A pedophile who does _not_ molest children but has the urge to do so is not a bad person. He is a sich person in need of help and with my sympathy.
  • Nudity vs. Sex (Score:3, Insightful)

    by beerman2k ( 521609 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @10:59AM (#15262468) Homepage
    Why do people have such a hard time separating sex and nudity? A topless female figure? That's "Mature"? That makes no sense, even if it was part of the game and not a 3rd party modification.
  • by popcultureicon ( 556737 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @11:04AM (#15262513)
    As I understand it, the ESRB exists to warn consumers of potentially offensive material and allow them to make a more informed purchase. This rating is based on the content of said purchase. I assert that this content includes multimedia assets and game code/instructions. I do not believe you can separate the two and rate the game based on one or the other, but instead must judge the product as a whole, as it is available to the end consumer.

    Through modification of the code, nudity is available. This is a modification of the content, and must be downloaded after market, or explicitly written by the user. I don't believe the ESRB has the right to change the rating of a product based on what people in the market can do after the product's release, but should stick to rating what the product actual does do. Otherwise, they are no longer of use to anyone.

    The only way I can see a justification for the action they have taken (and this is a slim chance) is if they are including the construction kit in the rating evaluation. Because with that, any user can modify the game's content, using software (more content) that shipped with the product. But this still would not justify the rating change on the xbox 360 version. I see no reason for that change other than fear of Hilary Clinton and her political agenda. I don't own Oblivion, so I am not aware if the construction set is a separate download or not on the PC version.

    According to 16600 [], the BBFC sees it this way as well.

  • by BaronHethorSamedi ( 970820 ) <> on Thursday May 04, 2006 @11:33AM (#15262797)
    As absurd as the decision may initially seem, the ESRB is certainly in an unenviable position here. They're doing their level best to try and apply some sort of consistent standard to a medium that by its nature doesn't lend itself to consistency. AND they have to do this in light of the lessons learned from Hot Coffee controversy, with all the bad press (to say nothing of the litigation) it engendered. Can you really blame them for altering a rating? Free speech activists and anxious parents have this to distinguish them: anxious (not to say opportunistic) parents are much more likely to sue (and win) over something as apparently trivial as a content indicator. You can complain loud and long about ridiculous double standards, but at the end of the day, the ESRB is sort of a compromise between free speech and the (oft-understandable) parental desire to have at least some pre-purchase indication of what goes on inside a game. This isn't censorship; no one's access to Oblivion is being cut off. As many have pointed out, there was enough violent content to make at least an arguable case for an 'M' rating to begin with.

    The real problem here is the ESRB apparently shifting positions every time there's a complaint. If the ratings on the box aren't trustworthy AS OF THE DATE OF RELEASE, and are constantly subject to some sort of bizarre democratic revision every time someone's curious tot downloads a shady mod, then both free speech and parental information are frustrated. The ensuing vicious cycle will lead to more debate, more lawsuits, and less trust than ever in an industry already struggling for legitimacy. If the ESRB doesn't work, then legislators will step in, and we all know where that leads.
  • by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @11:54AM (#15262996)
    Want video game developers to be free to work in their craft without the fear of government interference? Well, I hope you don't plan on voting for Hillary [] in 2008.

  • by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @11:57AM (#15263029) Journal
    See, grasshopper, the ESRB isn't the enemy. The ESRB is a sort of reaction of the industry against an external attack. Because, make no mistake, the industry is under attack.

    See, there's a lot of political capital in bravely fighting off a bogus but very visible threat. So there are a lot of demagogue politicians (think not only of top level figures like Lieberman, but also at local levels, lobby levels, and "non-political" organizations), two-bit media hacks, and parasitic lawyers jumping on any such target like sharks on a bloody piece of meat. And there are some trained sharks out there. They can smell the blood in the water even in homoeopathic quantities.

    It's been so for a while. For example, long before video games even _existed_, politicians were savaging comics and presenting them as the great Satan that turns innocent kids into savage mass-murderers, rapists, etc. And then it was, in no particular order, tabletop games, music, movies, etc. And now it's video games. There's a lot of political capital in attacking video games.

    And the main thrust of attack is invariably: "think of the children!!!" It's invariably been that somehow children are deceived into buying something inapropriate. Invariably the "villain" (be it a cartoonist, a rock musician or an overworked game developper) is presented as lurking sinister in the shadows, luring unsuspecting children into his spider web. Invariably it's painted as if little Billy thinks he's buying a Mickey Mouse comic or Barbie video game, but *WHAM* those dastardly villains gave him something that'll mind-control him into sacrificing all his classmates to Satan.

    And games make a particularly good target there, because despite the statistics saying stuff like "the average gamer is 30", it's easy to present them as something that's by definition for kids. Once you've hand-waved that in, the rest is much easier. After that, by definition any game containing any kind of nudity, violence, etc, is obviously a devious attempt to peddle that kind of thing to the children.

    The ESRB isn't the enemy, it's the industry's _defense_ to that attack. (As incompetent a defense as it may be at times.) The ESRB is the industry's way of being able to retort "well, fuck off. We wrote right on the box that it's a bloody gory game and it's not for pre-schoolers. We even told people where to look for that label. What more do you want? Blood?"

    And for that to work, the ESRB _must_ basically overshoot. The sharks would _love_ to have even one single game that was labelled lower than its content warrants. Look at the media circus that happened about the GTA mod. (Even there, the ESRB were _not_ the ones that started it. They just reacted to the attack.) And make no mistake, that was a mod too. Now imagine what those scumbag politicians would do with a game where inapropriate content is available in the game as bought.

    So again, the ESRB _must_ overshoot. If there's as little as two characters slapping each other, the ESRB _must_ have "Violence" written on the box. If two characters as little as kiss each other (and I don't even mean some particularly hot tongue-sucking two-hands-under-her-blouse kinda kiss), the ESRB _must_ have "Sexual Themes" written on the box. (Point in case, "The Sims" had both written on the box, and before the expansion packs slapping or occasionally kissing were _all_ a sim could do in both aspects.) Because, again, otherwise the consequences could be a lot worse.

    So, no, if there's someone I'm disgusted with, it's the hypocrites that are the cause of it all, not with ESRB.
  • by Absolut187 ( 816431 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @12:13PM (#15263185) Homepage
    "some modders have used a third party tool to hack into and modify an art archive file to make it possible to create a mesh for a partially nude (topless) female that they add into the game."

    Someone out there really needs a girlfriend.. BAD.
  • My thought? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DragonWriter ( 970822 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @02:43PM (#15264568)
    Every game maker should add a disclaimer similar to the one used for online play:

    "Game experience may vary when used in conjunction with third-party products which alter game functionality. Third-party content and experience resulting from modification are not rated by the ESRB."

    (Of course, if parents really cared to control what their children were experiencing, they would install the games for them, using privileged accounts to which their children didn't have passwords, on an operating system whose security features weren't easily evaded, and their children wouldn't have the permissions to alter any of the game files in the first place. But since repeated surveys (and not just in the US) show consistently that parents don't actually pay much attention to what their children are playing, and don't effectively limit what they purchase or play by rating anyway, that probably doesn't matter. The ratings and videogame makers are, largely, just something else to blame for the effects of parental neglect.)
  • by Lusa ( 153265 ) on Thursday May 04, 2006 @03:00PM (#15264692)
    I wouldn't put it that way. What they are getting at is only those that take action are bad. I'm sure a large percentage of the population would be considered bad if the mere private thought was the only criteria required. I'm thinking of just a basic work day, driving to work and someone cuts you up, you wish something bad would happen to them. Only if you act on that impulse are you going to be considered bad.

    Now, I'm not trying to defend pedophiles but look at this objectively for a moment. Currently it's considered very bad to have sex with a child, but look back 50 or 60 years and I'm sure the same moral outrage was directed also at anyone having sex with someone of the same gender. The reason it is different now is people understand that it is not a sickness or illness of the mind that can be cured. Sexual orientation is just another part of what makes up an individual. The same can be said about pedophiles which is where we have the problem. We want to be able to cure it but we can't. Any method taken is likely to be equally morally objectionable as the problem itself.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, 2006 @03:08PM (#15264755)
    Pedophiles are aroused by the idea of sex with children. Just like being aroused by the idea of choking Hillary Clinton doesn't make you a murderer, being aroused by the idea of sex with children doesn't make you a sex offender, just a deviant psychologically ill person.

    You and your ilk are indeed part of the problem.

    Black-and-white dumb-ass oversimplifying pontificating consevative horseshit. :)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, 2006 @04:55PM (#15265652)
    No, child molesters are bad people. What has a pedophile done that makes him/her bad? NOTHING. 'Pedophile' is a state of mind, not an action. It is entirely possible to love children, even to find them sexually appealing, and NOT give in to the urge to do something about it.

    Every time I see someone say 'All pedophiles should be killed!', I think to myself 'First we punish all of YOU people for murder, THEN we'll worry about them.' You're as guilty of murder as your average pedophile is guilty of any crime. If the pedophile ACTS on the urges in some non-approved way, then they're a child molester - They've actually DONE something wrong!

    Get it? Probably not. That would involve THINKING, and you already seem to think that thinking is a prosecutable offense.


  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, 2006 @05:04PM (#15265745)
    Then you're talking about a child molester, not a pedophile. Learn what the words MEAN, you idiot! You'll run into a lot less trouble that way!

  • by KDR_11k ( 778916 ) on Friday May 05, 2006 @02:19PM (#15271892)
    I just love how, whenever somebody criticises some politicians, there are replies that say "Yeah? But the opposing party has done X!". Perhaps we just don't fucking care about what the opposing party does or does not? What does Clinton have to do with Bush? Why do people assume everyone that disagrees with them has a specific party association?
  • by Damvan ( 824570 ) on Friday May 05, 2006 @07:21PM (#15274230)
    "the wiretapping many pan Bush (not to mention the countless other presidents who have used it) for employing."

    Yeah, yeah, we have heard it before. Washington intercepted British mail, Roosevelt wiretapped Americans, etc etc etc.

    The big difference is, there was no law forbiding those Presidents from wiretapping. There was a law in place when Bush did it. If he didn't like the law, he could have worked to have it overturned. Instead, he choose to ignore and violate it.

    Just because previous Presidents did something doesn't mean it is ok for Bush to do the same thing. Washington, Jefferson and probably other Presidents owned slaves. Can Bush own slaves as well?

Houston, Tranquillity Base here. The Eagle has landed. -- Neil Armstrong