And BTW KK if you had a pair on the matter on the matter you would be like a few other mental patients out there today yelling impeachment. Thius will be off the life after radar faster than Delay, libby, Rove, Abu Grahib and on and on and on.

Blind Shiek , American Citizen?

Your lack of repsect for Constituionality is disturbing from a so called 'strict constructionist'
Your at RB level now, and apparently abandoning all prestext of having any grasp on what your claimed belief system is, vis a vis, the Constituiion. Should you like, I will debate you 'Oxford Style. on the subject, as this is not news, having been around for over 3 years, and I have most all available documentation bookmarjked, researched cross checked, and formatted. About 75 pages at this point. Being the fair type of person that I am, I will give you some time to find another Op-Ed

Should take about 10 minutes to whup you butt, and then I can go back to work.
Really TK, you don't have much here, as the bulk of your posts do not adress the issue, just some base drivel about the left, with nothing of substance to support you claims.
So what'll it be big guy, a public ass kicking from me, or an admission that you are only here to piss people off? So far, I have seen zero factual information from you on this thread, and I have posted twice, both just chock full of facts, law citations, quotes from Senate hearings etc, that bolster my point.

You have provided nothing even remotely close to a 'fact'.

And thirdly.

Lets just supose for a second that in one of the intelligence gathering efforts that something is uncovered that show a direct action against us is imminent. As president do lawyer up and fill out the FISA paperwork and wait or do you take action. I am not clear on what is constitutional. I do know that if it did happen 14 senators( liberal of course) would scream bloody murder about abuse of civil liberties.
the same senators who have tried over and over to take GW to task over the failure to recognize the pre 9-11 intelligence through all of the the legal roadblocks. They want him to go out and shovel tomorrows snow today and when he does not he is a liar and a criminal. They should be locked up and shot.

FISA is the law of the land, and Bush swore to uphold it.

FISA allows for IMMEDIATE wiretapping and other 'tracking' means, prior to getting a FISA warrant, for just such cases as you hypothesize. The ONLY requirement is that a waarant application be entered within 72 hours. After all, all but 4 have been granted, and those 4 were grantsd after a reworking of the request, to assure that it is within the law.
Given those MINIMUM requirements, and during the period from 79-2002, a 100% issuance rate by FISA Court for warrants, I fail to see how it is now legal and constitutional for Bush to claim he need not abide by the law.

Bush simply chose not to abide by the law here, and is claiming a non existent power to do so.

If this pwoer has always been available, (the ignoring of a FISA Court) why is it that all other Presidents saw fit to use the FISA Court?

I'm afarid there simply is no defense for this, and I have read nothing, or found nothing in my research over the last few years, to support Bush's claim. And I have done my research, and I have looked. As you know, I like to research, and have made a nice little side gig out of it.

He is relying on Yoo/Gonzales memos, and those have no constituional bearing here, they may however, provide him with an out, saying he relied on counsel, but even that is a stretch.

I'll post whatever chapter and verse you desire, and am able to supply court rulings, as well as the text of FISA.

Right now I have to go do some Christmas work (our church provides all the usuals to folks) so I can't continue right now, but would love to at a later date.
You know me, love to research...........

Merry Christmas Everyone

KK

Your posts and hypotheticals show a marked lack of background both on FISA, and the facts in the case. Article II shows the same thing. Go check out Federalist 23 and 24, and then review the context of Article II. I am sure you will see the error of you ways.

Or is this just another way to piss of people here? :p

Come better prepared to class TK, or look like the fool you are.

Seems my 'pair' here , is much larger, hangs lower, etc., than yours.

I'll take whatever else you choose to post apart piece by piece and toss it back at you later, but right now I have to go. Time to give something back.

Merry Christmas

Enjoy the time with your families everyone, and get some fishing too..............

Oh, man. TK, you're getting b!tch-slapped like a girl here. Getting called on your bullshiat, and spinning like a worm-infested dog trying to chew its ass.

Classic.

Man, what did I miss?
Looks like Harry Potter just put the troll back in it's cage, took all my fun away too (KK did much better than I ever could have dreamed to)
Nice Work kk, you're getting your money's worth from your education, obviously.

drudge is up with some more of his usual half truths and spin. So to prevent anyone from posting it here, and looking foolish, i will make a 'preemptive strike', to prevent anyone from looking like they rely on Drudge for their facts.
You can thank me later RB.

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

KK

Amazing how these guys lie. Aren't they concerned that someone will notice?

Yea, Bush had this to say in April 2004

"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

Evidently they were 'talking' about getting that court order anyway..........
Guessin' they decided against it.........

Like who?

Rory? TheKing of Apologists? Whoever thought there was no policy against photographing coffins of dead soldiers returning home?

Those who notice already knew. And those that don't never will.

I hope you're wrong, Dan S., but afraid you're right.

KK

Post more often, that was fun to watch

Oh where , Oh where has TK gone? The facts have scared him away. Maybe he will reappear as????? !Rory Blowhard Bellows! It is amazing that once facts appear the worms go back under the rocks. No more talking points until todays Rush "oxcicoten" Lumbaugh show.

Look at all the monkey humpers with nothing to say or add on top of KK.

KK you lay down a smoke screen to cover up the source of the issue. Hate for GW nothing more nothing less. Lets go piece by piece sometimes its easeir to get theough the smoke slowly.

"Blind Shiek , American Citizen?"

Did I ever say he was? Imagine this for a second people helping him where US citizens.

"Your lack of repsect for Constituionality is disturbing from a so called 'strict constructionist'"

I live in the real world not a made up one or a rationalized one. This country is as far from the costitution as it has ever been. I posed the question on another thread KK. If you are so opposed to the infingement of rights then I take it you support the over turning of laws that take second ammendment rights away from Convicted, suspected criminals? You are also all for anyone being able to carry a gun anywhere anytime. When you are I can smoke a pound of pot and pretend like you do that this constitution is applied as intended.

In all fairness maybe you just missed the point. Its about legal interpretation and maybe even more so about ethics. Maybe you are not doing what you accuse me of and are really not sucking off the blogs and liberal rags on this matter. Maybe you are a legal scholar. Here are all the possible sources. I imagine you have looked and read them all completely to mount your case. I imagine that the Sc has a hotline set up at your business just in case they need help. You are full of shiat pal if you think for two seconds that you have the difinative answer on this issue. http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/guides/national_security.cfm

Its this simple. My case says Bush was right to do this. It was not illegal. I beleive my view will prevail at the end of the day as it has on almost every issue that pops up from the left in an attempt to undermine this admin. FISA Art II and case law will show GW acted within his right as CIC. the left will try to amend laws to stop this from happening again.

bush was not spying on suspected terrorists......he was spying on suspected opposition....... they spy on most activist groups......they sent homeland security to my house to inverview me for being a political activist..........

i hope bush rots in hell !!!!!!!!!!!!! are ya listening homeland security?????/ cuz ill tell ya the same thing when you come back to my house, you piece of **** punks......

Lupo, an article going around the internet from a paper back east relates how a student at Dartmouth
was interviewed by homeland security for requesting a copy of Mao's "Little Red Book" on an inter-library loan. He wanted it for a school paper he was writting. They came to his home too.

Maybe you guy's should stock up on tin foil along with doubling your meds?


They're coming to take me away,
Haha, they're coming to take me away,
Ho ho, hee hee, ha ha,
To the funny farm
Where Life is Beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those Nice Young Men
In their Clean White Coats
And they're coming to take me AWAY,
HA HAAAAA

You thought it was a joke,
and so you LAUGHED, YOU LAUGHED
When I had said that losing you
Would make me flip my lid,

RIGHT?

You know you laughed.
I HEARD you laugh, you laughed
And laughed and laughed
And then you left,
And now you know I'm Utterly Mad

It keeps piling up just like every issue before. KK.


Clinton Deputy A.G: "President had legal authority to OK taps

By John Schmidt, Published December 21, 2005

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.

The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.

But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."

FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.

Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.

But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

----------

John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw."