Even the Judge came out against the President on this. I have seen copies of the relevant law on FR. Why can't they read it?
Didn't see it. Exactly what did Turley state?
I saw a few moments of Turley, on C-Span yesterday, giving the raspberry to both John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
He seems to be getting a bit vociferous lately. Perhaps he is tired of being a professor and is grooming himself for a federal courts appointment.
I suggest that all pundits be certified as having taken and passed with flying colours a law school course entitled, "Conflict of Laws." The President took an oath of office and his office has wide obligations and corresponding powers when pursuing the defense of the country (not a personal enemies' list). I do not believe Congress can trump the President's effort to provide for the defense of this country - if there is an obvious conflict, then the Court is going to cut a wide berth in favor of the President, especially in light of 9/11 and the Congressional authorizations that grew out of that.
(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at--
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
It would appear that the President can authorize these taps, if the subject(s) of the taps are "foreign powers" as designated by 50C1801.
As used in this subchapter:
(a) ``Foreign power'' means--
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
Is the problem that the targets of the wiretaps don't fall under the specified sections of 50C1801, but under section 1801(a)(4 thru 6) or 1801(b or c) which more have to do with terrorists, than with spies in a foreign embassy on American soil?
It would seem that Jimmah Carter put these sections in play in 1978, but didn't anticipate al Queida cells and sympathizers at that time.
Some think "civil liberties" stand supreme above all else in the realm of the Constitution, even the Bill of Rights are placed secondary to "civil rights". There is no civil right to belong to or fund terrorists activities.
The media are either not up to speed on the law and loathe to do a lick of research, or they are just ginning up ratings because they thrive on controversy.
All the media would need to do is read this link/article below, research the law themselves and come to understand the president did not break the law. But that wouldn't help their ratings even a tad.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20621
I never have been too impressed with Turley. Too much of a whiner.
Well, since we all know what this is about,
leftwing TREASONIST hate mongers that will
do ANYTHING to try and bring Bush down, and
cause the US failure to win the WOT
this is just another attempt of an irrelevant
bunch of whiny loser that will fail and cause
more damage to thier abilities to gain power.
Turley is a self-confessed rabid liberal. I remember when he was criticizing Clinton, he always caveated his statements with the fact that he was left of Clinton.
Turley needs a stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
If it was so clear cut the ACLU would have been in Federal Court for an injunction already. That they haven't means they worry about losing and establishing a precedent.
I'm not sure if this is impeachable. However, when he knowingly signed CFR believing it was unconstitutional, then that would have been an impeachable offense.
Damned if you do . . .
Turley is a DEMOCRAT, during the Clinton scandal, many would introduce him as such.
I really doubt that it raises to a high crimes and misdemeanors unless it turns out that they were intercepting calls between Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi, etc. rather than Al Qaeda types.
I have a problem with the illegality of the government secretly spying on American citizens. The only way around it would be to notify people via recording that their international calls may be monitored for national security reasons. That way they have a choice and if they want privacy they can always write a letter.
Turley has gone over to the dark side. That's pretty obvious.
I bet J. Edgar Hoover (wherever he is) is having a big laugh about this so-called "illegality". Wiretaps without warrants have been going on from time immemorial.
What Turley and his ilk will not admit is that WE ARE AT WAR, the President has some exclusive wartime powers, and we are not talking about a warrant for a petty domestic criminal. We are talking about preventing another 9-11-2001, and saving the lives of tens of thousands of Americans.
All the so-called experts like Turley who are discussing this on TV, and vilifying the President for his actions, are either naive, disingenuous, stupid, or treasonous.