And that goes for all you liberal newspapers too!
Posted on 12/20/2005 11:40:16 AM PST by JustAnotherOkie
Contrary to claims by Democrats currently hyperventilating on Capitol Hill over President Bush's decision to use the National Security Agency to monitor communications among terrorists, Bush's so-called "illegal" spy program has indeed undergone judicial review.
And a special foreign intelligence surveillance appeals court set up to review the case confirmed that such "warrantless searches" were completely legal.
Notes OpinionJournal.com today:
"The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978."
But the Journal notes that in a 2002 case dubbed: "In Re: Sealed Case," the FISA appeals court decision cited a previous FISA case [U.S. v. Truong], where a federal court "held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
The court's decision went on to say: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
What's more, notes the Journal: "The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about" the Bush surveillance program.
I'd feel a lot better if this wasn't from NewsLax.
The DIMS' plans for a BUSH impeachment party are being dashed against the rocks of fact...
It's from the WSJ Sherlock
But..But..But.. this isn't what the report NPR Radio has been replaying for the last 3 days says.
Newsmax is a little, shall we say, idiosyncratic. But it's usually accurate with its facts. So this pretty much puts this whole issue to bed.
This is just great. How many more State secrets can we reveal today?
In 1982, the NY Times was not a liberal rag sheet like it is today.
And that goes for all you liberal newspapers too!
Well, yeah -- NewsWax doesn't really do its own reporting, but it does have its own special way of reporting what others have reported, only "better."
Sorry... When I see the NewsMax link, I immediately know that the article can't be accepted at face value.
Oh. And if the New York Times doesn't bother reporting the facts, I guess it goes without saying that the seriousness of the charge trumps the veracity of proof every single time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.