Let's get it on!
FYI
FYI..you understand this way better than me :)
Wow -- great find, and a very detailed letter!
Well stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella lays out the case perfectly. The President acted within the law as defined by the act of Congress adopted and signed on September 18, 2001. This is fully compliant with the Constitution, which does not protect "privacy" for people who are having conversations with enemies of the United States.
That's gonna leave a mark.
Let's get it on!
Under Article 11 of the Constitution, including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the Constitution gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 668 (1 863) (stressing that if the Nation is invaded, "the President is not only authorized but hound to resist by force . . . . without waiting for any special legislative authority");
So how does that relate to Al Qaida threat in the United States?
The AUMF authorizes the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 1 1, 2001, . . . in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." 5 2(a),
But wasn't Al Qaida only in Afghanistan?
The AUMF cannot be read as limited to authorizing the use of force against Afghanistan, as some have argued. Indeed, those who directly "committed" the attacks of September 11 resided in the United States for months before those attacks. The reality of the September I 1 plot demonstrates that the authorization of force covers activities both on foreign soil and in America.
I don't know about you all, but this sure sounds like a winning arguement to me.
When was this letter presented to the senate..in '01..or more recent?
As Rush pointed out today, Clinton, who has an opinion on everything Bush does, has been strangely quiet on this one.
The MI list may be interested in this.
tip off by steel wolf
"It is obvious and unarguable that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation."
In one phrase, this captures what the Democrats are fighting against.....what they do not recognize and want to destroy....the "compelling interest" of the Nation to protect itself.
despicable bastards!
That puts paid to this month's "scandal."
Stay tuned for whatever the MSM fabricates for next month (and the next)...
OK who is first up in the dock? someone needs to be put away for a very long time.
Pay close attention to paragraph 3 of this letter, some of you are going to prison.
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%2022%2005%20NSA%20letter.pdf
With Much Love,
7mmMag :)
OK, good. Now, can we go after the NY Times? Those traitors.
Commie Jay Bird and his band could care less with facts. Their agenda is to regain power. The letter will have little effect on his supposed powers of reasoning. The only thing that will really effect him is if the ongoing investigation into his and other members of congress roles in leaking vital security secrets turns into a subpena before a federal court on crimes of sedition and treason. And we all know this will never come to past. He skates free just like Slicko and many other POS do on a regular basis.
This is all very wonderful and supportive of the law and the President's authority.
But, as if prior post....
"Again, the emphasis must be on Enemies (AlQaeda) and their associates. It is not against U.S. Citizens and therefore not unlawful.
Enemies at war with the U.S. have no Constitutional rights! This includes those who may have been U.S. citizens. Associating with known enemies is called treaon.
Treason is automatic forfeiture of citizenship.
Thus, no wrong by President Bush or Atty General."