[eyespysomething]

Alright can you give a synopsis? Sorry, but I started reading and then noticed the law codes and thought "There is no way I will understand this rigamarole."

[Peach]

I don't understand it either, but I do understand enough to know that the AG's office thinks they have solid case law behind them. And I do know that no president in our nation's history has ever ceded authority to defend the country to any legislative body or any court of law.

[kajingawd]

Alright can you give a synopsis?

In laymen terms...NYT and whoever leaked that information could be charged with treason if SOMEONE acts on it.

[wmfights]

"There is no way I will understand this rigamarole."
______________________________________

Great Point. I think I can make it simple. If you are receiving, have received in the past, or called foreign agents believed to be al-qaeda or related terrorists the NSA eavesdropped (THANK GOD). If one of our soldiers found a lap top in a safe house with phone numbers the NSA probably eavesdropped to find out what the new numbers would be.
They did not go through the FISA process that everybody talks about because putting the application forms together can take days to weeks and with terrorism everything is time sensitive. In the Constitution the President is given the responsibility of being the commander and chief and seeing to the protection of the country, especially in a time of war.

[Steel Wolf]

Here's the bottom line of this memo.

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");

"Force" means the application of military power, of which intelligence collection is one aspect. The following explains the scope of that mandate a little further.

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 11, 2001, . . . in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." 5 2(a),

Okay, but isn't Al Qaida only in Afghanistan? How does that make it legal to go after them in America?

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 11 plot demonstrates that the authorization of force covers activities both on foreign soil and in America.

That's basically it. Al Qaida personnel in America are considered agents of a foriegn power, and that foriegn power is in an open state of armed conflict with us. Simply put, they are not criminals, they are invaders.

[ez]

Real bottom line is, Demorats are crowing and scared to death because THEY HAVE BEEN AIDING AL QUEDA. THEIR phones should be tapped.