"But apparently, the courts seem to have ruled otherwise, at least according to what some freepers have posted. I'd have to look at those rulings myself, though, to see exactly what kind of latitude they purport to give him. But my gut feeling is that his actions were illegal."
Thanks for your reply. I truly am just trying to figure this out.
I just can't help but wonder, why so much debate? Should not someone be able to prove a law was broken or not?
I truly hope that none were, but I may have to say, in this case, I feel it neededto be done. But, better if he could prove it was done legally.
I would like to read what the courts ruled as you mention. I have not seen that.
Apparently not without a security clearance, because all we got was very limited information. But I'd think someone in Congress would be able to. And that probably goes to show that this is being made out to be more than it is, because the President has insisted that Congress has been informed of the program, and to my knowledge, no one in Congress has directly contradicted him on that.
I still don't understand why the President agreed to confirm this story in the first place. Predictably, it has resulted in a feeding frenzy of leaks. We even have one idiotic magazine reporting on a classified program to monitor potential nuclear radiation around mosques (thread here).
I would like to read what the courts ruled as you mention. I have not seen that.
Another poster directed me to this ruling (warning: PDF) by the FISA court. Page 48 contains the pertinent excerpt:
"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."
I haven't had time to peruse it, because there's a lot going on around here ('tis the season), but I'd like to look it over in further detail when I get the chance.