Please give case law to support your side of the argument, that is all.
That's lame. I was 100% certain this would be your response. You are intentionally evasive and misleading.
Very Clintonesque. Are you sure you belong here? I didn't see any conservative credentials in a brief review of your history of posts. Lot's of trashing other FReepers, though...except your evo buddies.
Your other screen name is...?
Thwarting terrorists is top priority
"In response to claims of surveillance abuses during the Nixon administration, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed. Under FISA, an 11-member court oversees government applications for secret surveillance or searches of those suspected of terrorism or espionage. Democratic leaders are now asking pointedly why the administration did not go to the FISA court for a warrant.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has a response. He cites the Authorization to Use Military Force law, which Congress passed a week after 9/11 and which allows the government to forgo FISA. It is alleged that Congress gave the president authority to use "signal intelligence" -- wiretaps, for example -- to eavesdrop on international calls between U.S. citizens and foreigners when either of the parties is a suspected al-Qaida member or supporter.
Mr. Bush contends that the surveillance actions taken by the government are consistent with his constitutional powers and have prevented attacks in the last four years. Evidence seems to support this contention.
According to the FBI and statistics provided by the Justice Department, there have been more than 100 instances of planned terrorist activities within the United States that have been thwarted by domestic surveillance. These include an attempt to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, the Mall of America and the Holland Tunnel.
It would appear that the fervor generated by 9/11 is starting to wane. More significantly, it would appear that partisan politics have been insinuated into even sensitive security provisions. There is, however, one matter that should not be overlooked: Osama bin Laden and his band of al-Qaida fanatics have vowed to kill Americans and destroy our institutions. That reality must not be forgotten.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court may be obliged to adjudicate the issue of presidential authority, but the president did what was necessary to secure national security. One may to decide to examine pettifogging legal matters, bu for most Americans, keeping the enemy at bay is what should be the focus of presidential attention. "
I'm waiting for the case law to support your side of the debate. If you can't find any don't feel bad because the NY Slimes couldn't either.
Did he fail to fill out his 'DA-412/R.3 Official Declaration of War' memo as required by the Constitution? Wait a minute, what's the correct format, as required by the Constitution? It seems to have slipped my mind...
At any rate, an Authorization for the Use of Military Force is a de facto declaration of war. As someone who's been shot at under the auspices of such a document, I assure you that the paperwork isn't what makes a war a war.
You could make the arguement that we've spent the last 60 years not being at war, and somehow killed a lot of people in the process. I don't know that many people would find that terribly persuasive. Especially among the ones that got dead along the way.