I'll bet you $20 that, if we ever find out anything about the scope of this program, that will not turn out to be the case.
What's your position on warrantless wiretaps of US citizens making calls to telephone numbers which were called at some time in the past by persons who are simply under suspicion of being connected with a terrorist group abroad?
Because I'll bet you another $20 we are doing that, too.
What's your position on warrantless wiretaps of US citizens making calls to relatives in Middle Eastern countries who have also been called by other distant relatives who are thought to have ties to charities which are believed to finance terrorist organizations?
'Cause I'll bet you another $20 we are doing that, too.
How far removed does it have to be before you say "enough - that ain't part of any inherent 'war power'"?
When an act is not taken to defend the country it is not part of the President's inherent war power. This was decided clearly at the Constitutional Convention. The president was empowered and charged to repel sudden attacks without any authority from congress. The principle was stated most clearly by president Jefferson that he was " Unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defence".
The congress is empowered to determine if his acts were reasonably aimed at defending the country. They are not empowered to legislate away his authority, so the Judiciary has no review. The Judiciary is an oligarchial branch of the government and such power would make them utter and unlimited tyrants.
Besides his War Power, the president also, however, has sole power to deal with foreign agents- neither the legislature nor judiciary has any authority here. This was also best stated by Jefferson -as Secy of State- in a letter to Edmund Genet: "I am, therefore, sir, not authorized to enter into any discussions with you on the meaning of our constitution in any part of it, or to prove to you, that it has ascribed to him alone the admission or interdiction of foreign agents."
Of course James Madison, who- before the War of 1812- paid a fortune to an informer for information on US citizens in the US who were sympathetic to the British, is the deepest explicator of the Constitution.
It is seldom noticed in this debate that even solely domestic wiretapping was not covered at all by the Fourth Amendment until the Supreme Court reversed itself and ruled so in 1967- not a very long time ago.
Previously they had ruled that there was no trespasss and so no search. I'm not saying it's bad to extend Fourth Amendment protection to electronic communications via a third party, just that it's a new concept.
I damn well HOPE we are listening in on those type of situations.
In fact it would be negligent NOT to be listening in to a person under suspicion of being connected with a terrorist group.
In fact I would go so far to say that it would be grounds for Impeachment if President Bush was NOT listening to these people, regardless of whether he applied for a warrant or not.