There have been so many stories on this it's hard to know what actually happened. I've heard international calls only then it was international calls terminating in the U.S., then it was international calls originating in the U.S.
When an enemy of this country makes a phone call from overseas into our country, the president, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, has the constitutional right and the duty to examine that phone call. It all falls under the current war being waged against al-qaeda.
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
Right between abortion rights and gay marriages.
Constitution never contained anything about a right to privacy.
It is a found right.
Answers to your questions:
"I've heard international calls only then it was international calls terminating in the U.S., then it was international calls originating in the U.S."
Yes, those are both international calls. They both involve signals traveling into the United States. If something foreign is invading your territory you have a right to inspect it.
"Where in the Constitution does it say that?" (that the president has the right to examine these international phone calls).
You really should read it for yourself.
Article II, Section I.
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"
"When called into actual service," see. And when were the armed forces called into service?
Go back to 2001:
"Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
...
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
"All necessary and appropriate force." Got a problem with that? Talk to your elected representatives and senators.
I guess that also answers the "Who gets to decide who is a terrorist?" question.
This "debate" is settled in my mind. But I'm tired of always being on the defense. It is time we go in the offensive.
Non-Sequitur, please tell me what law, specifically, you think President Bush broke? I don't want to hear any, "Well, I don't know, but I'll leave that to an investigative committee."
Give it your best guess.
Any call with one end out of the US, regardless of who originated the call (makes sense, think "I'll call you back"); where warrantless targeting of the US end is somehow restricted.
I've asked a couple times, "Why draw the line there?" What if both of the terrorists are in the US? What about domestic terrorism? Why require warrants at all, where the objective is prevention? Not that I advocate this, but such surveillance shares the prevalanet "anything to stop terrorist attack" justification.
With regard to the legal justification for the warrantless targeting of domestics, the administration's arguments are well summed up in Assistant Attorney General's Letter to Senate Intelligence Committee.