[balch3]

This is from two weeks ago, but I haven't seen it posted anywhere, and I was surprised to hear such comments from Brownback. Why is he going off the reservation on this?

[Soul Seeker]

There are, at most, nine Senators that are responsible about the WOT.

Compare the names of those that voted against McCain's Al Quida Bill of Rights, and voted against the Warner Amendment. Cross out the Liberals that voted against for obvious reasons. And you have the small total that actually deserve to be in the U.S. Senate. Brownback doesn't make the cut. Therefore no one should be surprised.

[Prost1]

The rules of engagement with the enemy in Time of War are simple:

1.) Find the Enemy
2.) Kill the Enemy
3.) Capture the Enemy if he surrenders

There is nothing in the Rules of War or Engagement which impose the 4th Amendment.

[bad company]

What moron wrote this story?

“I do not agree with the legal basis on which they are basing their surveillance — that when the Congress gave the authorization to go to war that that gives sufficient legal basis for the surveillance,” he said.

This is what Brownback was talking about. He doesn't, at least in this article, have any reservations about the intercepts. He is disagreeing with some of the rationale that has been put out there to justify them. The authority for the NSA to perform those intercepts comes from existing law, not a use of force resolution.