[MNJohnnie]

And number two, we can do that within a legal framework that would give Americans comfort and actually give our court system comfort that the Fourth Amendment is being observed and that our system of laws that Congress has passed, including FISA, which was supposed to be the exclusive way to do electronic surveillance on Americans in America, are being observed

I'm sorry but this demonstrates a complete failure to even remotely understand how intelligence is gathered. This is NOT a case of a police official having evidence against a criminal. The way this works is not even REMOTELY like someone building a case against a criminal. There seems to be this refusal on the part of the Legal Establishment and it's advocates to consider that American Citizens conspiring with terrorist groups are now an enemy of, not a member of, our society. By conspiring with the terrorist the person is in a state of insurrection against the US Civil Authority. We, via the instrument of our Govt, have a right to protect ourselves from that threat. It is all very well for advocates of the Legal Establishment to cling to its dogma that the criminal is a citizen with rights. That dogma should NOT be applied to the terrorists.

Legal doctrine revolves around the concept that criminals are still citizens with rights. Terrorist have gone beyond criminality to being enemies of our society. They do not fit in the pat assumptions of the legal Establishment. Thankful the vast majority of the American Public is smarter then the Legal Establishment and refuse to fall for the notion that we must NEVER change anything in the law.

Sorry but Terrorism is one of the things that slips thru the cracks of the legal code. You cannot declare war on it but you cannot grant it all the protections the civil libertarian perfectionist and the knee jerk Bush Haters claim for it. Bush is advancing an idea of how to deal with the problem. Clinging blindly to per 9-11 law and attempting to expand that law to cover Terrorism is a fools choice. Bush looked at the problem, looked at the law and said here is how I view it. YOU personally disagree. FINE. That is YOUR opinion NOT the Law. The Law really is not structured on how to deal with terrorism.

People have got to get over their knee jerk Bush hate and deal with the reality that new law has to be made to deal with the problem. Law is NOT carved in stone, it evolves. Pity the knee jerk Bush haters would rather use this as another excuse to attack Bush rather then help develop the legal structures to deal with this emerging problem. Such a pity so many wish to cling to their 9-10 mindset in a post 9-11 world.

[rodguy911]

Hard to argue with what you say MNJ, if we can't try and intercept terrorists calls during a time when our buildings are being bombed when can we!

One problem I see is that no matter what the reading of the law it will always depend on who is in office at the time. When the clintons were in office we know that the game was to cover their butts first and if the country got any protection it was sheer luck, reference able danger.

With GW in office we know differently. He is a man of great character(which drives the rats nuts) and will always put the country above his personal ambitions. Huge differences there no matter what the law.