Two Groups Planning to Sue Over Federal Eavesdropping [Hitchens is plaintiff against GW]

In summary, this is an ACLU left-wing political trial that will hopefully go before a left wing judge who will step outside the bounds of the constitution and set the basis for the Left's impeachment of the President with a political decision against Bush.

Bingo.

Bolshevik Theater American Style

hmmmmmmm.............

Complaints of wiretapping from MSM journalists who were having overseas phone calls with terrorists.

What's the problem?

I was looking over this thread from earlier in the week, saw your replies, and thought you might find the following interesting...

"However, because of the President's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm what we held in United States v. Clay, supra, that the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence."

--United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (1973)

"We agree with the district court that the Executive Branch need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance."

--U.S. v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 913 (1980)

"Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."

--United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (1984)

"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent [constitutional] authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

--In re Sealed Case, 310, F3d. 717, 742 (2002)

"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power."

--In re Sealed Case, 310, F3d. 717, 742 (2002)

Well, it's hardly the first time the courts have been egregiously wrong! ;^)

Seriously, I think my analysis is considerably more consistent with Congress' Article I authority over the military than the sort of Presidential/Congressional split authority these cites reflect.