[Boot Hill]

Sandy:   "What NSA intercepts? You don't know what the NSA is intercepting any more than I know."

The intercepts that James Risen disclosed in the infamous NYT article on Dec. 13th and which the President has commented on.

Sandy:   "you most certainly don't know whether the intercepts are constitutional if you don't even know who or what's being intercepted or where or for what purpose."

But we do know, the President has said that the NYT disclosures involved national security intercepts of communications between suspected terrorists and U.S. residents.

Sandy:   "you most certainly don't know whether the intercepts are constitutional if you don't even know who or what's being intercepted or where or for what purpose."

Of course we don't every fact with certainty, all we can do is work from the public record that is before us. But most importantly we don't jump to the conclusion, without any evidence, that the President must be guilty of doing something wrong because he has made warrantless foreign intelligence intercepts. The courts have been clear about their legality for decades.

Sandy:   "So how the heck can FISA possibly encroach on his authority when the *only* thing FISA prevents is abuse of that authority?"

Well, since all we have is your opinion that FISA doesn't encroach on the President's authority, I'll guess we'll have to wait on answering your question!

Sandy:   "Since FISA only prevents the President from conducting unconstitutional searches..."

Ooops, presuming something not in evidence again Sandy!

Sandy:   "In a nutshell: FISA only prevents unconstitutional acts"

So you keep repeating, with zero evidence to support your opinion.

[Sandy]

importantly we don't jump to the conclusion, without any evidence, that the President must be guilty of doing something wrong

Absolutely agree with you there. More importantly, when the President gets caught breaking the law, we don't take the President at his word, without any evidence, that his violations of the law were all hunky-dory. Unlike you, I haven't come to a conclusion yet. I'm only telling you that the situation is nowhere near as cut and dried as you seem to believe. I mean, in the first post of yours that I replied to, you were cutting and pasting quotes from cases concerning constitutionally authorized searches. It seemed rather obvious at that point that you weren't aware that FISA intentionally and precisely--from beginning to end--conforms to that case law. And now, a week or so later, you still don't grasp that FISA has never been shown to conflict with the case law.

Anyway, hope you're feeling better. I'm outta this thread.