Replies

Posted by Justanobody to henry_thefirst
On News/Activism 01/09/2006 3:08:11 PM PST · 48 of 55

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-12-21-bush-spying-edit-yes_x.htm
In addition to constitutional authority, Congress has authorized the use of force in the Joint Resolution of Congress passed in the aftermath of 9/11. That resolution charged the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to "prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." These wiretaps follow logically from this resolution.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703
...Feingold wants to be President, and that's fair enough.
But until you run nationwide and win, Senators, please stop stripping the Presidency of its Constitutional authority to defend America.
There is no evidence that these wiretaps violate the law. But there is lots of evidence that the Senators are "illegally" usurping Presidential power--and endangering the country in the process.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1545787/posts
ASST. ATTY. GEN'S. LETTER TO SENATE INTEL. COMM. -
Under Article II of the Constitution, including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the Constitution gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/05.html
With the invention of the microphone, the telephone, and the dictograph recorder, it became possible to ''eavesdrop'' with much greater secrecy and expediency. Inevitably, the use of electronic devices in law enforcement was challenged, and in 1928 the Court reviewed convictions obtained on the basis of evidence gained through taps on telephone wires ...

Your post has a great set of links that point out the true situation and the due dilegence that the administration utilized in crafting the program that was underway.

I can't imagine that these fellows are so craven as to parrot the leftist media line that this was a "domestic spying program against citizens at home."

I think that when the true history of what and how comes under non-biased examination it will be clear the Bush would have been subject to claims of wrong doing IF HE HADN'T taken the course of examining foreign contacts.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

All pre-FISA decisions, meaning they don't address the question at hand.

Congress has authorized the use of force in the Joint Resolution of Congress passed in the aftermath of 9/11. That resolution charged the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to "prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." These wiretaps follow logically from this resolution.

So then why did Congress, at the President's request, amend FISA 5 weeks after the AUMF? And why did Bush go to court to defend the FISA changes? What's the point in changing and defending a law that had already been rendered irrelevant by the AUMF?

There is no evidence that these wiretaps violate the law.

Depends on the meaning of "violate the law". Bush admits to violating FISA. His claim is that violating FISA is not a violation of the law.