New proposal on NSA surveillance [DeWine]

Scotusblog ^ | March 16, 2006 | Lyle Denniston

[Cboldt]

So, let's back up ... either we're not at war or the President during war time does not have the inherent authority to monitor enemy communications? I am trying to understand the complexities of this issue as there is so much more heat than light.

I was pointing at what should be an obvious difference. In WWII, Congress passed a law that provided for interception of communications and censorship of the press, and agreed with the President's EO that created an Office of Censorship, therefore Congress didn't question what the President was doing. I think that represents an obvious difference from the way Congress and the President are acting in regards to the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program today, with hearings on the legality, competing statutes, calls for censure, and so forth.

That observation isn't very helpful for understanding the complexities of the issue. I agree, there is more heat than light -- but that's par for FR ;-)

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks.

This might cause a lot of binding in the lower GI tracts of rats across the nation.

[BIGLOOK]

Mornin Dave.

Bothers me that the anti-Bush crowd foolishly assumes the intercepts are of US citizens. Residence does not imply citizenship.

I recently upgraded my cell phone (previously owned a "dinosaur"). All new cell phones are required to have built in GPS; my old one can never be reactivated since it did not. Remember the stories of bulk sales of disposables in the country? Any skinny on whether disposables have a GPS chip?