Replies

L - you are descending into smarmy hyperbole.

The Constitution is a small document, and I am quite familiar with it. I even carry a copy with me. So thanks for the link, but I don’t need it. The Constitution is a brief document that serves as a basis for the thousands of pages of laws that are enacted by Congress. I can dig out thousands of laws that aren’t really “covered” by the Constitution, in that the Constitution is silent on the topic covered.

In our topic of concern - wiretapping terrorist cell phones, the 4th amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Obviously, there are those (like me) who believe that if the military or intelligence agency comes up with a cell phone or a computer that belonged to a terrorist or a enemy combatant - and there are a number of US phone numbers contained therein - that is, in of itself, sufficient basis to conduct a “reasonable” search (i.e. - wire tap.) So the Executive Branch basis for their actions is that the 4th Amendment allows warrantless searches when it is reasonable. And that contention is subject to great discussion and arguments, and lawyers and judges may come to a different opinions, and the Supreme Court might eventually decide a “yea” or “ney” on the position. But intelligent people can argue either side - and try to be reasonable, or can decide to be nasty. For those who declare that to support these wire taps is to be on a slippery slope to Fascism - it is then reasonable for the other side to declare that the opponents of the wire tapping effort must believe in a “terrorist’s bill of rights” and therefore support terrorists. The question is do the people want to have a rational discussion, or to descend into name calling.

Thare are those who are what we in the Navy called “sea lawyers” - who make a wide variety of claims that there are many things happening today that are unconstitutional, and they claim we are on a slippery slope to tyranny.
They are against the metal detectors and searches at airports. (nope - can’t even find the word airport in my Constitution.)
They are against the CIA and FBI; they are against government secrets. They are against a standing army/navy. They want Miranda rules and rules of evidence imposed on the military - or we have to turn POWs loose for lack of evidence (or at least, lack of evidence that hasn’t been tainted, or might have been seized improperly without violating the rights of the enemy.)

But I will engage in the same hyperbole you used in drawing baseless conclusions about me:
Yes - you chose to support your position with a racist, Chief Justice Taney. You too must be racist! You criticized Lincoln over Taney - so you must hate blacks, support slavery, and therefore are even a bigger racist. You want to give terrorists some unspecified Constitutional rights, therefore you must align yourself with terrorists. (But you also support slavery and the South, so you must believe in some portions of the Constitution, while opposing other portions.) [do you like being trashed? go back and read my comments - I never engaged is such sweeping generalizations about you.]

The Constitution is not a completely comprehensive document that covers everything - so no, it is not specific about what the President may do during wartime, acting as Commander in Chief - but there have been many actions by Presidents that serve as guidance - and sometimes actions are later repudiated by Congress. The balance of powers cause a “ying/yang” pull as to what is reasonable. If Congress wants to create a “terrorist protection act” that states that no wiretapping of phone calls originating outside of the US by terrorists is permissible without court authorization - GREAT. Let them go for it. But also let the Congress stake out a firm position, and then let the voters re-elect or throw out of office those who would protect terrorists while exposing Americans to greater danger.

In the present war on Islamic naziism - there have already been a number of Supreme Court decisions regarding issues where some have accused the President of grossly overstepping the bounds of the Constitution - and about 60% - 70% of the decisions have favored the President. I would suggest that the President is not an ogre or an aspiring dictator, but an honorable man who is trying hard to protect the citizens of the U.S., and he is trying to find the boundries of what is permissible. He doesn’t want to unilaterally “disarm” and use Marquis of Queensbury rules to an enemy that knows no rules. I respect his efforts, and won’t disparage the President for his efforts. And a Democrat President who trys to do the same would also merit respect. Now - if we have another President, like BJ Clinton - who misused his powers, and the misuse was for his personal benefit, no respect at all! But as I noted in an earlier post - Clinton (and other Democrat Presidents) will do what ever they want anyway - they abused power in ways far beyond what President Bush has been accused of doing, and the abuse didn’t have any reasonable justification, unlike what President Bush has as a basis for his actions.

Mike