[NewLand]

Each of the three of you are using tactics that would make our liberal friends proud...parsing words, avoiding questions, making false statements (i.e. what POTUS did was illegal). Your statements all fein support for The Constitution when in fact you are supporting a judicial domination of our government...in time of war.

Don't expect to find much support here. Thank God we are in the majority in this country at this time, not you. You all are acting as if this is a debate that's being scored on points.

We are under threat, 7x24x365, of nuclear attack engineered from within, in cooperation with external enemies. You would rather find yourself proven "right" than protecting our nation from a threat that supercedes any in history.

Thank God President Bush doesn't see things the way you do.

[inquest]

Every time someone challenges the view that what the President did was illegal, I ask simply if he followed FISA. So far, I haven't gotten an answer to the question. Given that "avoiding questions" is something you don't like, maybe you can break the trend and answer it.

[Wasanother]

You are right, I have asked at least 4 times on this thread for someone to provide case law for the argument that the President,"broke the law" and for names of anyone who's rights were violated in this Congressionally Informed Program but I haven't received any takers.

[garbanzo]

Your statements all fein support for The Constitution when in fact you are supporting a judicial domination of our government...in time of war.

I'm supporting appropiate judicial oversight to protect the republic from a grave crisis - the problem of unchecked powers given for indefinite ill-defined periods of time. If the President wants expanded powers then he needs to tell us what the clear well-defined exit strategy for the War on Terror is - otherwise he has to accept some oversight from the other branches of government just as the founders intended.