1802 doesn't include terrorists of 1801(a)(4) eitherExactly.
if people want to argue that the surveillance is within the four corners of FISA, who am I to pop their bubble?
Anyone claiming that the surveillance is within the four corners of FISA obviously doesn't understand the administrations's legal arguments. Bush isn't trying to justify actions that conform to FISA. His whole argument is intended to justify actions that violate FISA.
Still, people keep trotting out FISA to justify violations of FISA, mistakenly thinking that they're discovering important legal provisions inexplicably overlooked by Bush's lawyers. It's flabbergasting.
Still, people keep trotting out FISA to justify violations of FISA, mistakenly thinking that they're discovering important legal provisions inexplicably overlooked by Bush's lawyers. It's flabbergasting.
People like James S. Robbins from the National Review? Have you read his piece
Unwarranted Outrage? This is where I got most of my information on this issue (I'm not a lawyer myself). You might want to check it out. He's arguing, just like I have here, that Bush's actions conform to FISA. I'd be interested to here your comments on that article.