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.
He's arguing, just like I have here, that Bush's actions conform to FISA.OTOH, the President is arguing that he doesn't have to comply with FISA, that Article II and the AUMF give him authority to conduct electronic surveillance without following the procedures mandated by law. If he's complying with the law, i.e., following FISA procedures, what's the purpose of his argument? You think he's arguing that he has authority to ignore FISA just to be arguing it?