I think his reporter-handling skills could do with a bit more work. I listened in on the radio on the way in, he did OK. I've seen better. I was expecting much worse.

Sometimes I think politicians read Jim Hacker's 'Ways of Dealing with Difficult Questions.' It's amazing how accurate that show was. Every election campaign, I see the same methods being used.

NTM

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I like Bush, I support him all the way.  His pattern of speaking and use of the language isn't important, his resolve toward a cause is. A lot of people noticed that he don't speak too well in public, but not all of us are public speakers like Reagan, but after awhile you "judge a man by his deeds and not his words." Especially when his deeds include breaking the law by subverting the Constitution. Might as well just burn the damn thing, after all, it is outdated. Bush mentioned the article in the Constitution that authorizated him to use the wire taps. I think if it was truly illegal, the Dems would be all over him like a cheap suit, and also the Dems were briefed by the W.H. on the goings on of these wire taps, if the Dems had any problems it should've been brought up there, and not in a public forum where it would tip the BGs. Congressman calls for Bush impeachment The Associated Press - ATLANTA U.S. Rep. John Lewis said Monday in a radio interview that President Bush should be impeached if he broke the law in authorizing spying on Americans. The Democratic senator from Georgia told WAOK-AM he would sign a bill of impeachment if one was drawn up and that the House of Representatives should consider such a move. Lewis is among several Democrats who have voiced discontent with Sunday night's television speech, where Bush asked Americans to continue to support the Iraq War. Lewis is the first major House figure to suggest impeaching Bush. "Its a very serious charge, but he violated the law," said Lewis, a former civil rights leader. "The president should abide by the law. He deliberately, systematically violated the law. He is not King, he is president."

You are using this clown as a source for anything????????????????  He is left of Jesse Jackson.  He is a joke, but you go ahead and quote him, it is appropriate.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I like Bush, I support him all the way.  His pattern of speaking and use of the language isn't important, his resolve toward a cause is. A lot of people noticed that he don't speak too well in public, but not all of us are public speakers like Reagan, but after awhile you "judge a man by his deeds and not his words." Especially when his deeds include breaking the law by subverting the Constitution. Might as well just burn the damn thing, after all, it is outdated. Run out of tinfoil did we? Or did the check from Osama finally clear? So it's okay to break the law? Show where he broke any laws. Simply repeating lies like the MSM does does not make things real. You're right, no laws were broken, no precedents were set, don't come crying to me when your phone is tapped because you own guns and are on a "watch list". In other words, you can't name specifics, you just keep parrotting the leftist media. FISA en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act and Fourth Amendment –   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.

Okay, you reference one Amendment and one Act, that's wonderful.  Now, where does the PA violate these?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I like Bush, I support him all the way.  His pattern of speaking and use of the language isn't important, his resolve toward a cause is. A lot of people noticed that he don't speak too well in public, but not all of us are public speakers like Reagan, but after awhile you "judge a man by his deeds and not his words." Especially when his deeds include breaking the law by subverting the Constitution. Might as well just burn the damn thing, after all, it is outdated. Run out of tinfoil did we? Or did the check from Osama finally clear? So it's okay to break the law? Show where he broke any laws. Simply repeating lies like the MSM does does not make things real. You're right, no laws were broken, no precedents were set, don't come crying to me when your phone is tapped because you own guns and are on a "watch list". In other words, you can't name specifics, you just keep parrotting the leftist media. FISA en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act and Fourth Amendment –   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. Okay, you reference one Amendment and one Act, that's wonderful.  Now, where does the PA violate these?

Did you read the text of the FISA act ?  Are you familiar with the FISA court & how that operates ?

The FISA act was in fact ammended by the Patriot Act.  I never stated the PA violated FISA, & unless I missread the previous posts, the allegation
was the NSA wiretaps & electronic eavesdropping implemented by W's executive order(& backed by his DOJ)are unlawful because this violates FISA
by circumventing the FISA court. It seems to me a compelling case can be made this does violate Federal law.

Now my quoting of the 4th ammendment is simply my effort to point out compromising on any of the Bill of Rights(especially 1-10) is
as egregious as compromising on the 2nd ammendment, IMHO.

I think most members of this site believe the 2nd ammendment to be sacrosanct.  If passionate gun owners feel compelled to defend the 2nd ammendment so vociferously, then why don't we all feel just as strongly about preserving the fundamental principles that make up the other 9 original Bill of Rights

I think the guys friggin hilarious personally, i loved watching his facial expressions during his debates with kerry, and how everytime he heard something he didnt like he made a face and just wanted to jump in and take over.  He may not be the best public speaker but I think hes doing what he believes is right and what the country needs.  Im proud to have him as my president.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I like Bush, I support him all the way.  His pattern of speaking and use of the language isn't important, his resolve toward a cause is. A lot of people noticed that he don't speak too well in public, but not all of us are public speakers like Reagan, but after awhile you "judge a man by his deeds and not his words." Especially when his deeds include breaking the law by subverting the Constitution. Might as well just burn the damn thing, after all, it is outdated. Run out of tinfoil did we? Or did the check from Osama finally clear? So it's okay to break the law? Show where he broke any laws. Simply repeating lies like the MSM does does not make things real. You're right, no laws were broken, no precedents were set, don't come crying to me when your phone is tapped because you own guns and are on a "watch list". In other words, you can't name specifics, you just keep parrotting the leftist media. FISA en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act and Fourth Amendment –   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. Okay, you reference one Amendment and one Act, that's wonderful.  Now, where does the PA violate these? Did you read the text of the FISA act ?  Are you familiar with the FISA court & how that operates ? The FISA act was in fact ammended by the Patriot Act.  I never stated the PA violated FISA, & unless I missread the previous posts, the allegation was the NSA wiretaps & electronic eavesdropping implemented by W's executive order(& backed by his DOJ)are unlawful because this violates FISA by circumventing the FISA court. It seems to me a compelling case can be made this does violate Federal law. Now my quoting of the 4th ammendment is simply my effort to point out compromising on any of the Bill of Rights(especially 1-10) is as egregious as compromising on the 2nd ammendment, IMHO. I think most members of this site believe the 2nd ammendment to be sacrosanct.  If passionate gun owners feel compelled to defend the 2nd ammendment so vociferously, then why don't we all feel just as strongly about preserving the fundamental principles that make up the other 9 original Bill of Rights

You have yet to point how HOW it violates these things.  You say it does, but you don't show HOW.

Quoted: Quoted: <snip> Did you read the text of the FISA act ?  Are you familiar with the FISA court & how that operates ? The FISA act was in fact ammended by the Patriot Act.  I never stated the PA violated FISA, & unless I missread the previous posts, the allegation was the NSA wiretaps & electronic eavesdropping implemented by W's executive order(& backed by his DOJ)are unlawful because this violates FISA by circumventing the FISA court. It seems to me a compelling case can be made this does violate Federal law. Now my quoting of the 4th ammendment is simply my effort to point out compromising on any of the Bill of Rights(especially 1-10) is as egregious as compromising on the 2nd ammendment, IMHO. I think most members of this site believe the 2nd ammendment to be sacrosanct.  If passionate gun owners feel compelled to defend the 2nd ammendment so vociferously, then why don't we all feel just as strongly about preserving the fundamental principles that make up the other 9 original Bill of Rights You have yet to point how HOW it violates these things.  You say it does, but you don't show HOW.

I'm wondering if he might be going for the "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" part.  I'm not sure how the exec order works, but he may be suggesting that they are not based upon probable cause.  Don't wanna speak for him, though.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1801 Prev | Next

§ 1801. Definitions


Release date: 2005-03-17

As used in this subchapter: (a) “Foreign power” means— (1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States; (2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons; (3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments; (4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor; (5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or (6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. (b) “Agent of a foreign power” means— (1) any person other than a United States person, who— (A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section; (B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person’s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or (2) any person who— (A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; (B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; (C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power; (D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or (E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C). (c) “International terrorism” means activities that— (1) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State; (2) appear to be intended— (A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (C) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and (3) occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. (d) “Sabotage” means activities that involve a violation of chapter 105 of title 18, or that would involve such a violation if committed against the United States. (e) “Foreign intelligence information” means— (1) information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against— (A) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; (B) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or (C) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or (2) information with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to— (A) the national defense or the security of the United States; or (B) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States. (f) “Electronic surveillance” means— (1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes; (2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18; (3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or (4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes. (g) “Attorney General” means the Attorney General of the United States (or Acting Attorney General) or the Deputy Attorney General. (h) “Minimization procedures”, with respect to electronic surveillance, means— (1) specific procedures, which shall be adopted by the Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information; (2) procedures that require that nonpublicly available information, which is not foreign intelligence information, as defined in subsection (e)(1) of this section, shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without such person’s consent, unless such person’s identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance; (3) notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), procedures that allow for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes; and (4) notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802 (a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. (i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section. (j) “United States”, when used in a geographic sense, means all areas under the territorial sovereignty of the United States and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. (k) “Aggrieved person” means a person who is the target of an electronic surveillance or any other person whose communications or activities were subject to electronic surveillance. (l) “Wire communication” means any communication while it is being carried by a wire, cable, or other like connection furnished or operated by any person engaged as a common carrier in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications. (m) “Person” means any individual, including any officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any group, entity, association, corporation, or foreign power. (n) “Contents”, when used with respect to a communication, includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication. (o) “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any territory or possession of the United States.  

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802 Prev | Next

§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court


Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately. (2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title. (3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless— (A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or (B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title. (4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to— (A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier is providing its customers; and (B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain. The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid. (b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications  

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1804 Prev | Next

§ 1804. Applications for court orders


Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) Submission by Federal officer; approval of Attorney General; contents Each application for an order approving electronic surveillance under this subchapter shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title. Each application shall require the approval of the Attorney General based upon his finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application as set forth in this subchapter. It shall include— (1) the identity of the Federal officer making the application; (2) the authority conferred on the Attorney General by the President of the United States and the approval of the Attorney General to make the application; (3) the identity, if known, or a description of the target of the electronic surveillance; (4) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that— (A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and (B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; (5) a statement of the proposed minimization procedures; (6) a detailed description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance; (7) a certification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate— (A) that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information; (B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information; (C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques; (D) that designates the type of foreign intelligence information being sought according to the categories described in section 1801 (e) of this title; and (E) including a statement of the basis for the certification that— (i) the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence information designated; and (ii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques; (8) a statement of the means by which the surveillance will be effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance; (9) a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken on each previous application; (10) a statement of the period of time for which the electronic surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of electronic surveillance under this subchapter should not automatically terminate when the described type of information has first been obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional information of the same type will be obtained thereafter; and (11) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical or other surveillance device is to be used with respect to a particular proposed electronic surveillance, the coverage of the devices involved and what minimization procedures apply to information acquired by each device. (b) Exclusion of certain information respecting foreign power targets Whenever the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title, and each of the facilities or places at which the surveillance is directed is owned, leased, or exclusively used by that foreign power, the application need not contain the information required by paragraphs (6), (7)(E), (8), and (11) of subsection (a) of this section, but shall state whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance and shall contain such information about the surveillance techniques and communications or other information concerning United States persons likely to be obtained as may be necessary to assess the proposed minimization procedures. (c) Additional affidavits or certifications The Attorney General may require any other affidavit or certification from any other officer in connection with the application. (d) Additional information The judge may require the applicant to furnish such other information as may be necessary to make the determinations required by section 1805 of this title. (e) Personal review by Attorney General (1) (A) Upon written request of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, or the Director of Central Intelligence, the Attorney General shall personally review under subsection (a) of this section an application under that subsection for a target described in section 1801 (b)(2) of this title. (B) Except when disabled or otherwise unavailable to make a request referred to in subparagraph (A), an official referred to in that subparagraph may not delegate the authority to make a request referred to in that subparagraph. (C) Each official referred to in subparagraph (A) with authority to make a request under that subparagraph shall take appropriate actions in advance to ensure that delegation of such authority is clearly established in the event such official is disabled or otherwise unavailable to make such request. (2) (A) If as a result of a request under paragraph (1) the Attorney General determines not to approve an application under the second sentence of subsection (a) of this section for purposes of making the application under this section, the Attorney General shall provide written notice of the determination to the official making the request for the review of the application under that paragraph. Except when disabled or otherwise unavailable to make a determination under the preceding sentence, the Attorney General may not delegate the responsibility to make a determination under that sentence. The Attorney General shall take appropriate actions in advance to ensure that delegation of such responsibility is clearly established in the event the Attorney General is disabled or otherwise unavailable to make such determination. (B) Notice with respect to an application under subparagraph (A) shall set forth the modifications, if any, of the application that are necessary in order for the Attorney General to approve the application under the second sentence of subsection (a) of this section for purposes of making the application under this section. (C) Upon review of any modifications of an application set forth under subparagraph (B), the official notified of the modifications under this paragraph shall modify the application if such official determines that such modification is warranted. Such official shall supervise the making of any modification under this subparagraph. Except when disabled or otherwise unavailable to supervise the making of any modification under the preceding sentence, such official may not delegate the responsibility to supervise the making of any modification under that preceding sentence. Each such official shall take appropriate actions in advance to ensure that delegation of such responsibility is clearly established in the event such official is disabled or otherwise unavailable to supervise the making of such modification.

by not going through a FISA court as required by law to get a warrant for electronic sureveilliance of U.S. Persons , one would be in direct violation of the FISA Act of 1978

" The related news event surrounding this matter -- i.e., the release of highly classified information during wartime -- was clearly illegal. However, the controversial wiretaps may also arguably constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution which makes search and seizure without a warrant illegal, and may also be a criminal violation of the wiretapping provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Title 50, Section 1801 (et seq.)) establishes a procedure for the officials of the executive branch of the U.S. Government to obtain the necessary judicial warrants to intercept international telephone calls. These are necessary after the Supreme Court ruled that President Richard Nixon and Attorney-General John N. Mitchell did not possess the inherent authority to invade people's reasonable expectation of a private telephone conversation, under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, 407 U.S. 297 (1972).

It is a criminal violation of FISA for an executive branch official to engage in wiretapping "under color of law" (that is, through official action) except as provided by statute. 50 U.S.C. §1809(a)(1). The penalty for such warrantless wiretapping in violation of FISA is up to five years in prison.

FISA authorizes the interception of technical communications (but not telephone communications or e-mail messages) without a warrant, and no warrant is required if no U.S. person (defined as a citizen or permanent resident of the United States) is the recipient or sender of the message. [7]

FISA also affords the authority to the President of the United States to order electronic surveillance of human communications for up to fifteen days without a court order, after a declaration of war by Congress. However, since Congress did not formally declare war on al-Qaida, and the wiretapping was of a duration longer than the prescribed period, and intercepted the communications of U.S. persons, these provisions were inapplicable, and a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was ostensibly required.

Additionally, FISA specifically empowers the Attorney General or his designee to start wiretapping on an emergency basis even without a warrant, so long as a retroactive application is made for one "as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance."

Orin S. Kerr, a professor of law at George Washington University Law School [9] and scholar of the legal framework of electronic surveillance [10]has opined that the question of whether the wiretapping violated the Fourth Amendment and the criminal provisions of FISA is a complex issue, but that after his first analysis he concluded that the wiretapping probably did not infringe on Fourth Amendment constitutional rights, but, in his opinion, probably did violate the FISA statute.

President Bush has maintained he acted within "legal authority derived from the constitution" and that Congress "granted [him] additional authority to use military force against al Qaeda". [11] However, while the President may argue that the necessary statutory authority to override FISA's warrant provisions is provided by the authorization to use "all necessary force" in the employment of military resources to protect the security of the United States, and that the use of wiretapping is a qualifying use of force (under the terms of the authorization for the use of military force against al-Qaida as found in Senate Joint Resolution 23, 2001), Kerr believes that this justification is ultimately unpersuasive, as is the argument that the President's power as the Commander-in-Chief (as derived from Article Two of the United States Constitution) provides him with the necessary constitutional authority to circumvent FISA during a time of war. [12] "
"

Quoted: by not going through a FISA court as required by law to get a warrant for electronic sureveilliance of U.S. Persons , one would be in direct violation of the FISA Act of 1978

Is that what he did?  Do you have a source other than the NYT?

Quoted: Quoted: by not going through a FISA court as required by law to get a warrant for electronic sureveilliance of U.S. Persons , one would be in direct violation of the FISA Act of 1978 Is that what he did?  Do you have a source other than the NYT?

dude, do you read the news ?

do a google search, Gonzales & Cheney have admitted they did & say thy're within the scope
of the law, the source provided above quoting the law professor wasn't a NYT quote & there
wouldn't even be a comroversy if they had complied with FISA, why are guys like Sen. Hagel & Sen. Spector calling for an investigation if there aren't FISA compliance issues

www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,179215,00.html

Senators Want to Know Bush Wiretap Authority

Tuesday, December 20, 2005



WASHINGTON — Lawmakers are arguing over the legality of intercepting international communications among suspected terrorists and questioned President Bush's authority to direct the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls without a court-approved warrant.

Bush acknowledged last weekend that he authorized NSA to intercept international calls and e-mails but only those linked to Al Qaeda, even if one end of the conversation is taking place in the United States and includes an American citizen.

Click in the video box to the right to watch a report by FOX News' Jim Angle.

"How do we effectively detect enemies hiding in our midst and prevent them from striking us again? We know that a two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to Al Qaeda here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives," Bush said during a Monday press conference.

Just before the terror attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, two of the hijackers called Afghanistan, perhaps for final instructions — exactly the kind of communication Bush said he is now determined to intercept.

Some argue that the president must get a warrant from what is known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, which operates in secret. The president suggested that going through the court to get a warrant would have taken too long.

"The people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program because it enables us to move faster and quicker," Bush said.

Congressional critics also argue that the president has taken the law into his own hands and he doesn't have the authority to order electronic intercepts of anyone in the United States without getting a search warrant.

"Where does he find in the Constitution the authority to tap the wires and the phones of American citizens without any court oversight?" asked Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"The American public is given vague and empty assurances by the president that amount to little more than, 'Trust me. Trust me,'" said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W. Va.

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Md., called for the Senate Intelligence Committee, of which she is a member, to hold expedited hearings into the matter.

"The president seems to have admitted that he secretly eliminated this entire legal process. That raises very serious questions about U.S. intelligence operations and about the president's commitment to obeying the law," Mikulski said.

Late Monday, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he too wants expedited hearings, including one into the leak to The New York Times, which first revealed the program. He added that he thought Bush, who called the leak "shameful," was "too weak" on that matter during his press conference.

In addition, Rockefeller said he was briefed on the program when he first took his position two years ago as vice chairman of the panel. He was told at the time that the program was top secret and he was not allowed to discuss it with anyone, including his chief of staff, "not even my wife."

Rockefeller also released a letter he wrote to Vice President Cheney two years ago, expressing what he called "lingering concerns" about the program, which he said raised "profound oversight issues."

"I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," he wrote in the July 2003 letter. "As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney."

"The president just keeps saying 'we informed Congress,' and it's so annoying. It's phony. It's totally phony," Rockefeller said.

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said he, too, was briefed by the White House between 2002 and 2004 but was not told key details about the scope of the program.

Daschle's successor, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he received a single briefing earlier this year and that important details were withheld. "We need to investigate this program and the president's legal authority to carry it out," Reid said.

On Tuesday, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chairman of the intelligence panel, said if Rockefeller had a problem with the program, he had several avenues to raise concerns, including taking up the issue with other members who had been briefed, using legislative tools at his disposal or confronting the vice president during any one of several briefings.

"A United States Senator has significant tools with which to wield power and influence over the executive branch. Feigning helplessness is not one of those tools," Roberts told reporters in a written statement. "If Senator Rockefeller truly had the concerns he claimed to have had in his two and a half year old letter, he could have pursued a number of options to have those concerns addressed."

Bush argues he was authorized after Sept. 11 to use whatever force was necessary to combat the terrorists who had taken sanctuary in Afghanistan. He points to that as well as his constitutional powers to protect the nation as the basis for authorizing the intercepts.

"As president and commander in chief, I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country. Article II of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it. And after September the 11th, the United States Congress also granted me additional authority to use military force against Al Qaeda," he said.

Decisions on what conversations to monitor are made at the Fort Meade, Md., headquarters, approved by an NSA shift supervisor and carefully recorded, said Gen. Michael Hayden, the principal deputy director of intelligence.

"The reason I emphasize that this is done at the operational level is to remove any question in your mind that this is in any way politically influenced," said Hayden, who was NSA director when the program began.

One national security lawyer said Bush does have solid constitutional authority to act.

"The highest court that's looked at these questions has said that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence and Congress cannot take away that constitutional authority. That's a pretty good argument," said Bryan Cunningham, a former legal adviser to the National Security Council.

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he had already planned to hold hearings on this issue, and that an investigation into this program "ought to include what the chair and vice chair of intelligence ought to do in instances" where they are asked to keep secret programs that they believe violate the Constitution or U.S. law.

He and ranking Democrat on the panel, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, both said they also plan to raise the issue during the Supreme Court confirmation hearing of Samuel Alito. They want to ask the judge whether he thinks the president has the authority he claims.

Officials emphasize that warrants were not sought for any intercepts entirely within the United States, and several intelligence experts told FOX News that beyond that several circumstances exists under which the president is not obligated to obtain a warrant.

The administration is reluctant to talk about details, however. Officials call this the "most classified program in the U.S. government."

FOX News' Trish Turner contributed to this report.

  SEARCH  


Click here for FOX News RSS Feeds

Advertise on FOX News Channel, FOXNews.com and FOX News Radio
Jobs at FOX News Channel.
Internships at FOX News Channel (Accepting Fall Applications Now).
Terms of use.  Privacy Statement.  For FOXNews.com comments write to
[email protected];  For FOX News Channel comments write to
[email protected]
© Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2005 ComStock, Inc.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright 2005 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.

Its a wonder that someone who can do so much good for this country on foreign policy can be so completely inept at domestic issues.

Go Bush.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I like Bush, I support him all the way.  His pattern of speaking and use of the language isn't important, his resolve toward a cause is. A lot of people noticed that he don't speak too well in public, but not all of us are public speakers like Reagan, but after awhile you "judge a man by his deeds and not his words." Especially when his deeds include breaking the law by subverting the Constitution. Might as well just burn the damn thing, after all, it is outdated.

How did he subvert the constitution?  Did he violate any ones rights against "Unreasonable search and seizure"?  Let us see? some one is acting as an agent for a foreign terrorist organization......International securities act....
Calls of Al Qaeda being monitored.  They call a US number...Should we hang up and wait 3 months for a warrant and miss out on all the info allowing for another terrorist act or do we continue to monitor the call and find out about sleeper cells in the US?

If the cops are tapping the line of a drug supplier, are they required to get seperate warrants for each phone call because they don't have a warrant for the person that the dealer is talking to?

You just may want to learn a little bit more about the constitution before you start accusing people of subverting it.

Quoted: (4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor; TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802 Prev | Next § 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court Release date: 2005-03-17 (a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately. (2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title. (3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless— (A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or (B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title. (4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to— (A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier is providing its customers; and (B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain. The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid. (b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications

Sounds like the people he is tapping with the AG's approval as per the second part.  So, what is he doing that is illegal or subversive?

Here we go with that bullshit again....

FISA also affords the authority to the President of the United States to order electronic surveillance of human communications for up to fifteen days without a court order, after a declaration of war by Congress. However, since Congress did not formally declare war on al-Qaida, and the wiretapping was of a duration longer than the prescribed period, and intercepted the communications of U.S. persons, these provisions were inapplicable, and a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was ostensibly required.

Congress authorized use of force against terrorists.  Period, end of story.  No where in the constitution does it say that a declaration of war must include "we declare war on".  We never "declared war" on Viet Nam or North Korea, yet we were engaged in war and the Presidents of the time had all the authorities granted the President under the "war powers act"  Just like any other libtard, you are only reading half of the stuff and trying to twist it to your messed up point of view.  And where the hell were you when Clinton was doing the exact same thing for political reasons?  Kept your mouth shut then.  Didn't you?  Well, 4 courts have already said that what W has done is legal.

Quoted: Quoted: (4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor; TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802 Prev | Next § 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court Release date: 2005-03-17 (a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately. (2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title. (3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless— (A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or (B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title. (4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to— (A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier is providing its customers; and (B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain. The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid. (b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications   Sounds like the people he is tapping with the AG's approval as per the second part.  So, what is he doing that is illegal or subversive?

"The statute limits its application to US persons. A US person includes citizens, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, and corporations incorporated in the US."

this would be the question, if a U.S. person was a subject of the survelliance

Quoted: Here we go with that bullshit again.... FISA also affords the authority to the President of the United States to order electronic surveillance of human communications for up to fifteen days without a court order, after a declaration of war by Congress. However, since Congress did not formally declare war on al-Qaida, and the wiretapping was of a duration longer than the prescribed period, and intercepted the communications of U.S. persons, these provisions were inapplicable, and a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was ostensibly required. Congress authorized use of force against terrorists.  Period, end of story.  No where in the constitution does it say that a declaration of war must include "we declare war on".  We never "declared war" on Viet Nam or North Korea, yet we were engaged in war and the Presidents of the time had all the authorities granted the President under the "war powers act"  Just like any other libtard, you are only reading half of the stuff and trying to twist it to your messed up point of view.  And where the hell were you when Clinton was doing the exact same thing for political reasons?  Kept your mouth shut then.  Didn't you?  Well, 4 courts have already said that what W has done is legal.

" Powers of Congress
Congress has a multitude of powers under Section Eight:

Section 8: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Many powers of Congress have been interpreted broadly. Most notably, the General Welfare, Interstate Commerce, and Necessary and Proper Clauses have been deemed to grant expansive powers to Congress.

Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has not often defined "general welfare", leaving the political question to Congress. In United States v. Butler (1936), the Court for the first time construed the clause. The dispute centered on a tax collected from processors of agricultural products such as meat; the funds raised by the tax were not paid into the general funds of the treasury, but were rather specially earmarked for farmers. The Court struck down the tax, ruling that the general welfare clause related only to "matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare". Nonetheless, Congress continues to make expansive use of the General Welfare Clause. For instance, the social security program is authorized under the General Welfare Clause.

Congress is permitted to borrow money on the credit of the United States. In 1871, when deciding Knox v. Lee, the Court ruled that this clause permitted Congress to emit bills and make them legal tender in satisfaction of debts. Whenever Congress borrows money, it is obligated to repay the sum as stipulated in the original agreement. In Perry v. United States (1935), the Court invalidated a law seeking to rescind a clause whereby creditors could demand payment in gold coin. "

" Other powers of Congress

Congress may establish uniform laws relating to naturalization and bankruptcy. It may also coin money, regulate the value of American or foreign currency and punish counterfeiters. Congress may fix the standards of weights and measures. Furthermore, Congress may establish post offices and post roads (the roads, however, need not be exclusively for the conveyance of mail). Congress may promote the progress of science and useful arts by granting copyrights and patents; though perpetual copyrights and patents are prohibited, the Supreme Court has ruled in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) that repeated extensions to the term of copyright do not constitute perpetual copyright; also note that this is the only power granted where the means to accomplish its stated purpose is specifically provided for. Courts inferior to the Supreme Court may be established by Congress.

Congress has several powers related to war and the armed forces. Under the War Powers Clause, only Congress may declare war, but in several cases it has, without declaring war, granted the President the authority to engage in military conflicts. Six wars have been declared in American history: the Barbary Coast War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. Some historians argue that the legal doctrines and legislation passed during the operations against Pancho Villa constitute a seventh declaration of war. Congress may grant letters of marque and reprisal; such letters are now obsolete. Congress may establish and support the armed forces, but no appropriation may be made for the support of the army may be used for more than two years. This provision was inserted because the Framers feared the establishment of a standing army during peacetime. The provision is moot, however, since now appropriations for all purposes are made annually. Congress may regulate or call forth the state militias, but the states retain the authority to appoint officers and train personnel. Congress also has exclusive power to make rules and regulations governing the land and naval forces. Although the executive branch and the Pentagon have asserted an ever-increasing measure of involvement in this process, the U.S. Supreme Court has often reaffirmed Congress' exclusive hold on this power (e.g. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953)). Congress used this power twice soon after World War II with the enactment of two statutes: the Uniform Code of Military Justice to improve the quality and fairness of court martials and military justice, and the Federal Tort Claims Act which among other rights had allowed military servicepersons to sue for damages until the U.S. Supreme Court repealed that section of the statute in a divisive series of cases, known collectively as the Feres Doctrine.

Congress has the exclusive right to legislate "in all cases whatsoever" for the nation's capital, the District of Columbia. Congress may also exercise such jurisdiction over land purchased from the states for the erection of forts and other buildings."

" War Powers Act

The War Powers Act is also known as the Trading with the Enemy Act, and is commonly confused with the War Powers Resolution (of 1973).

Also called the Act of October 6, 1917, it was "An Act to define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes." As the United States entered into WWI it became apparent that there were enemies living within the boundaries of the United States, and it became necessary to determine who could be labeled an enemy. The act specifically exempted citizens when it was written: "other than citizens of the United States."

However the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2, specifically amended that to include: "any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

These provisions only take place when the United States is under a state of emergency, which is why no president has declared an emergency since 1933.

Several Constitutional protections are subject to this state of emergency (or public danger)"

" Declaration of war by the United States

A declaration of war by the United States is the statement of purpose traditionally requested by the President of the United States and granted by Congress to engage military force against another nation. Since World War II, the decision-making power of Congress to declare war has been voluntarily limited to issuing authorizations of force. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Public Law 93-148) limits the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of the Congress. The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations eleven separate times.

The War Powers Resolution

In 1973, following the withdrawal of most American troops from the Vietnam War, debate raged in the United States between those who supported declarations of war, and those who opposed them. A compromise was reached with the War Powers Resolution. This act clearly defined how many soldiers could be deployed by the president of the United States and for how long. It also required formal reports by the president to Congress regarding the status of such deployments, and limited the total amount of time that American forces could be employed without a formal declaration of war.

Although the constitutionality of the act has never been tested, for the most part it has been followed, most notably during the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, the First Gulf War, and the Second Gulf War. In each case, the President asserted the constitutional authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act.

Controversy regarding U.S. declarations of war

Those who oppose waging war without declaration point to Article I of the Constitution, which reads The Congress shall have the power to declare war.

In the case of smaller conflicts not requiring large commitments of manpower and money, many Americans believe that precedents have already been set for acting without the need for declarations of war. In the case of major conflicts, however, debate is centered around the aforesaid words of the United States Constitution.

Those who believe that formal declarations of war are not necessary say that an absence of a formal declaration does not necessarily mean that a military conflict will be chaotic and unlawful; in many cases the rules of war are now well enough accepted to make formal declarations unnecessary. There are also diplomatic reasons for a dislike of "declaring war" on a country, as it can often be perceived as holding an entire nation responsible for the actions of a few of its citizens. In the case of the most recent public opposition, those who support such actions have noted that, in the case of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no 'target' for a legal declaration of war, rather political groups or individuals.

However, the historical record disagrees somewhat on this point. The Barbary Coast War was clearly waged against a political entity not regarded as the legitimate government of its nation of operation; the Border War, quietly declared as it was, was waged against a single person, Pancho Villa.

Current status of the U.S. debate

Extremely heated debate developed in the United States beginning on or around September 11, 2001. A significant percentage of Americans were found by polls to favor formal declarations of war against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan and the Al Qaeda terror network; their requests were largely pushed aside as "uninformed" by the White House. They since began to argue that the recent Second Gulf War was unconstitutional, because it lacked a clear declaration of war, and was waged over the objection of a significantly sized demographic in the United States.

Instead of formal war declarations, the United States Congress has begun issuing authorizations of force. Such authorizations have included the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that initated American participation in the Vietnam War, and the recent "Use-of-force" resolution that started the 2003 Gulf War. However, there is some question as to the legality of these authorizations of force in some circles. Many who support declarations of war argue that such declarations keep administrations honest by forcing them to lay out their case to the American people, while at the same time honoring the constitutional role of the United States Congress.

Those who oppose this measure say that it only takes more time, and that more lives will be lost for the sake of a political formality. Americans should, they argue, support their presidents and question military actions only after the fact. However, the courts have consistently refused to intervene in this matter, and in practice Presidents have the power to commit forces with Congressional approval but without a declaration of war. "

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: by not going through a FISA court as required by law to get a warrant for electronic sureveilliance of U.S. Persons , one would be in direct violation of the FISA Act of 1978 Is that what he did?  Do you have a source other than the NYT? dude, do you read the news ? do a google search, Gonzales & Cheney have admitted they did & say thy're within the scope of the law, the source provided above quoting the law professor wasn't a NYT quote & there wouldn't even be a comroversy if they had complied with FISA, why are guys like Sen. Hagel & Sen. Spector calling for an investigation if there aren't FISA compliance issues

Gee, the liberal law professor would have no agenda now, would he.  Yeah, I read the news and have yet to arrive at the same conclusion you have.  Of course, I don't rely on the NYT for my news.

Besides, PsyWarrior has addressed this BS pretty well.

Yeah, the Senate never calls for an unnecessary investigation, now do they?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: by not going through a FISA court as required by law to get a warrant for electronic sureveilliance of U.S. Persons , one would be in direct violation of the FISA Act of 1978 Is that what he did?  Do you have a source other than the NYT? dude, do you read the news ? do a google search, Gonzales & Cheney have admitted they did & say thy're within the scope of the law, the source provided above quoting the law professor wasn't a NYT quote & there wouldn't even be a comroversy if they had complied with FISA, why are guys like Sen. Hagel & Sen. Spector calling for an investigation if there aren't FISA compliance issues Gee, the liberal law professor would have no agenda now, would he.  Yeah, I read the news and have yet to arrive at the same conclusion you have.  Of course, I don't rely on the NYT for my news. Besides, PsyWarrior has addressed this BS pretty well. Yeah, the Senate never calls for an unnecessary investigation, now do they?

why is the law professor from George Washington University liberal ?

is GW a hotbed of liberal activity ?   it's a well respected law school last time I checked

I don't rely on NYT for my news either & there are other sources cited in this thread & out
there on the web discussing this story

So Hagel & Spector have no standing with you ?

Gonzales Defends Spying as Part of War on Al-Qaeda (Update1)

Dec. 19 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush's decision to authorize eavesdropping on U.S. citizens is part of the fight to defeat al-Qaeda and was authorized by Congress, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said today.

Gonzales told a White House news conference that Bush had full legal authority to set up the spying program by the National Security Agency under a congressional resolution for using force in Afghanistan. The attorney general also said Bush had the power to order the wiretapping in his constitutional role as commander in chief.

``This electronic surveillance is within the law,'' Gonzales said in Washington.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers called yesterday for a review of the program, which Bush approved in 2001 after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Senators are questioning whether the eavesdropping violates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because the spying was approved without court-approved warrants.

Gonzales, who appeared at the White House with Air Force General Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of national intelligence, said he was trying to ``educate'' Congress and the public about the program. Bush's order allows phone conversations to be intercepted only when one of the callers is outside the United States.

There also must be ``a reasonable basis to conclude'' that the target is a member or supporter of al-Qaeda, Gonzales said.

`More Aggressive'

Hayden called the program ``more aggressive'' though ``less intrusive'' than wiretaps approved by a court under the foreign intelligence law because the eavesdropping is usually conducted over a shorter time period.

``Our purpose here is to detect and prevent attacks,'' Hayden said, adding that ``this program has been successful.''

Both men said the executive order doesn't amount to a blanket license to wiretap and is only used in connection with international calls and e-mails.

The U.S. isn't ``spying on American citizens calling their neighbors,'' Gonzales said. ``What we're trying to do is learn of communications, the back and forth, from within the U.S.'' to members of al-Qaeda overseas.

Gonzales said he has been speaking with lawmakers in an effort to allay civil liberties concerns raised about the program and met last night with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Pennsylvania Republican has said he will hold hearings to investigate the wiretaps.

Bush defended the program in a Dec. 17 speech, saying it was a ``vital tool'' in the war against terrorism.

While the foreign surveillance act allows wiretaps on U.S. citizens to be approved by a secret court, Gonzales said the law doesn't give intelligence officials ``the speed and agility to deal with this particular enemy.''

The attorney general said he couldn't reveal how many U.S. citizens have been wiretapped under the program, calling the information classified.

Last Updated: December 19, 2005 10:27 EST

Bush: Secret wiretaps have disrupted potential attacks
President says speed of eavesdropping essential

(CNN) -- President Bush defended Monday a secretive program that eavesdrops on some international phone calls involving U.S. citizens, saying the United States must be "quick to detect and prevent" possible near-term terrorist attacks.

At an end-of-the-year news conference, Bush spent much of his time answering questions about the program, which bypasses the normal procedure of attaining a court warrant and is designed to intercept communications between suspected terrorists in the United States and other countries.

Both Democrats and Republicans have questioned the legality of the program and some lawmakers have called for an independent investigation or congressional hearings.

Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who appeared on several network morning shows, said technological advances used by terrorists made it necessary to conduct the surveillance without a court order.

"We know that a two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to al Qaeda here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives," Bush said. "To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks." (Watch Bush defend use of wiretaps -- 2:23)

"It has been effective in disrupting the enemy while safeguarding our civil liberties," the president added.

But lawmakers, several of whom said Congress hadn't been informed about the wiretap program, also are concerned about the legality of the president's authorization.

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin told CNN on Sunday that he believes Bush's action violated the law.

"[The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] says it's the exclusive law to authorize wiretaps," he said. "This administration is playing fast and loose with the law in national security. The issue here is whether the president of the United States is putting himself above the law, and I believe he has done so."

Sen. Jack Reed said the president could have gone back to a FISA court after the wiretaps if he was concerned about speed.

"I'm just stunned by the president's rationales with respect to the illegal wiretapping," the Rhode Island Democrat said. "There are two points that have to be emphasized with respect to the FISA procedure: They're secret and they're retroactive.

"There is no situation where time is of such an essence they can't use the FISA proceedings. And so the president's justification, I think, is without merit."

Gonzales said Monday that a congressional act passed after September 11 not only authorized President Bush to use force in the war on terror, it gave the president the power to allow such wiretaps.

"There were many people, many lawyers within the administration who advised the president that he had an inherent authority as commander in chief under the Constitution to engage in these kind of signal intelligence of our enemy," he said. (CNN Access)

"We also believe that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following the attacks of September 11, constituted additional authorization for the president to engage in this kind of signal intelligence." (Watch Gonzales' explanation of the administration's position -- 5:36)

Signal intelligence refers to intercepted electronic communications, such as phone calls.

The measure meant the president doesn't need to get a court order to request such wiretaps, as called for in FISA, Gonzales said.

Although the NSA is usually barred from domestic spying, it can get warrants issued with the permission of a judicial body called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court. Bush's action eliminated the need to get a warrant from the court.

Feingold, appearing Monday on NBC's "Today Show," called Bush's actions a power grab.

"Nobody, nobody, thought when we passed a resolution to invade Afghanistan and to fight the war on terror, including myself who voted for it, thought that this was an authorization to allow a wiretapping against the law of the United States," he said.

Gen. Michael Hayden, the head of NSA when the program began and now deputy director of national intelligence, told reporters Monday, "I can say unequivocally we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available."

Bush seemed angered that the program was revealed in an article in Friday's editions of The New York Times.

"My personal opinion is it was a shameful act, for someone to disclose this very important program in time of war," Bush said. "The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."

Bush also said that the program had been discussed at least 12 times with Congress since 2001 and that it was constantly being reviewed to make sure it was being run correctly.

He also said that the electronic monitoring was limited to people with "known al Qaeda ties and/or affiliates." Any domestic calls, the president said, would go through the secretive FISA court.

The program is re-authorized every 45 days, meaning he has given his approval more than 30 times since its inception, Bush said.

New York Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said the White House should have come to Congress and asked for a new or amended law.

"We've always had these safeguards to prevent abuses," he told ABC's "Good Morning, America."

"They're logical. And if the vice president and president thought that they weren't working, they should come to Congress and say, 'Change the law.' "

Gonzales: Congress authorized domestic spying

WASHINGTON (AP) — Responding to a congressional uproar, the Bush administration said Monday that a secret domestic surveillance program had yielded intelligence results that would not have been available otherwise in the war on terror.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Congress had essentially given President Bush the authority for domestic surveillance after the Sept. 11 attacks.

At a White House briefing and in a round of television appearances, Gonzales provided a more detailed legal rationale for President Bush's decision authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails of people within the United States without seeking warrants from courts.

He refused to say how many people had been targeted and insisted, "This is not a situation of domestic spying."

Gonzales defended Bush's decision not to seek warrants from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, saying that "we don't have the speed and the agility that we need in all circumstances to deal with this new kind of enemy."

Gen. Michael Hayden, deputy national intelligence director who was head of the NSA when the program began, said, "I can say unequivocally we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available."

Gonzales said he had begun meeting with members of Congress on the Bush administration's view that Congress' authorization of the use of military force after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks was ample authorization for the surveillance.

"Our position is that the authorization to use military force which was passed by the Congress shortly after Sept. 11 constitutes that authority," Gonzales said.

It was the most detailed legal explanation given by an administration officials since The New York Times reported Thursday that since October 2001 Bush had authorized the NSA to conduct the surveillance.

Gonzales said Congress' action after Sept. 11 essentially "does give permission for the president of the United States to engage in this kind of very limited, targeted electronic surveillance against our enemy."

The domestic spying revelations has created an uproar in Congress, with Democrats and Republicans calling for an investigation.

"This is just an outrageous power grab," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. on NBC's Today show. "Nobody, nobody thought when we passed a resolution to invade Afghanistan and to fight the war on terror ... that this was an authorization to allow a wiretapping against the law of the United States."

Democrats and Republicans called separately Sunday for congressional investigations into the domestic spying.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Sunday he intends to hold hearings.

"They talk about constitutional authority," Specter said. "There are limits as to what the president can do."

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada also called for an investigation, and House Democratic leaders asked Speaker Dennis Hastert to create a bipartisan panel to do the same.

Bush acknowledged in his weekly radio address Saturday that he had authorized the spying, saying it was a necessary step in the war against terror.

The existence of the NSA program surfaced as Bush was fighting to save the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the domestic anti-terrorism law enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Renewal of the law has stalled over some its most contentious provisions, including powers granted law enforcement to gain secret access to library and medical records and other personal data during investigations of suspected terrorist activity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redi

from the December 21, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1221/p02s02-uspo.html

Can the government spy on citizens without a warrant?
At issue: Whether presidential power trumps a 1978 law requiring court oversight of domestic espionage.
By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

President Bush's decision to allow the super-secret National Security Agency to spy on Americans without court warrants has touched off stormy debate about his aggressive approach to the war on terror.

This clash - between civil libertarians and the administration's expansive view of presidential power - is a recurring theme in the Bush White House. It lies at the center of ongoing debates over the government's use of coercive interrogation techniques and the open-ended detention of alleged enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in military prisons in the United States.

This week, the spotlight is on a recently disclosed classified operation that permits the NSA to monitor communications between suspected Al Qaeda members overseas and American citizens in the US. It is being done without first obtaining a warrant from a special intelligence court set up to police such sensitive intercepts.

Instead of following the safeguards established by Congress under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Bush administration lawyers concluded that the White House could sidestep the warrant requirements while conducting the espionage operation.

Critics say the secret spying is illegal and an abuse of the president's constitutional authority. Supporters say Bush is well within his power to protect the nation from terrorists.

Disclosure of the NSA operation by the New York Times last Friday surprised many members of Congress and is said to have complicated efforts to reauthorize the Patriot Act. Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has called for hearings to look into the NSA operation. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has been warned to prepare for close questioning on the matter in his upcoming confirmation hearing. And there is talk of the possible appointment of two special counsels, one to look into the legality of the NSA operation, the other to investigate the disclosure of the classified project to the Times.

In addition, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) of California has asked legal scholars to research whether Bush's authorization of secret spying is an impeachable offense.

President Bush and other administration officials have sought to blunt the barrage of criticism by emphasizing the exigencies of protecting the nation from terrorists. They stress that despite the highly classified nature of the operation, the White House briefed key members of Congress about the ongoing covert effort.

But some members of Congress say they were given few details and were unable to effectively exercise oversight responsibilities after being sworn to secrecy.

Administration officials also notified the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is empowered to authorize warrants for such spying.

One section of the foreign intelligence law, FISA, authorizes warrantless surveillance under limited circumstances - but it does not appear to apply to the NSA operation as described by administration officials. Neither President Bush nor Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is claiming the secret operation was conducted in compliance with FISA.

Instead, they say the operation was carried out under President Bush's constitutional power as commander in chief, and under Congress's Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force, which was passed more than four years ago, shortly after the 9/11 attacks.

The administration made the same argument before the US Supreme Court in the case of alleged enemy combatant Yaser Hamdi. The court declined to address the president's power as commander in chief. Instead, it based its June 2004 decision upholding Mr. Hamdi's military detention solely on the congressional authorization argument. But given the splintered posture of the high court in that case and the possible arrival of a second new justice, the potential outcome in any future case is less than clear.

"It is a murky area," says Ruth Wedgwood, an international law professor at Johns Hopkins University.

"It is an area in which Congress has legislated but, to be sure, they didn't anticipate Al Qaeda in 1978," she says. "It is also an area where obviously Americans have high expectations about their privacy."

FISA was enacted to prevent domestic surveillance abuses that occurred during earlier administrations, including the Nixon White House.

Should the debate make it into a courtroom, at issue will be whether FISA preempts the president from taking actions as commander in chief in the war on terror that ignore or violate the surveillance statute.

"The president is simply off the rails," says Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which closely monitors surveillance issues. Mr. Rotenberg says Bush's reliance on the commander-in-chief powers "is probably overly broad and will be rejected."

David Rivkin, a Washington lawyer and former Reagan and Bush I administration official, has a different perspective. "FISA was designed to deal with essentially peacetime counterintelligence and counterterrorism operations," he says. "We are now at war."

He says Bush's secret NSA operation is "tantamount to trying to break Japanese military codes or intercept German communications during World War II." The FISA requirement of judicial oversight of secret intelligence operations would mandate a war-fighting role for judges that the Constitution does not authorize, Mr. Rivkin says. "Where is it written in the Constitution that the president is supposed to exercise his commander-in-chief power based upon what a judge says or doesn't say?"

Judge Resigns Over Secret Surveillance
Judge Resigns From Intelligence Court Apparently in Protest to Secret Domestic Surveillance Program
By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - A federal judge has resigned from a special court set up to oversee government surveillance, apparently in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program on people with suspected terrorist ties.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson would not comment Wednesday on his resignation, but The Washington Post reported that it stemmed from deep concern that the surveillance program Bush authorized was legally questionable and may have tainted the work of the court.

An aide to Robertson said the resignation letter submitted to Chief Justice John Roberts was not being released. Robertson did not step down from his district judgeship in Washington.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan would not discuss Robertson's resignation or the reasons cited for his departure. "Judge Robertson did not comment on the matter and I don't see any reason why we need to," McClellan said.

Robertson was one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees government applications for secret surveillance or searches of foreigners and U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or espionage. Robertson's term was to end in May.

"This was definitely a statement of protest," said Scott Silliman, a former Air Force attorney and Duke University law professor. "It is unusual because it signifies that at least one member of the court believes that the president has exceeded his legal authority."

Ruth Wedgwood, a Johns Hopkins University professor and defender of many Bush administration policies in the terror war, said that service on the special court is voluntary.

"If Judge Robertson had strong feelings that he thought would interfere with the needed objectivity, one could understand his decision," she said.

The court was established by Congress in 1978 and its members, appointed by the chief justice, do their work in private.

Quoting colleagues of Robertson, the Post said the judge had indicated he was concerned that information gained from the warrantless surveillance under Bush's program subsequently could have been used to obtain warrants under the FISA program.

Robertson was appointed a federal judge by President Clinton in 1994. Chief Justice William Rehnquist later appointed Robertson to the FISA court as well.

Robertson has been critical of the Bush administration's treatment of detainees at the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, most memorably in a decision that sidetracked the president's system of military tribunals to put some detainees on trial.

Robertson's resignation was reported hours after Vice President Dick Cheney strongly defended the surveillance program and called for "strong and robust" presidential powers.

Cheney a former member of congress, defense secretary and White House chief of staff under President Ford said executive authority has been eroding since the Watergate and Vietnam eras.

"I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it," Cheney said.

"I would argue that the actions that we've taken there are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president. ... You know, it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years," the vice president said, speaking with reporters Tuesday on Air Force Two en route from Pakistan to Oman.

Republicans said Congress must investigate whether Bush was within the law to allow the super-secret National Security Agency to eavesdrop without warrants on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al-Qaida.

"I believe the Congress as a coequal branch of government must immediately and expeditiously review the use of this practice," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.

Snowe joined three other members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel, in calling for a joint inquiry by the Senate judiciary and intelligence committees.

Bush and his top advisers have suggested senior congressional leaders vetted the program in more than a dozen highly classified briefings. Several Democrats agreed said they were told of the program, but did not know the full details and had concerns.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence
James S. Brady Briefing Room

8:30 A.M. EST

MR. McCLELLAN: Good morning, everybody. I've got with me the Attorney General and General Hayden here this morning to brief you on the legal issues surrounding the NSA authorization and take whatever questions you have for them on that. The Attorney General will open with some comments and then they'll be glad to take your questions.

And with that, I'll turn it over to General Gonzales.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Thanks, Scott.

The President confirmed the existence of a highly classified program on Saturday. The program remains highly classified; there are many operational aspects of the program that have still not been disclosed and we want to protect that because those aspects of the program are very, very important to protect the national security of this country. So I'm only going to be talking about the legal underpinnings for what has been disclosed by the President.

The President has authorized a program to engage in electronic surveillance of a particular kind, and this would be the intercepts of contents of communications where one of the -- one party to the communication is outside the United States. And this is a very important point -- people are running around saying that the United States is somehow spying on American citizens calling their neighbors. Very, very important to understand that one party to the communication has to be outside the United States.

Another very important point to remember is that we have to have a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda. We view these authorities as authorities to confront the enemy in which the United States is at war with -- and that is al Qaeda and those who are supporting or affiliated with al Qaeda.

What we're trying to do is learn of communications, back and forth, from within the United States to overseas with members of al Qaeda. And that's what this program is about.

Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.

Now, that -- one might argue, now, wait a minute, there's nothing in the authorization to use force that specifically mentions electronic surveillance. Let me take you back to a case that the Supreme Court reviewed this past -- in 2004, the Hamdi decision. As you remember, in that case, Mr. Hamdi was a U.S. citizen who was contesting his detention by the United States government. What he said was that there is a statute, he said, that specifically prohibits the detention of American citizens without permission, an act by Congress -- and he's right, 18 USC 4001a requires that the United States government cannot detain an American citizen except by an act of Congress.

We took the position -- the United States government took the position that Congress had authorized that detention in the authorization to use force, even though the authorization to use force never mentions the word "detention." And the Supreme Court, a plurality written by Justice O'Connor agreed. She said, it was clear and unmistakable that the Congress had authorized the detention of an American citizen captured on the battlefield as an enemy combatant for the remainder -- the duration of the hostilities. So even though the authorization to use force did not mention the word, "detention," she felt that detention of enemy soldiers captured on the battlefield was a fundamental incident of waging war, and therefore, had been authorized by Congress when they used the words, "authorize the President to use all necessary and appropriate force."

For the same reason, we believe signals intelligence is even more a fundamental incident of war, and we believe has been authorized by the Congress. And even though signals intelligence is not mentioned in the authorization to use force, we believe that the Court would apply the same reasoning to recognize the authorization by Congress to engage in this kind of electronic surveillance.

I might also add that we also believe the President has the inherent authority under the Constitution, as Commander-in-Chief, to engage in this kind of activity. Signals intelligence has been a fundamental aspect of waging war since the Civil War, where we intercepted telegraphs, obviously, during the world wars, as we intercepted telegrams in and out of the United States. Signals intelligence is very important for the United States government to know what the enemy is doing, to know what the enemy is about to do. It is a fundamental incident of war, as Justice O'Connor talked about in the Hamdi decision. We believe that -- and those two authorities exist to allow, permit the United States government to engage in this kind of surveillance.

The President, of course, is very concerned about the protection of civil liberties, and that's why we've got strict parameters, strict guidelines in place out at NSA to ensure that the program is operating in a way that is consistent with the President's directives. And, again, the authorization by the President is only to engage in surveillance of communications where one party is outside the United States, and where we have a reasonable basis to conclude that one of the parties of the communication is either a member of al Qaeda or affiliated with al Qaeda.

Mike, do you want to -- have anything to add?

GENERAL HAYDEN: I'd just add, in terms of what we do globally with regard to signals intelligence, which is a critical part of defending the nation, there are probably no communications more important to what it is we're trying to do to defend the nation; no communication is more important for that purpose than those communications that involve al Qaeda, and one end of which is inside the homeland, one end of which is inside the United States. Our purpose here is to detect and prevent attacks. And the program in this regard has been successful.

Q General, are you able to say how many Americans were caught in this surveillance?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm not -- I can't get into the specific numbers because that information remains classified. Again, this is not a situation where -- of domestic spying. To the extent that there is a moderate and heavy communication involving an American citizen, it would be a communication where the other end of the call is outside the United States and where we believe that either the American citizen or the person outside the United States is somehow affiliated with al Qaeda.

Q General, can you tell us why you don't choose to go to the FISA court?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, we continue to go to the FISA court and obtain orders. It is a very important tool that we continue to utilize. Our position is that we are not legally required to do, in this particular case, because the law requires that we -- FISA requires that we get a court order, unless authorized by a statute, and we believe that authorization has occurred.

The operators out at NSA tell me that we don't have the speed and the agility that we need, in all circumstances, to deal with this new kind of enemy. You have to remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978. There have been tremendous advances in technology --

Q But it's been kind of retroactively, hasn't it?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: -- since then. Pardon me?

Q It's been done retroactively before, hasn't it?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: What do you mean, "retroactively"?

Q You just go ahead and then you apply for the FISA clearance, because it's damn near automatic.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: If we -- but there are standards that have to be met, obviously, and you're right, there is a procedure where we -- an emergency procedure that allows us to make a decision to authorize -- to utilize FISA, and then we go to the court and get confirmation of that authority.

But, again, FISA is very important in the war on terror, but it doesn't provide the speed and the agility that we need in all circumstances to deal with this new kind of threat.

Q But what -- go ahead.

GENERAL HAYDEN: Let me just add to the response to the last question. As the Attorney General says, FISA is very important, we make full use of FISA. But if you picture what FISA was designed to do, FISA is designed to handle the needs in the nation in two broad categories: there's a law enforcement aspect of it; and the other aspect is the continued collection of foreign intelligence. I don't think anyone could claim that FISA was envisaged as a tool to cover armed enemy combatants in preparation for attacks inside the United States. And that's what this authorization under the President is designed to help us do.

Q Have you identified armed enemy combatants, through this program, in the United States?

GENERAL HAYDEN: This program has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States.

Q General Hayden, I know you're not going to talk about specifics about that, and you say it's been successful. But would it have been as successful -- can you unequivocally say that something has been stopped or there was an imminent attack or you got information through this that you could not have gotten through going to the court?

GENERAL HAYDEN: I can say unequivocally, all right, that we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available.

Q Through the court? Because of the speed that you got it?

GENERAL HAYDEN: Yes, because of the speed, because of the procedures, because of the processes and requirements set up in the FISA process, I can say unequivocally that we have used this program in lieu of that and this program has been successful.

Q But one of the things that concerns people is the slippery slope. If you said you absolutely need this program, you have to do it quickly -- then if you have someone you suspect being a member of al Qaeda, and they're in the United States, and there is a phone call between two people in the United States, why not use that, then, if it's so important? Why not go that route? Why not go further?

GENERAL HAYDEN: Across the board, there is a judgment that we all have to make -- and I made this speech a day or two after 9/11 to the NSA workforce -- I said, free peoples always have to judge where they want to be on that spectrum between security and liberty; that there will be great pressures on us after those attacks to move our national banner down in the direction of security. What I said to the NSA workforce is, our job is to keep Americans free by making Americans feel safe again. That's been the mission of the National Security Agency since the day after the attack, is when I talked -- two days after the attack is when I said that to the workforce.

There's always a balancing between security and liberty. We understand that this is a more -- I'll use the word "aggressive" program than would be traditionally available under FISA. It is also less intrusive. It deals only with international calls. It is generally for far shorter periods of time. And it is not designed to collect reams of intelligence, but to detect and warn and prevent about attacks. And, therefore, that's where we've decided to draw that balance between security and liberty.

Q Gentlemen, can you say when Congress was first briefed, who was included in that, and will there be a leaks investigation?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well of course, we're not going to -- we don't talk about -- we try not to talk about investigations. As to whether or not there will be a leak investigation, as the President indicated, this is really hurting national security, this has really hurt our country, and we are concerned that a very valuable tool has been compromised. As to whether or not there will be a leak investigation, we'll just have to wait and see.

And your first question was?

Q When was Congress first briefed --

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm not going to -- I'm not going to talk about -- I'll let others talk about when Congress was first briefed. What I can say is, as the President indicated on Saturday, there have been numerous briefings with certain key members of Congress. Obviously, some members have come out since the revelations on Saturday, saying that they hadn't been briefed. This is a very classified program. It is probably the most classified program that exists in the United States government, because the tools are so valuable, and therefore, decisions were made to brief only key members of Congress. We have begun the process now of reaching out to other members of Congress. I met last night, for example, with Chairman Specter and other members of Congress to talk about the legal aspects of this program.

And so we are engaged in a dialogue now to talk with Congress, but also -- but we're still mindful of the fact that still -- this is still a very highly classified program, and there are still limits about what we can say today, even to certain members of Congress.

Q General, what's really compromised by the public knowledge of this program? Don't you assume that the other side thinks we're listening to them? I mean, come on.

GENERAL HAYDEN: The fact that this program has been successful is proof to me that what you claim to be an assumption is certainly not universal. The more we discuss it, the more we put it in the face of those who would do us harm, the more they will respond to this and protect their communications and make it more difficult for us to defend the nation.

Q Mr. Attorney General --

Q -- became public, have you seen any evidence in a change in the tactics or --

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: We're not going to comment on that kind of operational aspect.

Q You say this has really hurt the American people. Is that based only on your feeling about it, or is there some empirical evidence to back that up, even if you can't --

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I think the existence of this program, the confirmation of the -- I mean, the fact that this program exists, in my judgment, has compromised national security, as the President indicated on Saturday.

Q I'd like to ask you, what are the constitutional limits on this power that you see laid out in the statute and in your inherent constitutional war power? And what's to prevent you from just listening to everyone's conversation and trying to find the word "bomb," or something like that?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, that's a good question. This was a question that was raised in some of my discussions last night with members of Congress. The President has not authorized -- has not authorized blanket surveillance of communications here in the United States. He's been very clear about the kind of surveillance that we're going to engage in. And that surveillance is tied with our conflict with al Qaeda.

You know, we feel comfortable that this surveillance is consistent with requirements of the 4th Amendment. The touchstone of the 4th Amendment is reasonableness, and the Supreme Court has long held that there are exceptions to the warrant requirement in -- when special needs outside the law enforcement arena. And we think that that standard has been met here. When you're talking about communications involving al Qaeda, when you -- obviously there are significant privacy interests implicated here, but we think that those privacy interests have been addressed; when you think about the fact that this is an authorization that's ongoing, it's not a permanent authorization, it has to be reevaluated from time to time. There are additional safeguards that have been in place -- that have been imposed out at NSA, and we believe that it is a reasonable application of these authorities.

Q Mr. Attorney General, haven't you stretched --

Q -- adequate because of technological advances? Wouldn't you do the country a better service to address that issue and fix it, instead of doing a backdoor approach --

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: This is not a backdoor approach. We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance. We have had discussions with Congress in the past -- certain members of Congress -- as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible.

Q If this is not backdoor, is this at least a judgment call? Can you see why other people would look at it and say, well, no, we don't see it that way?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I think some of the concern is because people had not been briefed; they don't understand the specifics of the program, they don't understand the strict safeguards within the program. And I haven't had a discussion -- an opportunity to have a discussion with them about our legal analysis. So, obviously, we're in that process now. Part of the reason for this press brief today is to have you help us educate the American people and the American Congress about what we're doing and the legal basis for what we're doing.

Q Al, you talk about the successes and the critical intercepts of the program. Have there also been cases in which after listening in or intercepting, you realize you had the wrong guy and you listened to what you shouldn't have?

GENERAL HAYDEN: That's why I mentioned earlier that the program is less intrusive. It deals only with international calls. The time period in which we would conduct our work is much shorter, in general, overall, than it would be under FISA. And one of the true purposes of this is to be very agile, as you described.

If this particular line of logic, this reasoning that took us to this place proves to be inaccurate, we move off of it right away.

Q Are there cases in which --

GENERAL HAYDEN: Yes, of course.

Q Can you give us some idea of percentage, or how often you get it right and how often you get it wrong?

GENERAL HAYDEN: No, it would be very -- no, I cannot, without getting into the operational details. I'm sorry.

Q But there are cases where you wind up listening in where you realize you shouldn't have?

GENERAL HAYDEN: There are cases like we do with regard to the global SIGIN system -- you have reasons to go after particular activities, particular communications. There's a logic; there is a standard as to why you would go after that, not just in a legal sense, which is very powerful, but in a practical sense. We can't waste resources on targets that simply don't provide valuable information. And when we decide that is the case -- and in this program, the standards, in terms of re-evaluating whether or not this coverage is worthwhile at all, are measured in days and weeks.

Q Would someone in a case in which you got it wrong have a cause of action against the government?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That is something I'm not going to answer, Ken.

Q I wanted to ask you a question. Do you think the government has the right to break the law?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Absolutely not. I don't believe anyone is above the law.

Q You have stretched this resolution for war into giving you carte blanche to do anything you want to do.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, one might make that same argument in connection with detention of American citizens, which is far more intrusive than listening into a conversation. There may be some members of Congress who might say, we never --

Q That's your interpretation. That isn't Congress' interpretation.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, I'm just giving you the analysis --

Q You're never supposed to spy on Americans.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm just giving the analysis used by Justice O'Connor -- and she said clearly and unmistakenly the Congress authorized the President of the United States to detain an American citizen, even though the authorization to use force never mentions the word "detention" --

Q -- into wiretapping everybody and listening in on --

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: This is not about wiretapping everyone. This is a very concentrated, very limited program focused at gaining information about our enemy.

Q Now that the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, do you expect your legal analysis to be tested in the courts?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm not going to, you know, try to guess as to what's going to happen about that. We're going to continue to try to educate the American people and the American Congress about what we're doing and the basis -- why we believe that the President has the authority to engage in this kind of conduct.

Q Because there are some very smart legal minds who clearly think a law has been broken here.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, I think that they may be making or offering up those opinions or assumptions based on very limited information. They don't have all the information about the program. I think they probably don't have the information about our legal analysis.

Q Judge Gonzales, will you release then, for the reasons you're saying now, the declassified versions of the legal rationale for this from OLC? And if not, why not? To assure the American public that this was done with the legal authority that you state.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: We're engaged now in a process of educating the American people, again, and educating the Congress. We'll make the appropriate evaluation at the appropriate time as to whether or not additional information needs to be provided to the Congress or the American people.

Q You declassified OLC opinions before, after the torture -- why not do that here to show, yes, we went through a process?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm not confirming the existence of opinions or the non-existence of opinions. I've offered up today our legal analysis of the authorities of this President.

Q Sir, can you explain, please, the specific inadequacies in FISA that have prevented you from sort of going through the normal channels?

GENERAL HAYDEN: One, the whole key here is agility. And let me re-trace some grounds I tried to suggest earlier. FISA was built for persistence. FISA was built for long-term coverage against known agents of an enemy power. And the purpose involved in each of those -- in those cases was either for a long-term law enforcement purpose or a long-term intelligence purpose.

This program isn't for that. This is to detect and prevent. And here the key is not so much persistence as it is agility. It's a quicker trigger. It's a subtly softer trigger. And the intrusion into privacy -- the intrusion into privacy is significantly less. It's only international calls. The period of time in which we do this is, in most cases, far less than that which would be gained by getting a court order. And our purpose here, our sole purpose is to detect and prevent.

Again, I make the point, what we are talking about here are communications we have every reason to believe are al Qaeda communications, one end of which is in the United States. And I don't think any of us would want any inefficiencies in our coverage of those kinds of communications, above all. And that's what this program allows us to do -- it allows us to be as agile as operationally required to cover these targets.

Q But how does FISA --

GENERAL HAYDEN: FISA involves the process -- FISA involves marshaling arguments; FISA involves looping paperwork around, even in the case of emergency authorizations from the Attorney General. And beyond that, it's a little -- it's difficult for me to get into further discussions as to why this is more optimized under this process without, frankly, revealing too much about what it is we do and why and how we do it.

Q If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.

Q And who determined that these targets were al Qaeda? Did you wiretap them?

GENERAL HAYDEN: The judgment is made by the operational work force at the National Security Agency using the information available to them at the time, and the standard that they apply -- and it's a two-person standard that must be signed off by a shift supervisor, and carefully recorded as to what created the operational imperative to cover any target, but particularly with regard to those inside the United States.

Q So a shift supervisor is now making decisions that a FISA judge would normally make? I just want to make sure I understand. Is that what you're saying?

GENERAL HAYDEN: What we're trying to do is to use the approach we have used globally against al Qaeda, the operational necessity to cover targets. And the reason I emphasize that this is done at the operational level is to remove any question in your mind that this is in any way politically influenced. This is done to chase those who would do harm to the United States.

Q Building on that, during --

Q Thank you, General. Roughly when did those conversations occur with members of Congress?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: I'm not going to get into the specifics of when those conversations occurred, but they have occurred.

Q May I just ask you if they were recently or if they were when you began making these exceptions?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: They weren't recently.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President indicated that those -- the weeks after September 11th.

Q What was the date, though, of the first executive order? Can you give us that?

GENERAL HAYDEN: If I could just, before you ask that question, just add -- these actions that I described taking place at the operational level -- and I believe that a very important point to be made -- have intense oversight by the NSA Inspector General, by the NSA General Counsel, and by officials of the Justice Department who routinely look into this process and verify that the standards set out by the President are being followed.

Q Can you absolutely assure us that all of the communications intercepted --

Q Have you said that you -- (inaudible) -- anything about this program with your international partners -- with the partners probably in the territories of which you intercept those communications?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: I'm not aware of discussions with other countries, but that doesn't mean that they haven't occurred. I simply have no personal knowledge of that.

Q Also, is it only al Qaeda, or maybe some other terrorist groups?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: Again, with respect to what the President discussed on Saturday, this program -- it is tied to communications where we believe one of the parties is affiliated with al Qaeda or part of an organization or group that is supportive of al Qaeda.

Q Sir, during his confirmation hearings, it came out that now-Ambassador Bolton had sought and obtained NSA intercepts of conversations between American citizens and others. Who gets the information from this program; how do you guarantee that it doesn't get too widely spread inside the government, and used for other purposes?

Q And is it destroyed afterwards?

GENERAL HAYDEN: We report this information the way we report any other information collected by the National Security Agency. And the phrase you're talking about is called minimization of U.S. identities. The same minimalizationist standards apply across the board, including for this program. To make this very clear -- U.S. identities are minimized in all of NSA's activities, unless, of course, the U.S. identity is essential to understand the inherent intelligence value of the intelligence report. And that's the standard that's used.

Q General, when you discussed the emergency powers, you said, agility is critical here. And in the case of the emergency powers, as I understand it, you can go in, do whatever you need to do, and within 72 hours just report it after the fact. And as you say, these may not even last very long at all. What would be the difficulty in setting up a paperwork system in which the logs that you say you have the shift supervisors record are simply sent to a judge after the fact? If the judge says that this is not legitimate, by that time probably your intercept is over, wouldn't that be correct?

GENERAL HAYDEN: What you're talking about now are efficiencies. What you're asking me is, can we do this program as efficiently using the one avenue provided to us by the FISA Act, as opposed to the avenue provided to us by subsequent legislation and the President's authorization.

Our operational judgment, given the threat to the nation that the difference in the operational efficiencies between those two sets of authorities are such that we can provide greater protection for the nation operating under this authorization.

Q But while you're getting an additional efficiency, you're also operating outside of an existing law. If the law would allow you to stay within the law and be slightly less efficient, would that be --

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: I guess I disagree with that characterization. I think that this electronic surveillance is within the law, has been authorized. I mean, that is our position. We're only required to achieve a court order through FISA if we don't have authorization otherwise by the Congress, and we think that that has occurred in this particular case.

Q Can you just give us one assurance before you go, General?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: It depends on what it is. (Laughter.)

Q Can you assure us that all of these intercepts had an international component and that at no time were any of the intercepts purely domestic?

GENERAL HAYDEN: The authorization given to NSA by the President requires that one end of these communications has to be outside the United States. I can assure you, by the physics of the intercept, by how we actually conduct our activities, that one end of these communications are always outside the United States of America.

END 9:02 A.M. EST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to this article at:
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: by not going through a FISA court as required by law to get a warrant for electronic sureveilliance of U.S. Persons , one would be in direct violation of the FISA Act of 1978 Is that what he did?  Do you have a source other than the NYT? dude, do you read the news ? do a google search, Gonzales & Cheney have admitted they did & say thy're within the scope of the law, the source provided above quoting the law professor wasn't a NYT quote & there wouldn't even be a comroversy if they had complied with FISA, why are guys like Sen. Hagel & Sen. Spector calling for an investigation if there aren't FISA compliance issues Gee, the liberal law professor would have no agenda now, would he.  Yeah, I read the news and have yet to arrive at the same conclusion you have.  Of course, I don't rely on the NYT for my news. Besides, PsyWarrior has addressed this BS pretty well. Yeah, the Senate never calls for an unnecessary investigation, now do they? why is the law professor from George Washington University liberal ? is GW a hotbed of liberal activity ?   it's a well respected law school last time I checked I don't rely on NYT for my news either & there are other sources cited in this thread & out there on the web discussing this story So Hagel & Spector have no standing with you ?

Why is the law professor from GWU liberal?  Is GWU a hotbead of liberal activities?  Haven't check them out, have you?

You just want to bash Bush and you believe whomever says what you want.  As for the long posts, again, just listening to and reading what confirms your hatred.  That's all, it's that simple.

You might want to go read some other threads on this.  I think the legality of it has repeatedly been shown.

The judge that resigned was a Clinton appointee.  No agenda there, huh.

As for the Senators, no they have no standing with me.  It's all political grandstanding.  The Repubs in Congress are probably just building this up in order to slap the Dems right in the face when it comes out that nothing illegal was done.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: by not going through a FISA court as required by law to get a warrant for electronic sureveilliance of U.S. Persons , one would be in direct violation of the FISA Act of 1978 Is that what he did?  Do you have a source other than the NYT? dude, do you read the news ? do a google search, Gonzales & Cheney have admitted they did & say thy're within the scope of the law, the source provided above quoting the law professor wasn't a NYT quote & there wouldn't even be a comroversy if they had complied with FISA, why are guys like Sen. Hagel & Sen. Spector calling for an investigation if there aren't FISA compliance issues Gee, the liberal law professor would have no agenda now, would he.  Yeah, I read the news and have yet to arrive at the same conclusion you have.  Of course, I don't rely on the NYT for my news. Besides, PsyWarrior has addressed this BS pretty well. Yeah, the Senate never calls for an unnecessary investigation, now do they? why is the law professor from George Washington University liberal ? is GW a hotbed of liberal activity ?   it's a well respected law school last time I checked I don't rely on NYT for my news either & there are other sources cited in this thread & out there on the web discussing this story So Hagel & Spector have no standing with you ? Why is the law professor from GWU liberal?  Is GWU a hotbead of liberal activities?  Haven't check them out, have you? You just want to bash Bush and you believe whomever says what you want.  As for the long posts, again, just listening to and reading what confirms your hatred.  That's all, it's that simple.

I guess I need to go do some research on GWU.

The last post I made is a verbatim transcript from the White House web site where Gonzales discusses the administrations position on this issue.  

The other two are Reuters & AP, Christian Science Monitor & heck there's one in there from FOX.

Where do you infer that I'm reading only what agrees with me. I read news from many & all sources & draw my own conclusions. This seems to be a serious matter that warrants some some debate & scrutiny.  I'm not one to blindly follow a politician on all issues.  I've never known a politician that's right 100% of the time.

Why do you infer "hatred" vs. strongly disagreeing on a particular issue.  I've voted for this guy 3 times in my life, so disagreeing & hatred aren't synonymous.  Many other strong conservaties have had disagreements with this administration. (Larry Craig & Chuck Hagel are strong conservatives IMHO, as are Ken Starr & Mitch McConnel, to name a few off the top of my head)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: by not going through a FISA court as required by law to get a warrant for electronic sureveilliance of U.S. Persons , one would be in direct violation of the FISA Act of 1978 Is that what he did?  Do you have a source other than the NYT? dude, do you read the news ? do a google search, Gonzales & Cheney have admitted they did & say thy're within the scope of the law, the source provided above quoting the law professor wasn't a NYT quote & there wouldn't even be a comroversy if they had complied with FISA, why are guys like Sen. Hagel & Sen. Spector calling for an investigation if there aren't FISA compliance issues Gee, the liberal law professor would have no agenda now, would he.  Yeah, I read the news and have yet to arrive at the same conclusion you have.  Of course, I don't rely on the NYT for my news. Besides, PsyWarrior has addressed this BS pretty well. Yeah, the Senate never calls for an unnecessary investigation, now do they? why is the law professor from George Washington University liberal ? is GW a hotbed of liberal activity ?   it's a well respected law school last time I checked I don't rely on NYT for my news either & there are other sources cited in this thread & out there on the web discussing this story So Hagel & Spector have no standing with you ? Why is the law professor from GWU liberal?  Is GWU a hotbead of liberal activities?  Haven't check them out, have you? You just want to bash Bush and you believe whomever says what you want.  As for the long posts, again, just listening to and reading what confirms your hatred.  That's all, it's that simple. I guess I need to go do some research on GWU. The last post I made is a verbatim transcript from the White House web site where Gonzales discusses the administrations position on this issue.   The other two are Reuters & AP , heck there's one in there from FOX. Where do you infer that I'm reading only what agrees with me. I read news from many & all sources & draw my own conclusions. This seems to be a serious matter that warrants some some debate & scrutiny.  I'm not one to blindly follow a politician on all issues.  I've never known a politician that's right 100% of the time. Why do you infer "hatred" vs. strongly disagreeing on a particular issue.  I've voted for this guy 3 times in my life, so disagreeing & hatred aren't synonymous.  Many other strong conservaties have had disagreements with this administration. (Larry Craig & Chuck Hagel are strong conservatives IMHO, as are Ken Starr & Mitch McConnel, to name a few off the top of my head)

Correct, no politician is correct 100 percent of the time, but this is a non-issue.  It was done legally, yet you keep harping on it.  

No, this is not a serious matter that warrants debate.  It was legal, it has been done by the last 3 or 4 Presidents, it is much ado about nothing.  All it was is the NYT trying to help sell a book and also to drown out the news about the elections in Iraq, much in the same manner as the Abu Grab nonsense.  They paid more attention to that than to the beheadings being done by the animals.

Why do I infer "hatred"?  Gee, I wonder why, just a regular bash-fest.  You persist with those long posts about a subject that is not worthy of all this.

You say you voted for him 3 times, yet you sound strikingly similar to some others on this board who make the same claim, yet several have been outed.  You may not be one of them, but you just won't let go of this nonsense.

Quoted:

Correct, no politician is correct 100 percent of the time, but this is a non-issue.  It was done legally, yet you keep harping on it.  

No, this is not a serious matter that warrants debate.  It was legal, it has been done by the last 3 or 4 Presidents, it is much ado about nothing.  All it was is the NYT trying to help sell a book and also to drown out the news about the elections in Iraq, much in the same manner as the Abu Grab nonsense.  They paid more attention to that than to the beheadings being done by the animals.

Why do I infer "hatred"?  Gee, I wonder why, just a regular bash-fest.  You persist with those long posts about a subject that is not worthy of all this.

You say you voted for him 3 times, yet you sound strikingly similar to some others on this board who make the same claim, yet several have been outed.  You may not be one of them, but you just won't let go of this nonsense.

hey, sometimes I feel strongly/passionately about an issue, just like the 2nd ammendment I hate to see what I think is an erosion of other rights, so it gets my ire up, I have a strong libertarian bent,
guys like Ron Paul inspire me , just my opinion on an ISSUE, don't confuse stong feelings on an issue
with "hatred" , I'm sure you feel strongly about some issues too

I've lived in TX since '73 & I'm  almost 37, so yes I've been here to vote for him as Gov. & in 2000

found this little piece too:

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

Good grief, just had to get the last word.  A lot of people with more knowledge than you or I say it was not illegal.  It is much ado about nothing.