• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

NSA scandal demands impeachment and arrest!

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
Trajan, you're cute when you're defending the Prez. What I heard is that the intelligence community leaked the information to the New York Times. I can't even remember where I heard that--either George Stephanopoulis (which is probably misspelled), Chris Matthews, or Tim Russert.


Do you have any sources that DIDN'T work for Democrats in office before getting their current positions in the "right wing" :roll: media?
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
War has been declared as specified by the War powers resolution of 1973 congress has given the president the war powers in Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002 (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq they also gave him war powers in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.

War has not been declared since 1941. The War Powers Resolution gives the president the power to engage in hostilities for 60 days per permission of Congress before having to ask the Congress to declare war and or extend the hostilities. Declaring war is the sole power of Congress and no legislation, act, or law has changed that. You keep ignoring section 2 subsection B of the Joint Resolution in which it clearly states that only Congress can grant powers to the executive branch..not the other way around. The executive branch under all circumstances is dependant on approval from Congress before acting and that has not changed in any of those acts or resolutions. The president cannot grant himself powers without asking Congress for permission first.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
War has not been declared since 1941. The War Powers Resolution gives the president the power to engage in hostilities for 60 days per permission of Congress before having to ask the Congress to declare war and or extend the hostilities. Declaring war is the sole power of Congress and no legislation, act, or law has changed that. You keep ignoring section 2 subsection B of the Joint Resolution in which it clearly states that only Congress can grant powers to the executive branch..not the other way around. The executive branch under all circumstances is dependant on approval from Congress before acting and that has not changed in any of those acts or resolutions. The president cannot grant himself powers without asking Congress for permission first.

The War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148) limits the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of the Congress. I'm going to say this one more time the 60 day limit is only without congressional approval and CONGRESS HAS GIVEN HIM APPROVAL NOT ONCE BUT TWICE pay special attention to the part in bold.

To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements


Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.


Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Let's repeat this one more time just so it sinks in:

That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
 
Last edited:

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Public Law 107-243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution peaceably
Oct. 16, 2002
(H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq
(1) Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

(2) Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

(3) Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

(4) Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

(5) Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

(6) Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

(7) Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

(8) Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

(9) Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

(10) Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

(11) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

(12) Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

(13) Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

(14) Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

(15) Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;

(16) Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

(17) Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

(18) Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

(19)Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

(20) Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

(21) Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

(22) Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,

(23) Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Now therefore be it,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
50 USC 1541 note.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The facts we know are:

1. The executive branch ordered government officials and employees to spy without permission of a judge.

2. Spying without consent from a judge is a federal crime.

Gross generalizations without sufficient recognition of the unique factors surrounding this contoversy. Seriously naive assertions that may or may not be true when the specifics of this case are known. Your so-called facts are so general as to be utterly useless.

Fair-minded observers should see that this problem is complex. Cries that the program is blatantly unconstitutional or obviously constitutional should be recognized as unhelpful.
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Gross generalizations without sufficient recognition of the unique factors surrounding this contoversy. Seriously naive assertions that may or may not be true when the specifics of this case are known. Your so-called facts are so general as to be utterly useless.

Fair-minded observers should see that this problem is complex. Cries that the program is blatantly unconstitutional or obviously constitutional should be recognized as unhelpful.

It isn't a gross generalization to say that FISA was enacted to define the president's power to spy on US citizens during both war and peace time, and that by proceding to spy on US citizens without a warrant from the court is a direct violation of said law. The law was created after the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the president does not, even in times of war, get a blank check to create powers for himself. Richard Nixon already tried what Bush is trying now, and he failed.

Indeed, this is a complex problem, but the precedent already exists, and I don't foresee it changing, even with a more conservative court.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Legal eagles, AG Gonzales and members of Congress on NSA surveillance program:

Legal eagles have been busily at work trying to do a proper analysis of the NSA domestic surveillance program; some are now beginning to publish their conclusions, tentative yet though they may be. One such quite lengthy analysis is by Orin Kerr, published here. He summarizes his conclusion as follows:

Although it hinges somewhat on technical details we don't know, it seems that the program was probably constitutional but probably violated the federal law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. My answer is extra-cautious for two reasons. First, there is some wiggle room in FISA, depending on technical details we don't know of how the surveillance was done. Second, there is at least a colorable argument — if, I think in the end, an unpersuasive one — that the surveillance was authorized by the Authorization to Use Miltary Force as construed in the Hamdi opinion.

Even with the extensive research and detail, Kerr's conclusion is still couched in terms of a significant caveat: "technical details we don't know of".

Atty General Gonzales appeared at a press briefing this morning, where he had this to say about the scope of the program,

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.

Gonzales said this about the legal authorities for the program:

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.
...
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.

Members of Congress were briefed about the program in the past and did not see fit to take a position about it one way or the other. They were content to let the President act. Now they fell pressured to do something now that the program is no longer secret. Let's see what they do.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It isn't a gross generalization to say that FISA was enacted to define the president's power to spy on US citizens during both war and peace time, and that by proceding to spy on US citizens without a warrant from the court is a direct violation of said law.

But it is not yet clear whether or not the program under discussion should come under the aegis of FISA. The admin says not.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
oldreliable67 said:
But it is not yet clear whether or not the program under discussion should come under the aegis of FISA. The admin says not.

First off yes it has it has been made abundantly clear that they were international calls and thus not subject to FISA oversite,

Second off, it doesn't matter because in accordance with the war powers resolution of 1973 we are at war and on September 14, 2001 congress passed a joint resolution which granted this administration any and all means of force to defeat AlQaeda,

Here's the exact words:

That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

So it's a mute point as to whether it fell under FISA.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,771
Reaction score
11,837
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson commented on television this morning, that the wiretaps in question were of international calls--from the USA to some other country or vice versa--and not domestic person to person calls within the United States and they were targeted to intercept conversations related to suspected terrorist activity. The reason that timing is critical is because the terrorist network is using a lot of temporary and throw away phones to reduce the possibility of being traced and by the time the feds got a call into a judge for a court order, the call would already be over and the phone used discarded. Right or wrong, this is what she said. So far I haven't seen anything to dispute it however.

This kind of thing has been going on for many decades. Back in 1984--the Reagan administration--I was working for an organization in which some of the volunteers were involved in the humanitarian but illegal Sanctuary movement helping people from reported oppressive Central and South American countries immigrate illegally into the United States. I was advised that because I worked for the organization, my phone was in all likelihood tapped and to be careful. Was this via court order. No. Has this sort of thing gone on in every administration? Yes.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan,

Please, its 'moot', not 'mute'.

First off yes it has it has been made abundantly clear that they were international calls and thus not subject to FISA oversite,

Second off, it doesn't matter because in accordance with the war powers resolution of 1973 we are at war and on September 14, 2001 congress passed a joint resolution which granted this administration any and all means of force to defeat AlQaeda,

Lawyers of both stripes are disagreeing with you on this (I cited some earlier today). They are reading the same things that you are and they are coming to different conclusions. I am not saying that they are correct; nor am I saying that you are correct. I am saying that there is still a considerable difference of opinion.

My personal opinion is that if the surveillance program is indeed as described by the administration and Gonzales in the press conference this morning, I have no problem at all with it. So I'm with you on that. What I would like to see is more concrete evidence that the program is indeed as advertised.
 

YNKYH8R

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
130
Reaction score
0
Location
RedSox Nation
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The NSA scandal demands the impeachment of any senator or representative who leaked the classified information to the New York Times and any reporter who refuses to disclose their source for the story.

The Hillary Plame case has set the precedent that leaking classified CIA information demands indictments not only of those who leaked the story but of those who refuse to disclose where they got the information from ie Judah Miller. And unlike the outting of a non-covert agent this leak has put American lives in danger and hurt the war on terror.
Yeah and while we're at we should toast Woodward and Burnstein (sp) too, right?:donkeyfla
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
First off yes it has it has been made abundantly clear that they were international calls and thus not subject to FISA oversite,

Are you sure about that? I think FISA applies.

Second off, it doesn't matter because in accordance with the war powers resolution of 1973 we are at war and on September 14, 2001 congress passed a joint resolution which granted this administration any and all means of force to defeat AlQaeda,

Here's the exact words:

That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

So it's a mute point as to whether it fell under FISA.

This remains to be seen. There is a great article in the New York Times today addressing this argument. I am cutting and pasting a very relevant part of the article:

The government's legal rationale for relying on the 2001 resolution is contained in classified legal opinions, but the thinking was outlined by Mr. Gonzales on Monday at his news conference. He referred to the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen who challenged his detention as an enemy combatant.

The government's primary argument in the case was that the president's inherent authority as commander in chief obviated the need for any authorization by Congress. As an alternative argument, the government maintained that the resolution provided all the necessary authority, despite its omission of any reference to detention.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed, in a plurality opinion she wrote for three other members of the court, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer. "Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi's detention" through the use-of-force resolution, Justice O'Connor said. Justice Clarence Thomas agreed in a separate opinion that provided a fifth vote for the theory.

But the O'Connor opinion was fairly nuanced, addressed only to what it called the "limited category" of individuals who fought with the Taliban against the United States in Afghanistan. And four other justices rejected the notion that the resolution could be read to authorize detention of an American citizen.

Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the resolution should be applied only in the context in which it was adopted, the use of military force. "Since the Force Resolution was adopted one week after the attacks of September 11, 2001, it naturally speaks with some generality, but its focus is clear, and that is on the use of military power," the two justices said.

Justices Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens, in another separate opinion, also read the resolution narrowly, as not authorizing detention.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20legal.html

Thus, 4 justices disagreed with the Bush adminsitration's arguments. One of the 5 who supported it is now dead. But again, detention involves "force." Surveilance does not.

A professor at George Washington law school who is an expert on national security laws said that prior Congressional resolutions on the "use of force" had focused on powers to be exercised on the battlefield or actions involving military action.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Let's repeat this one more time just so it sinks in:

That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Yeah..within the law. It doesn't give the president permission to break the law but gives him the power to do anything within the law.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Yeah..within the law. It doesn't give the president permission to break the law but gives him the power to do anything within the law.

Your side has been consistently making a false claim that these taps have been domestic taps, THEY ARE NOT, they are international taps not under FISA reference your entire argument has been meant to bring down an administration on false pretenses during war time see you in 06. And even if they were domestic they are protected by the inherent war powers granted to the president by the congressional joint resolution of September 14, 2006.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Your side has been consistently making a false claim that these taps have been domestic taps, THEY ARE NOT, they are international taps not under FISA reference your entire argument has been meant to bring down an administration on false pretenses during war time see you in 06. And even if they were domestic they are protected by the inherent war powers granted to the president by the congressional joint resolution of September 14, 2006.


The Supreme Court ruled against Nixon in exactly this same situation. You lose. The inherent powers only apply when war is declared and must have a constitutional basis. Nowhere in the constitution does the President have the power to break the law. The War Powers Resolution and the Resolutions granted by Congress give the president the power to do anything within the law. You lose again.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
The Supreme Court ruled against Nixon in exactly this same situation. You lose. The inherent powers only apply when war is declared and must have a constitutional basis. Nowhere in the constitution does the President have the power to break the law. The War Powers Resolution and the Resolutions granted by Congress give the president the power to do anything within the law. You lose again.

You really are a simple person WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED in accordance with the 1973 war powers resolution:

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, ](2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The president has been granted the power not only by the national attack of 9-11 but by the joint resolution of congress of Septemper 14, 2001 and October 16, 2002:

That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You really are a simple person WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED in accordance with the 1973 war powers resolution

You must not be able to read. The President does NOT have the power to declare war..only Congress has that power. The War Powers Resolution gives the President the power to order the armed forces to engage in hostilities for 60 days per approval of Congress before asking Congress to extend that time or declare war. As yet, war has not been declared and according to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act of 1978 the president has broken the law. I quote subsection 1811:

"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 a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress."

and subsection 1808:

"(1) On a semiannual basis the Attorney General shall fully inform the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concerning all electronic surveillance under this subchapter. Nothing in this subchapter shall be deemed to limit the authority and responsibility of the appropriate committees of each House of Congress to obtain such information as they may need to carry out their respective functions and duties."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html

I added the emphasis. War has not been declared and the president did not seek a court order within 15 calender days. The Attourney General did not inform either of those committees of what was going on either. Both broke the law. Provide a transcript in which Congress declared war if you're so firmly set that Congress did indeed declare war. It might be hard to do though because CONGRESS HASN'T DECLARED WAR SINCE 1941.
 
Last edited:

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
You must not be able to read. The President does NOT have the power to declare war..only Congress has that power. The War Powers Resolution gives the President the power to order the armed forces to engage in hostilities for 60 days per approval of Congress before asking Congress to extend that time or declare war. As yet, war has not been declared and according to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act of 1978 the president has broken the law. I quote subsection 1811:

"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 a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress."

and subsection 1808:

"(1) On a semiannual basis the Attorney General shall fully inform the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concerning all electronic surveillance under this subchapter. Nothing in this subchapter shall be deemed to limit the authority and responsibility of the appropriate committees of each House of Congress to obtain such information as they may need to carry out their respective functions and duties."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html

I added the emphasis. War has not been declared and the president did not seek a court order within 15 calender days. The Attourney General did not inform either of those committees of what was going on either. Both broke the law. Provide a transcript in which Congress declared war if you're so firmly set that Congress did indeed declare war. It might be hard to do though because CONGRESS HASN'T DECLARED WAR SINCE 1941.


Haven't I done away with you yet? The congress has the authority to authorize the president with the war powers according to the war powers resolution of 1973 . . . you know the thing you keep sighting but have no idea what it means, your arguments are laughable in their stupidity:

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, ](2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Haven't I done away with you yet? The congress has the authority to authorize the president with the war powers according to the war powers resolution of 1973 . . . you know the thing you keep sighting but have no idea what it means, your arguments are laughable in their stupidity:

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, ](2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


You obviously haven't read the whole thing or you're intentionally presenting misinformation. The president is not authorized to break the law and has never been authorized to break the law. Again, the Supreme Court already decided when Nixon was president that the executive branch does not have the power or the right to do this. "Appropriate force" means within the limits of the law. What don't you understand about that?
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,771
Reaction score
11,837
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
You obviously haven't read the whole thing or you're intentionally presenting misinformation. The president is not authorized to break the law and has never been authorized to break the law. Again, the Supreme Court already decided when Nixon was president that the executive branch does not have the power or the right to do this. "Appropriate force" means within the limits of the law. What don't you understand about that?

The President however, has not broken the law. The President has authority to protect the American people as necessary. Every President of this Century has exercised such authority. Consider executive orders signed by both Carter and Clinton:

EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
EO 12139
23 May 1979

-----------------------------------------------------


By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and
104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this
chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for
foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

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.

1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to
approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section
103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic
surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
information.

1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national
security or defense, is designated to make the certifications
required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications
to conduct electronic surveillance:

(a) Secretary of State.

(b) Secretary of Defense.

(c) Director of Central Intelligence.

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(e) Deputy Secretary of State.

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above
certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any electronic surveillance, as defined
in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be
conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.

1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes
electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that
Act as well as this Order.''.

Jimmy Carter.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

For Immediate Release February 9, 1995


EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949

- - - - - - -
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the 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.

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.

Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:

(a) Secretary of State;

(b) Secretary of Defense;

(c) Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.


WILLIAM J. CLINTON


THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
AlbqOwl said:
The President however, has not broken the law. The President has authority to protect the American people as necessary. Every President of this Century has exercised such authority. Consider executive orders signed by both Carter and Clinton:

EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
EO 12139
23 May 1979

-----------------------------------------------------


By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and
104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this
chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for
foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

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.

1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to
approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section
103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic
surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
information.

1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national
security or defense, is designated to make the certifications
required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications
to conduct electronic surveillance:

(a) Secretary of State.

(b) Secretary of Defense.

(c) Director of Central Intelligence.

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(e) Deputy Secretary of State.

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above
certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any electronic surveillance, as defined
in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be
conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.

1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes
electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that
Act as well as this Order.''.

Jimmy Carter.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

For Immediate Release February 9, 1995


EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949

- - - - - - -
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the 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.

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.

Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:

(a) Secretary of State;

(b) Secretary of Defense;

(c) Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.


WILLIAM J. CLINTON


THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

good piece of liberal kryptonite.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
AlbqOwl said:
The President however, has not broken the law. The President has authority to protect the American people as necessary. Every President of this Century has exercised such authority. Consider executive orders signed by both Carter and Clinton:

EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
EO 12139
23 May 1979

-----------------------------------------------------


By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and
104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this
chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for
foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

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.

1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to
approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section
103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic
surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
information.

1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national
security or defense, is designated to make the certifications
required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications
to conduct electronic surveillance:

(a) Secretary of State.

(b) Secretary of Defense.

(c) Director of Central Intelligence.

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(e) Deputy Secretary of State.

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above
certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any electronic surveillance, as defined
in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be
conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.

1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes
electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that
Act as well as this Order.''.

Jimmy Carter.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

For Immediate Release February 9, 1995


EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949

- - - - - - -
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the 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.

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.

Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:

(a) Secretary of State;

(b) Secretary of Defense;

(c) Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.


WILLIAM J. CLINTON


THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

As long as the Attorney General reported to House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 30 days before surveillance began and/or if immediate surveillance was required he/she still reported to those two committees first and explain what he/she is doing and why immediate action is needed (as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 dictates) then it was legal. HOWEVER that can still only be done following a declaration of war from Congress and within 15 days. Bush did neither. The Attorney General did not report to either of those comittees in fact it's apparent that no one in Congress knew that he was doing this let alone those two committees. Thats why it's illegal.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,771
Reaction score
11,837
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
As long as the Attourney General reported to House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 30 days before surveillance began and/or if immediate surveillance was required he/she still reported to those two committees first and explain what he/she is doing and why immediate action is needed (as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 dictates) then it was legal. HOWEVER that can still only be done following a declaration of war from Congress and within 15 days.

No, there is far more in the law giving the President the authority that he needs for surveillance of threats from abroad and it is not person to person calls within the USA that are at question here but rather international calls involving people suspected of terrorist activities.

Here's what Clinton's associate attorney general had to say today:

"President had legal authority to OK taps
By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant. . . ."

More here:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...3632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
AlbqOwl said:
No, there is far more in the law giving the President the authority that he needs for surveillance of threats from abroad and it is not person to person calls within the USA that are at question here but rather international calls involving people suspected of terrorist activities.

Here's what Clinton's associate attorney general had to say today:

"President had legal authority to OK taps
By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant. . . ."

More here:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...3632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed


Not without telling Congress first. All Clinton did was reiterate the law as it stands..that the president has the power, after Congress declares war and provided that the Attorney General reports to those two committees, to order the Attorney General to monitor calls without a warrent. All Bush had to do was tell Congress what was going on and this wouldn't be a problem. It would also have helped if Congress had acctually declared war. Unfortunatley for Mr. Bush neither of those two things happened. The Supreme Court ruled against just this sort of thing when Nixon was president.
 
Top Bottom