If they change the law, that is a public process, and they would have to explain all their technological wizzardry. The terrorists would read the law and know what we can do to spy on them.

So they talked to a few congressmen, as the law allows for. And who knows if these guys really got it.

This is a war. We can have every spy tactic we might used published in the laws. We have enemies inside our country and the government has to be able to get them.

At the same time, these allegations about the FBI spying on “activists” are designed to make people think that the FBI is trying to silence peaceful dissent.

The terrorists camoflage themselves as dissidents, but really they are advocating and practicing violence.

People will confuse the FBI activities with the NSA activities and get all paranoid about the government.

It’s not the government that is out to destroy our rights; it’s the terrorists.

This could be their chance. Hey, if you can make even a phantasm of a case with Wilson and Wife, you can do impeachment on this decision. Anything for a diversion.

Plus ca change…the dems did the same to Lincoln. And when that didn’t get anywhere they shot him…which is why I worry for Bush. I’m glad he’s *finally* getting out there and speaking, but it ups the chances for the nutcakes.

Does anyone know who that Senator is so I can write him and ask him this:

Will you be bragging when you see you voted to kill Americans?

It is complicated, but here is, I think, the gist of the argument:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html

GONZALEZ says, “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……..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. “

I’m a lot more concerned, however, about the likes of Bruce Fein coming out this strongly against Bush. And Jonathan Turley, who I saw on tv, was very strongly against. And he’s a pretty fair/moderate voice.

See this related post and comments over at Atlas Shrugs. See my comments and scroll the thread:

Here

and

Here

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/20/131610.shtml

” Bush’s so-called “illegal” spy program has indeed undergone judicial review…And a special foreign intelligence surveillance appeals court set up to review the case confirmed that such “warrantless searches” were completely legal.”

“FISA appeals court decision cited a previous FISA case [U.S. v. Truong], where a federal court “held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.”
The court’s decision went on to say: “We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”

I knew that writer was off his rocker to think he is so much smarter than the men running the government and tracking Al Qaeda.

I love your article; it is terrific. It’s a shame that you aren’t writing for Newsweek instead of this jerk. I am going to read this many times.

I was so depressed when I read the Newsweek article. It is so ignorant, so arrogant, and so dismissive of the importance of my children’s lives.