Oh! Glory!! It's a miracle!!

House Defies Bush on Wiretaps

George_1950

Thanks for your work on that, Tom; I'm not sure if ordinary, excon, or the others will read or understand it. For our further edification, more from the article I cited above:

America is at war with a dangerous enemy. Since 9/11, the president, our intelligence services and our military forces have done a truly extraordinary job--taking the war to our enemies and keeping them from conducting a single attack within this country (so far). But we are still very much at risk, and those who seek partisan political advantage by portraying efforts to monitor communications between suspected foreign terrorists and (often unknown) Americans as being akin to Nixon's "enemies lists" are serving neither their party nor their country. The leakers of this sensitive national security activity and their Capitol Hill supporters seem determined to guarantee al Qaeda a secure communications channel into this country so long as they remember to include one sympathetic permanent resident alien not previously identified by NSA or the FBI as a foreign agent on their distribution list.
Ultimately, as the courts have noted, the test is whether the legitimate government interest involved--in this instance, discovering and preventing new terrorist attacks that may endanger tens of thousands of American lives--outweighs the privacy interests of individuals who are communicating with al Qaeda terrorists. And just as those of us who fly on airplanes have accepted intrusive government searches of our luggage and person without the slightest showing of probable cause, those of us who communicate (knowingly or otherwise) with foreign terrorists will have to accept the fact that Uncle Sam may be listening.

Our Constitution is the supreme law, and it cannot be amended by a simple statute like the FISA law. Every modern president and every court of appeals that has considered this issue has upheld the independent power of the president to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant. The Supreme Court may ultimately clarify the competing claims; but until then, the president is right to continue monitoring the communications of our nation's declared enemies, even when they elect to communicate with people within our country.


The Wall Street Journal Online - Featured Article

As well as I can understand this, the president has the authority to conduct these searches without a warrant, without FISa, and without the approval of Congress, as authorized by the Constitution of the United States; got that, excon?

George_1950

No answers yet, so let me try: "It is worth pausing to recall why we have FISA. Very simply, its point was to provide a modicum of due process before Americans inside the United States could be subjected to national-security monitoring. It was a reaction (in truth, an overreaction) to Watergate era domestic-spying on the Nixon administration’s political opponents. But even the reckless Congress of the 1970s did not seek to protect foreign spies and terrorists operating beyond our borders. FISA was never intended to bring tens of thousands of foreign communications under judicial supervision. Such a process would compel the Justice Department to file applications for all such surveillance, a burden that could not be met. The consequence would be a breakdown of our capacity to acquire the information most essential to safeguarding Americans against attack -- to say nothing of the 200,000 American men and women putting their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Profiles in No Courage - HUMAN EVENTS

George_1950

tomder writes: "Day by day they have proven to be completely incompetent in running Congress in a responsible manner."

Check this: President Bush Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve32.8%Disapprove62.6%Spread -29.8%

Congressional Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve24.0%Disapprove68.3%Spread -44.3%

Congressional job approval headed south.

inthebox

Its like Tom and george have stated




The Dems are interested in protecting foreigners [ aka potential terrorists ] in foreign lands, giving them 4th amendment rights though they are not citizens.??

They are also beholden to their ACLU, trial lawyer, special intrests, and not the safety of the American citizen.


textually.org: Taliban tapping into British cell phones I wonder if the Dems will tell the Taliban what not to do?

excon

Hello again:

Then something is quite wrong here, isn't it? If the dufus has the power to spy on us no matter what congress does, then congress might as well have been chopping bait as to have tried to stop him, and the Republicans wouldn't be so pissed off that they did.

Nope. The president can't spy on us no matter how you spin it. I know, cause I can read the Constitution.

excon

George_1950

excon: You gotta quit your cherry picking; as the articles says, "Our Constitution is the supreme law, and it cannot be amended by a simple statute like the FISA law. Every modern president and every court of appeals that has considered this issue has upheld the independent power of the president to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant." It's a public relations game, unfortunately. Remember, it is FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), not DISA (Domestic Intelligence Surveillance Act), which you would like to spin this to be.

George_1950

" It's a public relations game". Did I say that? Yes, and here is evidence of that:
"The Republican-drafted report counters Democrats and other critics of the Bush administration's Terrorist Surveillance Program who argued during a Senate filibuster last month that the program is illegal.

"The report also said that warrantless surveillance "has been an integral part of our nation's foreign intelligence gathering," and that during World War II, U.S. warrantless surveillance of the German and Japanese militaries helped to break of their codes."
Report: Warrantless surveillance legal - UPI.com

Funny thing is, I didn't realize ol' W was around during the FDR years helping that war-time president rip up the constitution during WWII.

Skell

Obama has too. And hopefully if he becomes president we will see a man who will see his relationship with congress in a different light to Bush. He appears to have a view that legislators should legislate and he should work with them and not stand over them.

magprob

One would have to be afraid of something. What are you afraid of tomder? From your picture you look like a pretty healthy boy, haven't missed many meals. I'll bet you could whoop a skinny little Arabs butt in short order. So why should we be scared tom?
Do you think the NeoCons can protect you from the "Evil Dooers?" Do you really think they want to tom? Why I'll bet Cheney is just worried sick over your personal safety tom. Have you seen any "Evil Dooers" lately tom? What would an "Evil Dooer" do with you once it got hold of you tom? Would it fly you into the Empire State building? I feel perfectly safe tom. Are you telling me I should be afraid tom? Of what tom? The only thing we really have to be afraid of is fear tom. People do some pretty dumb things when they are scared. Rash, unwise things like letting that little monkey in the white house cover his own crimes and guilt by laying the fear trip down on the American people. I ain't scared tom. There ain't nothing to be scared of. They don't need anymore liberties with our liberties. Screw em.

tomder55

I for one am happy there are people like DK (kindj)watching my back .Intercepting plots to do me or my country harm .Going to places I don't know about and doing things I'd rather not think about to keep me safe.