If you believe the people in this country would EVER want Cheney to be President, you are in another world.

I do not have to look beyoud what Bush Said on April 20, 2004 and last Saturday.

If you believe the people in this country would EVER want Cheney to be President, you are in another world.[/quote

Col. If you think people would choose a liberal democrat you are in another world. You need to realize that until the democratic party leave the looney base, they will always lose.

Colon Bin Gangrene:

Even if that were true, have you ever stood up for what is right instead of what was popular? Get out of high school you idiot!

Donald Rumsfeld for President yyyyyyyyy maybe Paul wolfowitz for veep.

The articles of the Act quoted in this article make it clear that the President does not have to go to the judge within 72 hours, only that he must stop the wiretap within 72 hours if he doesn't.

You're omitting the intent of the law: sufficient cause for surveillance with the express intent of obtaining a court order at least within a 72 hour deadline. It is obvious that habitual 72 hr pot shots without the intent is, to say the least, devious.

The articles of the Act quoted in this article make it clear that the President does not have to go to the judge within 72 hours, only that he must stop the wiretap within 72 hours if he doesn't.

You're omitting the intent of the law: sufficient cause for surveillance with the express intent of obtaining a court order at least within a 72 hour deadline. It is obvious that habitual 72 hr pot shots without the intent is, to say the least, devious.

I've been waiting to weigh in on this for some time. I absolutely, positively hate (and I mean HATE) to do this, but I have to agree with COL. Bush poked the pooch on this one guys. I'm a former electronic intel guy, so I have a bit of first hand experience with this topic (disclosure statement, so you know where I'm coming from).

I too have read through FISA, Executive Order 12333, and USSID 18 extensively, to make sure that I wasn't off track here.

drmiler - neither of your defending arguments holds weight, and here is why:

1 - Only Congress can declare war, and the first argument you show is ONLY valid if we are in a declared state of war. Congress authorized the President to use military force, but the U.S. has not declared war, and therefore this paragraph has no bearing on this situation.

2 - The second paragraph is absolutely true. Intel agencies can intercept for up to 72 hours without a court order. Here's the problem: if they don't get a court order, not only can they not continue to intercept, they cannot retain, process, analyze, or report on anything they captured during that 72 hour period, because the intercept was illegal. The 72 hour "grace period" was designed to allow intel agencies to begin the intercept while going to the FIS Court. If the court ruled that no warrant would be given, then everything captured up to that point would have to be destroyed (similar to what happened with the info on Atta destroyed by our Able Danger team - they were doing the right thing by the way). If you don't get the warrant, you still cannot keep the intercept that you already caught, even if it is for less than 72 hours.

The FIS Court, and the 72 hour grace period were specifically designed to allow intel agencies to do exactly the type of collection that the President has "authorized" here. Unfortunately, the only legal way to do it is to follow the established procedures. I would have a lot more understanding and sympathy for the counter-argument if there were no procedures in place to allow such intercept, but there is. There really was no reason for this program, and this type of Executive Branch ordered intercept is exactly what FISA was designed to prevent.

I really wish this wasn't the case, because I support the President in the war on terrorism, and in our efforts in Iraq. I spent a year in Afghanistan, as well as some time in Iraq supporting our troops over there, because I do believe in this mission. But, I'm not a blind follower, and this should have been done the right way. I'm frustrated too, because none of this was necessary, and it all could have been done totally legit. Not sure why the administration chose to shortcut the system, but I reall believe they have here. I'm glad we are getting the good poop on these bad guys, but there is a right way to do it, and we aren't doing it the right way currently.

Sorry guys, please don't lambast me here. Like I said, I do support what we are doing, but we can't excuse illegal actions out of hand - especially when they totally were not necessary.

How many of you would be so smug if you were the object of this devious surveillance? Laws should be respected, not toyed with.

Steven - the argument that many have (and I agree with to a large degree) is that "I don't care if you listen in on me. I'M NOT A CRIMINAL! I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE!"

You do still have to respect the laws however, and that is my problem with all of this. Get a warrant from the FIS Court, and intercept to you heart's content for all I care. Listen to me if you want - I'm not a terrorist, and I have nothing to hide. But get the warrant first.

Sturgee:

You make some very good (and informed) points here, however:

1 - Only Congress can declare war, and the first argument you show is ONLY valid if we are in a declared state of war. Congress authorized the President to use military force, but the U.S. has not declared war, and therefore this paragraph has no bearing on this situation.

Whether the folks in Congress want to accept the fact or not, There are no provisions in the U.S. Constitution for them to "authorize the president to use military force", only to "declare war". Therefore, anytime Congress authorizes force, Constitutionally it IS a declaration of war. Whether or not the word "war" is used is irrelevant.

Para - I TOTALLY agree with you that Congress was spineless for not declaring war. I'm not sure of the legal definition/interpretation as it relates to a de facto declaration of war based on actions. I'd need to confer with the Constitutional Scholar tucked away under my bed...

I don't read the current situation to be a declared state of war. I know that we are essentially in a wartime scenario, but I'm not sure if legally it would be seen that way. If it were the case, then that paragraph would apply, from 15 days after we went to war in Afghanistan (since that was when Congress authorized the Pres to use force). So, it still wouldn't protect a 3+ year program that we've got going now....

It is either a declared war, or Congress acted completely outside the Constitution when they ratified the "authorization".

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

They could have issued a "reprisal", but that would have limited the scope to a specific operation in "reprisal" to a specific act. What they did do was lend their authorization to Prs. Bush to a full scale war... whether they want to admit to it or not.

ONLY the Congress can declare War per the Constitution NOT the President. George invaded Iraq he can not declare War and Congress NEVER declared war with Iraq. Below are the President's own words that state The Government MUST obtain a court order for wire taps from his April 20, 2004 speech:

Hey clueless....get a grip will ya? GW can not "invade" a country without declaring war or authorization from congress. Just in case you forgot, he got just such an authorization from congress on Oct 16, 2002.

Bush did not get the Court approval within the 72 hours as the law provides. HE NEVER obtained court approval. He violated both what HE SAID and the LAW! The article is pure BS and ignores the facts. Look at the link you dip sticks and what Bush said!

This article ignores NO facts! As a matter of fact, it's ALL fact! You just don't want to see it fool. "You" do not know whether or not Bush got that approval from the court do you?

The majority do not support the policies we are following which have been brought to us by power drunk GOP conservatives! We need leadership that is much more centrist and willing to listen to what the majority think is important. That may not be the far left and surely is not the far right!

BTW stay on topic or get lost. I am deleting your #33 reply as it's not on topic.

The source of my post above is the White House see below: Link

If you're going to quote GW have the common courtesy to quote him entirely or don't bother!

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.

"Law enforcement" is still required to obtain warrents. Now where does he say the feds must also.

drmiler

What Law school did you graduate from? You do not know what you are talking about as usual. As a FOOL you hold the top position. I have said we need to have the ONLY authority that can rule on the legality of the President's action decide-- the United States Supreme Court! That will END ALL THE SPECULATION!