Go around the courts? You are insane. What he did was impeachable and when the dems take back the house and senate in 06, watch as the impeachment proceedings begin. What a happy day for America when that useless turd is thrown from office, along with his cancerous oooze of a VP.

So Fom, what exactly is your evidence that this warrants impeachment? Where are your legal precendents? Where are your legal experts? What cases do you cite?

Remember Zacarias Moussaoui? The 20th hijacker who the FBI arrested before 9/11 because the flight school he was attending became suspicious when he only wanted to learn how to steer a commercial airliner but not how to take off or land. The FISA court would not allow the FBI to search his computer. They refused to issue a warrant. If they had 9/11 may never have happened.

The linked report states:

But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004 -- the most recent years for which public records are available.

The program at issue started in 2002, so it's obvious that the 179 modifications could not have been a factor here. The Administration could have only been aware of 6 cases at most. Just as obvious is the motive for attempting to spin this as though the 179 cases were a factor.

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.

I have always believed the courts belief that the fourth amendment applies to phones and other electronic communications was wrong, this is doubly true of cell and email which are broadcast out into the public domain. The constitution does not in any way shape or form cover privacy matters. Congress can not make a law that limits or usurps the inherent powers given by the constitution, how is this relavent to the fourth amendment? Well what the President is doing is exorcising his authority as Commander and Chief which is a military authority not a law enforcement one, none of the information gleaned by the NSA can or will be used in a court of law to do that you would need a search warrant according to the courts right now also all the INFO is being intercepted overseas this is not domestic spying. There was no law broken and as for impeachment you libs can sh*t in one hand and wish in the other and see what you get!

Bush did not go thru the FISA court because he did not need to. The President has the authority to gather intelligence with out a court order. If you are a U.S. citizen and you are communicating with AQ then you will be monitored as an agent of a foreign power.

You know, the Washington Post article at the root of all this cites what the NSA needed to provide in their request to do a wiretap: name a target (or describe it) and give a reason why its necessary.

Is that so hard? Especially since they can do it 3 days after the fact? I think I smell the quiet bigotry of low expectations at work here.

If they have 3 days after the fact, what is the point? The deed has been done. Approval or denial would have no effect. Seems like a really stupid system.

Personally I'm glad the NSA has been monitoring overseas communications with terrorists which originate from the United States. I guess if you are a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer you would have a problem with that.

Fom, keep up the good work. It's your hard left weakness and obstructionism on national security matters that guarantees the Democrats will not become the majority party in congress.

Old Soldier:

Many of us aren't as eager to hand our rights over to government as you seem to be.

The president has ample tools to deal with threats to the nation. Execution seems to be the problem. We keep hearing the excuse that the situation is so fluid and fast-moving that waiting for court approval can be burdensome when gov't may have only minutes or hours to act. Of course the fact they have 72 hours to do their work BEFORE seeking court approval is always somehow forgotten.

Arthus, were you "handing over your rights" when FDR had these powers? Becuase he did. So did Truman, and JFK, and every other president from the dawn of international communications until Jimmy Carter was in office, and even since then, every president has held that he still has that same inherent authority, though President's have not had the occasion to assert that inherent right that until now.

You haven't lost any rights. They are the same as they always were.

The only thing you've give up, is knowledge.

Arthur, where was your righteous indignation when Clinton WAS spying on Americans purely for political reasons?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/1197.shtml

Before you make a quantum leap that I am justifying this president by the actions of a prior president - you're wrong. I just want to know why left leaning people had no problem with unlawful spying before - but suddenly become outraged over lawful spying on terrorists.

Please name one credible case or incident where a citizen's rights have been trampled by the NSA procedures. I'm, not advocating giving up any of my rights - I do advocate stopping al-Qaeda from making another attack on our homeland even if it means monitoring US citizens who communicate with al-Qaeda. Do you advocate that terrorists (citizen or foreign) have a right to privacy (under the 4th) with which to plan to attack your home town with a nuclear bomb?

There is contention that the legislative branch over stepped its authority by limiting the executive branch's authority (with FISA). That's a no no under our constitution. If challenged, FISA will probably be thrown out. At least the president was trying to operate within the artificial boundries until becoming obstructed.

"I guess if you are a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer you would have a problem with that"
--tracelan

"...where was your righteous indignation when Clinton WAS spying on Americans purely for political reasons?...Please name one credible case or incident where a citizen's rights have been trampled by the NSA procedures"
-- confed yankee

Heres what Jack Cafferty says, "...unauthorized wiretaps are an impeachable offense, as Nixon proved. Mr. Bush's contemptible administration believes that a frightened populace is more easily malleable, so they forever wave the bloody shirt of 9/11 to justify doing, well, just about anything they want. And if you disagree, then you're helping the terrorists win."
http://transcripts.thatcablenewsorganizationthatamericanyankeerefusestoprintthenameof.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/20/sitroom.01.html

Some of the posters here believe that Clinton spied on Americans for political reasons but 1) don't care that the president administration is doing the same, 2) claim they won't believe it til the NSA and other security agencies open their super-duper-double-TS/SBI case files to you (how likely is that to happen and anybody been reading about how the Pentagon was spying on the Quakers down in Florida last year for "force protection" purposes?) and 3) can't comprehend that no other adminstration has ever had any trouble getting the courts to approve FISA wiretap requests because it's a lock-jawed-hillbilly cinch to do so.

This is the constitution we're talking about folks. It's what we're fighting for. It protects you.

So, Ben, who's rights were trampled upon? You gave a lot of talking points, no examples.

Nixon, at the time, was not a president during wartime, and spied on Americans for political purposes - and resigned in disgrace. Your point?

Clinton, also not a wartime president, spied on Americans for political purposes, but got away with it. He even turn the IRS lose on people and got away with it. Remember the WH storage area for those FBI files?

President Bush directed intercept of communications to known and suspected al-Qaeda operatives. If some of those communicators were Americans then they are probably engaged in treasonous activities if conversing with terrorists.

So, I'll ask you now, do you advocate terrorists (citizen or foreign) having a right to privacy (under the 4th) to plan to destroy your hometown with a nuclear bomb? Is it "unreasonable" to try to stop these radical terrorits>

I guess the left thinks it's unreasonable because Bush is in the WH.

Uh, Ben...

Jack Caffery is a news anchor. Why don't you cite Maureen Dowd, or for that matter, some homeless person? Each have the same amount of constitutional expertise. If that is the best you've got, and this goes to the Supreme Court, FISA itself will be abolished as an unconstitutional infringment on executive branch powers by Congress before lunch.

"Uh, Ben... Jack Caffery is a news anchor."
-- confed yankee

I love it when someone changes the subject by saying they don't trust the source because he's a news anchor. Especially censorship-cheerleaders who have banned the name of a certain cable news network on their site.

For the politically correct who only take their information after sniffing the source's heinie to make sure its exactly the same breed of dog they are, let's quote Bob Barr, "First, in the best tradition of former President Bill Clinton's classic, "it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is" defense, President Bush responded to a question at a White House news conference about what now appears to be a clear violation of federal electronic monitoring laws by trying to argue that he had not ordered the National Security Agency to "monitor" phone and e-mail communications of American citizens without court order; he had merely ordered them to "detect" improper communications."

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1205/28edbarr.html

There's more. Read it. I served 9 years as an 11B to protect the Constitution, which keeps the government from wiretapping Americans without an easily-obtained-up-to-3-days-after-the-fact court order.

Or tell me why Bob Barr is too liberal for your tastes. I need a good laugh.

It appears that the loonie lefties still do not know the difference between wiretaps and surveillance of communications that are transmitted via electromagnetic emissions - out in space, boneheads, not inside the territory of the United States.

Jack Cafferty as an expert on Constitutional Law? Not lately. He is nothing more than a low-end - sometimes humorous - commentator.

The real expert, of course, is Michael Gross. He made a complete ass of himself on Hannity % Colmes last night. I thought he was about to blow a gasket or have a stroke. And his knowledge of Constitutional Law and surveillance and wiretapping is sorely deficient too.

Where do they dig up these so-called experts? Michael Gross is an expert because he is a lawyer?

Ben, RS makes my point for me: this is a question where expertise matters, and in this particular subject area, Jack Cafferty's thoughts on the subject bear no weight. He is not now, nor has he ever been a legal expert.

Bob Barr, while he is at least an attorney, is not a constitutional law expert. He is, however, what I would regard as Cynthia McKinney, weapons grade nuts if his Wikipedia bio is accurate.

You don't understand the difference between a relevant and an irrelevant source. You're picking real winners, Ben. No wonder you don't grasp the law.

All the same, thank you for your service.

"loonie lefties still do not know the difference between wiretaps and surveillance of communications that are transmitted via electromagnetic emissions"
-- retired spy

Thanks for keeping the discussion civil. The point we're debating is that the courts presently have indicated that they think the govt needs an easily-obtained-up-to-3-days-after-the-fact court order for such wiretaps/surveillance on American citizens and the administration wasn't even trying to get them.

Here's what Federalist Society board member and constitutional scholar Robert Levy says, "The text of FISA §1809 is unambiguous: “A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance … except as authorized by statute.” ... I know of no court case that has denied there is a reasonable expectation of privacy by U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens in the types of wire communications that are reportedly monitored by the NSA’s electronic surveillance program."
http://www.fed-soc.org/pdf/domesticsurveillance.pdf

John Ashcroft in 6/8/2004 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee stated about the bottleneck in obtaining those court orders: "And we are making progress. The problem is remediating. We have fewer pipeline FISAs now than before but we're not home yet. And so we will continue to work in that respect. I have asked, in each of the past three weeks, the chairman of this task force for reports and the reports are encouraging."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25211-2004Jun8.html

If getting the wiretap permissions was such a problem, why wasn't Ashcroft telling the Senate? C'mon guys, time to cut your losses, the president already is doing so, as Bob Barr has pointed out.

Ben, you've missed the point entirely. The point is the president doesn't need to get a FISA court warrant, because he is exercizing his constitutional authority. FISA is a legislative act that in essence restricts the president's authority and that is not allowed by our constitution. One branch cannot restrict or deminish the authority of another branch.

If NSA discovers a plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in your home town within 12 hours, but fails to get a FISA issued warrant, do you want them to act upon the intelligence data or not? How worried are you that your (specifically you) rights will be infringed upon?

You really need to put this into perspective.

And let me kick out Con Yank's thanks to the many commenters here (some of who I may disagree with about much) who have done hard work in dangerous places for our country. My 9 years were in the NG, so I only deserve a part-time thanks. All the same, I'm ROFL that you do indeed find Bob Barr too liberal for your taste.

I'm a big fan of Wikipedia. Glad you are, too.

Now, drumroll please, while we wait to discover if John Ashcroft, Robert Levy and the Federalist Society are closet liberal whack-jobs.

"If NSA discovers a plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in your home town within 12 hours, but fails to get a FISA issued warrant, do you want them to act upon the intelligence data or not? How worried are you that your (specifically you) rights will be infringed upon?" -- old soldier

Oh mannnn... the ticking bomb argument! This is great! So we should disregard our Constitution liberties because 1000s will die otherwise? What if only 10 people will die? Or no one? Go check out http://www.slate.com/id/2132195/ to see why this is such a treat to debate.

Of course, the qustion is moot as the NSA is allowed to apply for permission for wiretaps 3 days after the fact.

And as already mentioned, Federalist Society constitutional scholar does feel that the constitution requires the president to obey FISA. So does Bruce Fein, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: "I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant."

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/bfein.htm

C'mon people, do some homework.

Here's more from constitutional scholar and former dep. att. general Fein, above cited: "President Bush's claim of inherent authority to flout congressional limitations in warring against international terrorism thus stumbles on the original meaning of the commander in chief provision in Article II, section 2.
The claim is not established by the fact that many of Mr. Bush's predecessors have made comparable assertions. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected President Truman's claim of inherent power to seize a steel mill to settle a labor dispute during the Korean War in reliance on previous seizures of private businesses by other presidents. Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Hugo Black amplified: "But even if this be true, Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional authority to make laws necessary and proper to carry out the powers vested in the Constitution in the Government of the United States."

Guys, I won't think any less of you if you abandon the administration's talking points and retreat in good order from the field of battle. I'll be looking for you in my 6 o'clock.

"If the FISA court was being dangerously obstructionist in the Administration’s view, then the President would appear to not just have a right, but a Constitutional responsibility to go around the court if he felt American lives were at risk. To act otherwise would be criminal negligence, would it not?"

I love this part. Because FISA has some objections, that the president thinks (who cares what others think I guess)are endangering national security, he decides he can bypass him. I wonder if anyone would stand up and object if he thought the congress was obstructing him, and he decided he had the power to bypass them in the name of national security.

I don't know about you, but anyone that thinks they are that right, and everyone else is so wrong, is either what you call a loose cannon, or the savior of the human races (I doubt Bush qualifies for this honor just yet)

How very shallow, Tobin.

Bush did not make a unilateral decision as you mislead, but instead worked with dozens of lawyers in the Department of Justice, two Attorney's General, White House Counsel, and NSA lawyers to craft a legal executive order. FISA itself and the courts were aware of it, and FISA in re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 7 17, 742 (FISA. Ct. of Review 2002) FISA itself takes for granted the President's right to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillence.

Try selling your half-truths somewhere far left of here, where they might be bought.

Ben is full of himself too - and appears to be more impressed with some so-called Constitutional Law legal beagles - and his own hubris - than in actual Court decisions.

Get over it. Neither the Congress nor the Court can take away the president's inherent rights under the Constitution. Courts have ruled on this, and the Supreme Court will rule the same way.

Ben has a long, long way to go before making any claims for victory on any scores discussed herein.