“The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. 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.”

In their conclusion the court restated that authority by saying: “Even without taking into account the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close.” Those who rant against the president’s actions are in disagreement with the very court that rules on the provisions of the FISA law.

Prior to 2002 four district courts of appeal upheld the President’s inherent authority to conduct warrentless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes (5th, 3rd, 9th and 4th Circuits, in cases decided in 1970, 1974, 1977 and 1980). In 1972 the US Supreme Court (Keith)specifically declined to limit the the President’s authority in this area.

The Congress cannot restrict the President’s constitutionally inherent authority. Case law confirms his authority in these instances. It will remain his authority until the Supreme court rules that he does not have that authority.

There would appear to be an unreasonable amount of fear being demonstrated by folks regarding the type of surveillance being discussed i.e. communication and demonstrated association with elements of terrorism.

Denise, I’m sorry but I think you’re coming at this from a pretty frightened place yourself, otherwise you’d probably never agree to having this level of snooping into our lives.

And yes, I mean OUR lives. The government has been monitoring the communications of peace activists, so they aren’t just using these powers to fight terrorism. And if that’s the case, then they can use these powers to justify the monitoring of anybody’s communications at any time. I don’t want my government to have that kind of authority, especially when the outcome of said surveillance is murky at best and completely fruitless at worst.

I am appalled by the cavalier attitude many Americans are showing toward our system of checks and balances and our system of laws. Do you not realize that Richard Nixon tried to justify his crimes by crying “national security?” Do you not realize that in just about every case where a Democracy has slid into tyranny the government has begun by crying “national security?”

If we abandon the rule of law and acquiesce in unchecked and uncheckable presidential power every time we have a war or a crisis we will soon find ourselves in far worse trouble than Al Qaeda can deliver. We are doing Bin Laden’s work for him. He is not capable of seriously damaging our system — but we, in a panic, are doing the job ourselves. If we do not have laws, if we do not have checks on executive power, we have no protection whatsoever from abuse.

This is the United States, for Christ’s sake.

If the government is able to give any kind of support for their belief that someone is a terrorist, a court will find that this expectation of privacy has been outweighed, and will permit a wiretap.

How can we know that someone is a terrorist (and thus not entitled to an expectation of privacy) if the goverment cannot even offer up a shread of evidence to a court that that person is a terrorist?

There would appear to be an unreasonable amount of fear being demonstrated by folks regarding the type of surveillance being discussed i.e. communication and demonstrated association with elements of terrorism.

If the President’s power to authorize this surveillance is ultimately upheld, the upshot is that not just George W. Bush, but all of his successors for the foreseeable future, regardless of temperament or political persuasion, will presume to have that power. Furthermore, as the war drags on and becomes the new “normal” state of the nation, it will naturally become harder and harder for everyone – the sitting President, Congress, citizens, maybe even the courts – to distinguish Presidential war powers from Presidential powers in conducting the nation’s more run-of-the-mill business. Among other things, that means it’s just a matter of time and the wrong circumstances before one of those future Presidents will see fit to apply it well beyond the scope of the war.

That to me is the strongest argument against this policy. Even if you trust the Bush administration to do the right thing with it, that doesn’t mean you can trust everyone else who holds the Oval Office after him.

If you are in no way associated with terrorism, and the govt has no reason to believe you are, then you are entitled to (and get) a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Giving privacy to someone you suspect of planning terrorist acts against americans would be “unreasonable”. Due to the vague wording, it’s up to judges to determine whether or not a situation was reasonable or not

He had plenty of leeway under FISA. If not, then he could have asked Congress to change the law, he chose not to. This is not about war or security or anything but a shallow, thoughtless, inadequate man drawn over the line into megalomania.