The Constitution empowers the chief executive to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign threats. Even the FISA Court of Review, has acknowledged this. So did the Clinton administration when FISA was amended in 1994. In the United States, the “rule of law” first and foremost is the Constitution.

When the Congress passes a statute, like FISA, that purports to reduce the president’s constitutional authority, it is Congress, not the president, that is trampling the rule of law.

How would I like it if Hillary acted this way? I would expect it of her. Question is, how would the left and the ACLU react if she used the full force of Presidential authority under the War Powers Act??

Understand this point — it’s crucial: The President of the United States, not just George Bush, The President, I want to belabor this point because I dont think half of us anymore realize what the Office of the President really means. The President has a right to ignore the FISA statute if it conflicts with the higher duties that are assigned to him by the Constitution. The President has an obligation to safeguard the American people against foreign attack — including strikes ordered by al Qaeda supervisors overseas, who give direction to terrorists embedded here, as they did in the run-up to 9/11. You can argue that he has overstepped his authority, but you can’t say he’s without a basis for doing so.

It’s a game, and it has always has been. As long as it hampers Bush, who cares?

FISA needs a cremation. Its a bad idea that keeps proving itself to be a worst of ideas. We shouldn’t need another 9/11 before we open our eyes to the undeniable.
If it’s anyone one branch of government that is acting like a dictator, it is the Congress. And the fools who sit there and bite their bait, almost beg for the country to be harmed.

FISA says EXPLICITLY that anyone conducting wiretaps on suspected terrorists has up to 72 hours to RETROACTIVELY show evidence as to why these parties were being tapped. There is NO time constraint. Yes, a FISA judge found that calls being routed through the US qualify as domestic calls, and yes this is a loophole, but NO ONE, not even the “nutroots” had a problem with Congress closing that loophole. If that is all they had done, there would be no complaints.

FISA can’t usurp a president’s inherent constitutional authorities. The case law on this issue is exceptionally clear. Every appellate court that’s dealt with warrantless surveillance issues has ruled that the president has the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches because it’s deemed a reasonable search.

Andy McCarthy has argued that FISA is unconstitutional. Based on the list of precedents and the Constitution, I’d say he’s right.

FISA says EXPLICITLY that anyone conducting wiretaps on suspected terrorists has up to 72 hours to RETROACTIVELY show evidence as to why these parties were being tapped. There is NO time constraint. Yes, a FISA judge found that calls being routed through the US qualify as domestic calls, and yes this is a loophole, but NO ONE, not even the “nutroots” had a problem with Congress closing that loophole. If that is all they had done, there would be no complaints.

However, congress went much further than that. Essentially leaving it up to the President to decide who is a terrorist, whether it’s Mohammed Atta or the National Organization of Women. And of course, leaving his and his administration’s decision on who to wiretap accountable to no one.

Before I get the same tired responses, answer me these questions.

-If we are truly tapping the phone of someone who is a terrorist suspect, what harm could it possibly cause to have those who are listening show some sort of proof, even retroactively (if they can show that time is still critical, up the retroactivity to a week if they have to), to make sure this power isn’t being abused?

-How in God’s name was the disclosure of the NSA wiretapping dangerous to the country, if the President himself was talking about it openly (and lying about it of course), when he told national audiences that wiretapping was being done, but with warrants, well before any of the rest of this came out?

-Do you want Hillary Clinton to have the power to listen to anyone she wants, at any time?

-Do you guys think the 4th amendment should read “no unreasonable search and seizure, unless we are attacked by terrorists, and then, really it shouldn’t be a big deal as long as you have nothing to hide”?

We are allowing the Bill of Rights to apply to an enemy. This is insane.