[Sandy]

He's arguing, just like I have here, that Bush's actions conform to FISA.

OTOH, the President is arguing that he doesn't have to comply with FISA, that Article II and the AUMF give him authority to conduct electronic surveillance without following the procedures mandated by law. If he's complying with the law, i.e., following FISA procedures, what's the purpose of his argument? You think he's arguing that he has authority to ignore FISA just to be arguing it?

[joseph20]

OTOH, the President is arguing that he doesn't have to comply with FISA, that Article II and the AUMF give him authority to conduct electronic surveillance without following the procedures mandated by law. If he's complying with the law, i.e., following FISA procedures, what's the purpose of his argument? You think he's arguing that he has authority to ignore FISA just to be arguing it?

I have been aware of this point from the start. However, I am not yet interested in pursuing that angle.

For now, I want to examine the FISA law. For instance, how is it that terrorists do not meet the definition of a "foreign power" set forth in section 1801(a)(1-3)? How can it be that it is a violation of FISA to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on terrorists?