[kingu]

Asked and answered; this issue has already been handled by the courts. When acting in the capacity of the commander in chief, the president has broad wartime powers. Congress authorized the president, after 9/11, to conduct wartime actions against any current or future terrorists...

While there might be a judge or two in the system who is willing to play politics (oh, stop laughing at me..) the reality is that to allow this lawsuit to succeed would effectively make any wartime action by a sitting president be reviewable by a court of law.

My guess? The second judge to look at this will toss it out of court for lack of evidence. The parties have no proof that they've been spied upon, and the possibility that they might be isn't enough to justify trampling the constitution. The third judge might decide to warn the executive that any evidence collected can not be admitted into a court of law, and that will be the end of the story.

I don't think it'll reach the SCOTUS; too much established law in this arena. Oddly enough, the ACLU is doing us a favor. Not only will it reconfirm an already established precedent, but it also might get some of these wackos to get back to providing evidence. After all, it is safe to talk now - the ACLU is suing the US government.

Oh, and just in case the ACLU finds a miracle path with an incredible argument, the worst case scenario is that the NSA has to turn over that intelligence to the Brits or someone else to analyze. I don't think it'll reach that point, but you never know these days.

Oh, and those who were sitting on the fence with the ACLU won't find this to be tasteful. Protecting a reporter might interest them, but wholesale going after the administration on a matter of national defense will make them radioactive to all but the most hardcore liberal, and those hardcore liberals have enough things to spend their money on.

Someone at the ACLU didn't think this one through.

The only real downside is that congress neglected to identify the type of terrorist that the president is supposed to fight; these same powers could be turned around to be used on any number of people. We have a horribly honest president right now, we won't always. We have to do everything in our power to ensure that no one sits in that chair that is not able to first distinguish who is a threat, and who is a political opponent.

[Howlin]

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/18/spy.court.ruling/

[Howlin]

Gore Planned to Bug America

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/15/173810.shtml

[farlander]

Yep, done deal pretty much - the worst could happen is NSA gets reminded the evidence won't be admissible. But who needs it admissible ? Pick up the bastards for an immigration violation. Send his ass out to where they came from so that Jordanian/Egyptian/Russian/Polish secret services can have a little chit chat, and we're done.

There's a reason there hasn't been any attacks here since 9/11. Now I'm getting worried again, since the bastards started buying disposable phones. Thanks to liberals.

[Doe Eyes]

Asked and answered; this issue has already been handled by the courts. When acting in the capacity of the commander in chief, the president has broad wartime powers. Congress authorized the president, after 9/11, to conduct wartime actions against any current or future terrorists...

Does this mean, in theory, a President has the power to ban private ownership of guns?

[hford02]

This ACLU action is a counter-offensive to the ongoing criminal investigation into the news leaks. The NYT is calling for help from the liberal sidelines. Notice that this coincides with fresh rantings from our former vice-rapist Al Gore and even that ingrate Arlan Sphincter(Can he be removed from his chairmanship?)