Replies

"There was no law against spying on people in the US until the law passed by Congress as a knee jerk reaction to the Nixon scandal."

Incorrect, it is covered by the fourth amendment. The was question at one time whether or not it applied, but that has been settled by a number of cases, the first that pops to mind is Katz v. United States.

"So why is it a big deal now, when in fact the only way we can find out and prevent terror attack, is by spying on terrorists inside the US."

My beef is that Bush had a secret court system and a retroactive warrant system in place already. By bypassing this already flexible system, he has opened himself to these attacks and threatened the success of the entire process.

As for the "spying on terrorists" the problem is only in regards to U.S. Persons (this is a specific thing). These people, unlike foreigners, are entitled to all the protections of the constitution, including the forth amendment and the presumption of innocence until proved guilty.

How about this?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1546024/posts

The ink on FISA was barely dry when the first president to order extrajudicial surveillance -- a Democrat -- did so. Jimmy Carter exercised his authority on May 23, 1979 with Executive Order #12139, seven months after signing FISA into law, declaring that "the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order," subject to the section's requirements. The order cites a FISA section helpfully titled "Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order."

The precedent was even more firmly established by President Clinton. Top Clinton administration officials are on record defending the practice. As Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick testified before Congress in 1994: "The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general." She remarked that: "It's important to understand that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

"There was no law against spying on people in the US until the law passed by Congress as a knee jerk reaction to the Nixon scandal." Incorrect, it is covered by the fourth amendment.

Sorry, but the Fourth is not a law against spying on Americans. Just read it. It's a law against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Most would consider the monitoring of phone calls to and from suspected AlQueda operatives to be "reasonable."