Free Republic

This crap makes my blood boil. Let me ask a stupid question here. We supposedly have 3 coequal branches of government. In Congress or the President were to blatantly ignore or violate the law there can be repercussions. People can be removed from office via elections or impeachment, courts can rule against them, etc. It seems there is no such remedy whatsoever when SCOTUS wants to blatantly ignore the law (specifically the Detainee Act of 2005) and basically "make stuff up" as they go along. It would seem to me that SCOTUS opinion should lose in a 2-1 decision (president + congress = 2).

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF BUSH AND CONGRESS JUST SAID NO, WE'RE IGNORING YOUR RULING? Simply inform the court that they have made a judgement in any area where they have no authority, in fact they were explicitly forbidden by law from claiming any jurisdiction in this area. Could it be as simple as Congress making a small modification to the Detainee Act and stating that it applies to ALL cases and not just those pending since it was enacted?????

That's why we need to take away the INCENTIVE for them to come here in the first place. If you can't work illegally, you can't be prosperous, and there's no reason to be here. You do this by also cracking down on employers who hire illegals knowingly and/or look the other way. Stop that and you'll really make some progress. However, I do agree that securing the border should be the very first priority.

I'm not sure how booting out illegal immigrants regardless of race is a "final solution" sort of solution. That doesn't make a lot of sense. I agree, if you are here illegaly, get out. I don't care what you are or what language you speak.

I have to laugh when people make the argument that we can't get rid of illegals because there are too many. First of all, enforce the laws so they can't work if they are here illegally. If employers that knowingly hire illegals were to get a) severely fined and b) jail time for doing this I can guarantee you it would stop in a hurry. If you cut off their reason being here they will go home. And sure you can continue to round them up and deport them. Will it happen overnight? No, of course not. It will take years. That's fine by me, I can be patient. In the meantime as this starts happening the flow of illegals will decline dramatically.

I thought our "racist" government was only intent on getting rid of illegal immigrants that are minorities. Apparently in Detroit they are rounding up illegals from Eastern Europe as well.

"Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress."

This helps make Gonzalez's point. Clearly Congress recognized the need for warrantless surveillance but surely they didn't think it necessary for only 15 days! Which is why FISA also says is that it shall be the exclusive means of conducting foreign surveillance EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE. AUMF is precisely that statute!

"Attorney General Gonzales made sure to assert that we are not in a state of war, that the AUMF being an authorization us use military force is something different from that."

I disagree. In Gonzalez prepared statement from yesterday he asserted we are at war many times. See http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_060206.html.

"I worry about giving the President too much power."

I worry about previous laws (such as FISA) which have taken TOO much power from the president. Yes, there needs to be checks and balances but the Constitution gives different branches different powers (e.g., Congress has the power to declare war, the President has the power to act as the commander in chief of the military, etc). FISA is likely unconstitutional as it pertains to foreign surveillance in a time of war. Remember, it is merely a law passed by Congress. The Constitution can override it.

"Are we technically at war?"

I'm not sure what else you would call the "Authorization for Use of Military Force" passed by Congress on September 18, 2001.

"I agree with you. If we are intercepting calls from AQ and any of the calls go to the US, we should listen in on that call AND then start listening in on the phone of the American that they called. All I am saying is get a warrant."

Why get a warrant? It's not required by the Constitution when dealing with the enemy in a time of war. Even FISA, which is irrelevant in these cases as it is superceded by the Constitution, allows it with a statutory exception. We have such a statutory exception from Congress passed shortly after 9/11 so everything's hunky dory. So why would a warrant be necessary then? Especially if all it would accomplish would be to ensure that delays are encountered and that the NSA will be unable to listen to certain conversations due to time constraints?

"Why would it take 24 hours? All it should take is couple phone calls. "Mr. Atty Gen, one of our agents in the field has reason to believe..."

Uh, wrong again. It is NOT as simple as a series of phone calls. A phone call wouldn't cut it. Lawyers have to sign off on this. A lawyer would NEVER sign off on something without reading and understanding it. As I stated before it must go through NSA lawyers, then DOJ lawyers, and then the AG. Then we can start listening. Maybe it won't take 24 hours. Maybe it will "only" take 1 hour. In either case the result is the same. We will have missed an opportunity to listen in on a conversation with a known terrorist if we followed your idea to its logical conclusion. The NSA often needs to act with ZERO delay. Fortunately both the Constitution (Article II Presidential powers) and even FISA itself (with its statutory exception) allows for warrantless surveillance in a time of war.

"I would hope so! If the government is going to tap the phones of US citizens talking to Al-Queda then I hope that people at these levels would get involved."

I would certainly hope NOT! So basically you're saying that if we suddenly have reason to believe a known terrorist in another country is about to make a call to the U.S. we should basically wait for 24 hours or so as the process winds through a bureaucracy of lawyers by which time the call would have taken place and we will not have heard any details? Gee, that's really brilliant. Seriously. Furthermore, how do you know that the people on the phone in the US are even citizens? Most of them are likely visa holders, green card holders, or illegal immigrants.

"Yes. That is why they have up to 72 hours AFTER they have started listening to get a warrant."

I know this was already explained once but let's try this again. If following FISA the NSA can not just start listening and then get a warrant 72 hours later. THIS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. First it must be evaluated by NSA lawyers, by DOJ lawyers, and then by the Attorney General himself. This can take a considerable amount of time and effort, possibly longer than a day. Once it is certified as likely being FISA compliant THEN AND ONLY THEN can the NSA start listening. Next, within 72 hours a true warrant application must be submitted. It is important that this is understood as it is a crucial reason WHY FISA (whether you agree or disagree that it should be used) is unworkable in the situation being discussed. Please stop spouting this "72 hour" inaccuracy if you don't fully understand what it means.

"I agree. I was talking about listening to conversations of American citizens without a warrant."

Great, you've got absolutely nothing to worry about then unless you a) receive a phone call from a terrorist or b) place a phone call to a terrorist. When either a) or b) occurs the government, especially in a time of war against said terrorist groups, has every right to listen in without a warrant. Both Article II of the Constitution (which completely trumps FISA) and FISA itself with the "other statute" provision allow for this. Take your pick, the Constitution (my personal favorite) or FISA with its exemption utilizing Congress' authorization for use of military force statute.

Also, since you seem to agree on the non-citizen aspect, what if we find out that most of the people wiretapped in the U.S. were illegal immigrants, visa holders, or green card holders? I bet a majority will be. Since they are not citizens is it illegal to wiretap them? It shouldn't be.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Sorry, but foreign terrorist organizations such as Al Quaeda are NOT part of our society. The protections of the Constitution do not extend to non-citizens. Furthermore, there is a night and day difference between foreign surveillance and domestic surveillance. This isn't a 1960s type of case where the feds were questionably wire tapping the White Panthers or the Weathermen. This is wire tapping some guy sitting in Yemen with known terrorist ties making a call to the US.

"FISA requires the Attorney General to determine IN ADVANCE that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted."

You are absolutely right and Gonzalez continues to say:

"Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA, and then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be satisfied that the statutory requirements for emergency authorization are met, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the proposed surveillance meets the requirements of FISA."

This is clearly unwieldly and not feasible for our foreign surveillance needs. It is NOT as simple as go wiretap and then come back 72 hours later. Multiple lawyers from the NSA, DOJ, and finally the AG himself have to read and sign-off on a request FIRST and then and only then can the wiretap take place. Then, within 72 hours, the full-fledged application must be filed.

Senators (whether Republican or Democrat) with a limited understanding of the Constitution and case law is nothing new. Look no further than the Roberts hearings to see how little some Senators know.

What you are saying is not true in a time of war when the President is using powers given to him in Article II of the Constitution. FISA does NOT trump the Constitution under ANY circumstances. The Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" (it even says so right in the document). Not only does Bush, or any President, have the authority under Article II, but FISA itself makes an exception if authorized by another statute. The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress shortly after 9/11 is clearly such a statute.

I hadn't thought of that. So should we look at Republicans such as Ted Poe (Texas) or Bob Ney (Ohio) for 2008?!

Let's see, treasury receipts increased when Kennedy cut taxes. Ditto for Reagan. Now it worked once again under Bush. Is anyone seeing a pattern here? Could it be any more obvious?

GREAT idea! What's a good way to find products made in Denmark that I can buy??? For starters I'll stop by the EuroMart on the way home and buy a six pack of Danish beer!

I agree. Ford's quality is much improved. I've had great experiences with their F Series trucks in particular. I think Ford's biggest problem in recent years is that they've focused so much on quality and not enough on design. Their vehicles have been booooooring. I mean look at Chrysler. Their quality is still subpar compared to even Ford/GM but their car designs have been phenomenal. Why do you think they are doing ok while Ford and GM have been sucking pondwater? Ford is trying to correct that and are betting a lot on the new Fusion, Milan, and 500.