SHORTLY after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush ordered surveillance of international telephone communications by suspected members of Al Qaeda overseas, even if such calls also involved individuals within the United States. This program was adopted by direct presidential order and was subject to review every 45 days. Judicial warrants for this surveillance were neither sought nor obtained, although key members of Congress were evidently informed. The program’s existence has now become public, and howls of outrage have ensued. But in fact, the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself.
The president has the constitutional authority to acquire foreign intelligence without a warrant or any other type of judicial blessing. The courts have acknowledged this authority, and numerous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have espoused the same view. The purpose here is not to detect crime, or to build criminal prosecutions – areas where the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements are applicable – but to identify and prevent armed attacks on American interests at home and abroad. The attempt, by Democrats and Republicans alike, to dismantle the president’s core constitutional power in wartime is wrongheaded and should be vigorously resisted by the administration.
After all, even the administration’s sternest critics do not deny the compelling need to collect intelligence about Al Qaeda’s plans so we can thwart future attacks. So instead of challenging the program on policy grounds, most have focused on its legal propriety, specifically Mr. Bush’s decision not to follow the framework established by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
It is my opinion that this is today’s must read – - If this doesn’t open some eyes, then nothing will.
The ACLU the biggist supporterrs of demastic terrorists lets shut down the ACLU:roll:
The ACLU IS a domestic terrorist organization.
Mike, they are an abomination, pure and simple.
I think anyone with an ACLU membership should have their phones tapped.
I think the ACLU membership should be published for future reference. You never know when you would like to look one up.
Might I suggest that the ACLU read the majority decision in Koramatsu V US? It says that in no uncertain terms that during a time of war, the government has nearly unlimited power to execute that war. The power to execute a war is solely the provenance of the President. Not Congress or the Courts.
where is bin laden? do i have to go and get him? for you bush? why don’t we both just kill the little rat? oh hell i forgot you have to go to mexico city to make a border deal.
Snowy Egret, I’ve had enough. It’s not that I don’t trust the truth of your words, but you say it with such bitterness. You and your partisanship are the reason that Democrats and Republicans hate each other, that they communicate like that. Can you please say it like “Though they don’t know it, the ACLU are helping the terrorists.”
Ann Coulter put it the perfect way when she said on the first page of Slander “Political ‘debate’ in this country has become insufferable. Instead of actual debate about ideas and issues with real consequences, the country is trapped in a political discourse that resembles professional wrestling”. Of course, later in the book she says “Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do”, but still, she started off on te right track.
My political motto is still what Al Franken said in Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, “I guess what I’m trying to say is, let’s stop talking about problems, lets talk about solutions”.
Ok, now that I’ve had my rant, I agree with the fact that the president has the authority to do this, but I also don’t like the fact that this is a different kind of war. I suppose I would support this spying if everyone got a fair, public trial to see if they were actually guilty, unlike Jose Padilla.