Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Where were you when the Brits owned the company? Sitting on your hands, apparently.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

the times is not so convincing. Are there no blogs for authority?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

No one told me.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Both issues share a common thread of people arguing - vehemently - against or for something they're not even sure is taking place. We don't know to what extent the UAE company is/would be involved in securing ports, or the full why/where/who of how it got approval. We don't know what the govt is wiretapping because nobody doing the tapping will fully dislose its scope.

So it seems to me that we're really getting ahead of ourselves - spouting off about things we don't even know exist or fully understand.

My suspicion is both of these isssues are what the media has fixated on because its been a slow news cycle. Spanky is right - we're being whipped into voting on issues which may not even exist by opportunist politicians and the media.

Instead of playing into their faux debate, we ought to vote with our remote controls and newspaper susbscriptions. Turn the fuckers off until they ask substantive questions and give substantive answers which allow us to fully understand the alleged "issues." Then we can argue about them.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

If this thing comes down to a scandal about whether arcane bureaucratic procedure was followed, the story will be deader than Curt Gowdy by Sunday.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

I saw several of the members that were briefed interviewed (including Dashelle), and they all seemed comfortable with what was going on. However, some of them want to tweak the law going forward because they recognize that it is outdated to deal with the current threat.

Haven't read it and don't know enough to comment. I'll pass on the "how often do you beat your wife question" but assuming it was conducted as described, I think it is necessary. However, I'd like, if at all possible, for another branch to be in the loop.

I think the president has inherent powers to protect and defend the country against threats foreign and domestic. I don't see anything in Article I that limits that authority.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

If the story comes down to whether someone got a blow job or not . . .

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Well, it's not at all clear what they were told, and at least one of them (Rockefeller) wrote Cheney a letter to protest. He had to write it by hand, since the security regulations wouldn't let him use his secretary. If you think they were all "comfortable" with this, you haven't listened to them.

Well now, wait a second. You were the one who said it needed to be updated -- I just asked what you meant. How do you know the law doesn't work just fine?

And Bush didn't have to violate FISA for four years -- he could have brought another branch into the loop by (a) seeking warrants from the FISA court, or (b) asking Congress to amend the law. My question was about his choice to do neither of those two things. You can't say it's a "how often do you beat your wife" question, and then agree that it's the right point.

Did you look at Article I, Section 8? Congress gets to govern re the military in all sorts of ways. The question here is not what the President gets to do in the abstract -- it's what the President can do when Congress has passed a law very explicitly saying that he can't do it.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

One procedure's a lot more interesting than the other...

I miss Bill Clinton. I had a future then. I was going to get rich off those shares of a company that made voice activated toasters.*






* Actually, I did buy some stock that had some voice activated crap technology. My buddy told me his firm was pumping and dumping it. The pump part never happened. I'm the only guy who loses at fraud.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Your article I is apparently incomplete:
Section 1: legislative power
Section 8, cls. 11-16 (relating to regulation of armies).

Where in Art. II does he gain "inherent authority"? He's supposed to execute the laws passed by Congress.

The problem here is what you should remember from the first year of law school: Jackson's opinion in Youngstown Sheet and Tube. When Congress has spoken on an issue and the president wants to act inconsistently, his power is at an ebb. This is not an area where it's ambiguous and left open. Congress specified procedures in FISA, has failed to change those procedures, yet Bush said "screw that process, I'm going to circumvent it."

I don't see how the "unitary executive" theory can be stretched so far as to permit actions directly contrary to what Congress has specified unless the Constitution commits to the sole discretion of the President a particular power. And, to anticipate the next step, his power as commander in chief doesn't get you there, because a) war had not been declared and b) even if it had, he was not commanding the army or military.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

You lost me there. Sorry, you are going to have to be patient because this is totally new to me.

Where does the FBI's power to wiretap come from? Same place right? But the FBI doesn't seem to get any power from this section because it does not have anything to do with national security or with the Presidents power as commander and Chief. Is the question whether Article II, Section II gives him the power to do certain type of wire taps? So maybe some types of wire taps are OK under section II and others are not?

Here is Article II, Section II

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Off the top of my head, I'm not sure where the FBI's "power" to wiretap comes from. The police power? Delegation of the President's power to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed? Not Article II, Section 2, in any event, which has to do with the military. (The idea that Art. II, sec. 2 has anything at all to do with wiretapping is freakishly novel.)

FISA is a constraint on the FBI's power to wiretap. It is correct that some wiretaps are OK under FISA and some are not. As a rule, the FBI (or whomever) needs to get a warrant. FISA says this (and sometimes the Fourth Amendment requires it too).

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

The FBI's power to wiretap generally speaking comes from its power to investigate crimes. Its power is limited by the fourth amendment. Its power is also limited by FISA, which specifies when wiretaps are allowed for national intelligence purposes (which is presumed to enjoy a lower threshold than for criminal investigation purposes).

Bush, however, has asserted that regardless of FISA, as commander in chief he has inherent authority to execute wiretaps without regard to the limits imposed by FISA. Implicitly he is claiming that that authority also supersedes the 4th amendment, although presumably he would argue that it does not, but as CinC he can determine that the searches are reasonable.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Does the FBI have to get a warrant? It seems like yes, and that perhaps Bush could go get a warrant too, but that's sort of the distinction between the wiretaps he's authorized and the regular FBI ones.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Huh? For all wiretaps one has to get a warrant. The difference is the level of proof required. The 4th amendment standard for criminal cases is relatively high. FISA lowers that burden, but with the tradeoff that the information can't be used for law enforcement purposes (that's the "wall" that we heard about in the 9/11 hearings). Bush claims that there's a third set of cases, defined by him, that allows FBI/NSA/CIA to make wiretaps without any kind of court approval, either before or after (which FISA provides for).