Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

You are correct in your assumption that I'm basing this on a unitary executive theory and I think we differ on this in that you don't see his actions in the context of a war, where the president has always been granted/taken additional powers.

Answer me this . . . if in WWII, when the US was cracking the German codes, the Germans had a foothold in say, Florida, would the President be required to get a court order to intercept the communications?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Pat Roberts is one of the biggest hacks in the Senate. Don't even get me started on him. How would he even know why Rockefeller sent the letter? And given the security requirements, what else was Rockefeller supposed to do? He wasn't allowed to discuss what he'd heard with anybody. We don't even know what he was told, since it's classified.

No shit. And yet the President is relying on Article II, Section 2, which refers to his power as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. Kind of makes you wonder.

eta: Although I've had this conversation in the comments on a conservative blog and have had conservatives tell me that, for various reasons, the NSA is essentially part of the military.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

If you're asking a question about FISA, which was not written until thirty years after WWII ended, it has provisions to ensure that the government doesn't need to get a warrant to spy on foreign powers.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

did the UN approve of this?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

You're the one who reads DU -- we all rely on you for that sort of insight.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

And this is exactly why it's outdated. Look, I started this whole conversation off by saying that I was not exactly comfortable with the wire tapping program, but we also don't know all the facts. If the wire taps were on non-citizens, I have absolutely no problem with them. If they were on citizens that were cooperating with the "enemy" it's a far more difficult issue. I just view the potential magnitude of the promlem so large that I'm willing to accept a curtailment of civil rights, but I certainly think their is a middle ground that could be reached.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Also, you may want to consider that moderate Republicans are often hunted for sport by the Administration.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Seems to me though that if the law is outdated, you change the law. You don't ignore the law all together and then say the criminal penalties for breaking that law don't apply because "the law is outdated."

This was a subject that needed to be considered and debated by the Congress.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Silly! That's how things work in a Democracy.

Not here.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Article written by a man named "Clay." Clearly, this dude has issues.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

The wiretaps were on citizens and non-citizens alike. And they were not tapping people who "were cooperating' with the enemy -- if they had even probable cause to believe that, it would have been a simple matter to get a warrant from the FISA court. (FISA doesn't totally ban the taps -- it says you have to get a warrant from a special, secret court, and it even lets the government get the warrant up to three days later if need be.)

No, the executive branch decided to circumvent the FISA court because it wanted to wiretap citizens in circumstances where it could not establish probable cause to get a warrant. That's the problem.

And instead of going to Congress to change the law, it secretly decided that it was above the law.

I think most reasonable people would be open to the idea of changing FISA if the reduction in civil rights was warranted by good intel. But press accounts suggest that these programs generated very little useful intel. And the problem is that if one branch is deciding for itself, there's no check on it's judgment about how to balance the benefits and harms. E.g., the requirement that a warrant issue is a way to make sure that a government official in another branch agrees that someone's civil liberties should be invaded.

The problem here is that Bush not only kept this quiet instead of raising it with the other branches -- he is asserting that as a matter of constitutional law, he is not obliged to listen to what they say at all.

Checks and balances, man. Maybe the framers' greatest innovation, and he's fucking with it.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

How about a chick named "Molly"?

(Same thing, but bitterer and funnier.)

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

shouldn't you save your really good material like this for pillow talk rather than board correspondence?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Because Bush said that they mostly aren't, mostly. Except when they might need to be, of course. But in that case, the White House will supervise itself some more, so we'll all be okay.

Checks, schmecks. Balances, schmalances. You elected him, he gets to be king.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Right. Bush was sub-contracting. He's CinC, he can do that, too.