Considering its the press' job to keep the public informed about the workings of their government, and the government decides what is classified or not, i believe courts will almost always side in favor of the media in these cases, as they did in '72 with the pentagon papers case.

With the NSA program, there is little to show that revealing the operation has harmed the US attempt to thwart terrorism in this country, while a possible unconstitutional act by our president took place.

Times was absolutely correct in publishing it.

"Personally, I'd rather not get into prosecuting the editors of The New York Times - but I think we might have to do it in this case in order to implant into the minds of the media that everything is not fair game"

Nixon tried to punish the NYT for embarassing him. It didn't work. It won't work here. But it would be a big boost for the times for the wingnuts to try.

pah leeze shipley -

AG gonzales stated that presidents back to general washington himself have authorized intercepts of foreign intel on us soil.

meanwhile, in the real world, as W said the mere fact that this discussion is in the open has alerted our enemies. unlike the useful idiots on the left, our enemies change their tactics when they become aware of compromise.

it's clear that UBL studies the US media.

connect the dots pal.

George Bush is a huge embarrassment to the Republican Party and the whole country. If America had more decent politicians like John McCain, instead of corrupt, vindictive, insipid fools like Bush and Cheney, everyone would be able to prosper. Maybe Nixon wasn't a crook, but George Bush and Dick Cheney certainly are.

Personally, I'd rather not get into prosecuting the editors of The New York Times - but I think we might have to do it in this case in order to implant into the minds of the media that everything is not fair game.

I say prosecute the hell out of them! Make them an example. Let them know that unless they've done their homework they better not say anything! I'm sick of lame ducks being brought up for the woody it give libs & the media(then it just fades away). If they can't put substance behind it, they shouldn't be talking about it, unless they want to now be recognized as a tabloid!

With the NSA program, there is little to show that revealing the operation has harmed the US attempt to thwart terrorism in this country, while a possible unconstitutional act by our president took place.

Times was absolutely correct in publishing it.

Posted by: Tom Shipley at January 26, 2006 10:03 AM

Well Ship, I'm sure the government will have NYT first on it's list to report to us all the damage that may or may not have taken place. Hey Ship, do you have top security clearance or something? Maybe you could clue us little guys in to what unconstitutional act possibly took place! Was is the airconditioning incident, or was it when they blared the rap music? Like I said before "Lame Ducks".

IV amendment.

Ok...clearly you guys need a lesson in the language of law.

"Section 793 of the federal espionage law prohibits authorized persons possessing 'information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation . . . '"

The key here is "authorized persons," which means someone who is supposed to know the information in the first place--an intelligence agent or the intended consumer of the intelligence. If they could bring a case against the NY Times then they also could've brought a case against Robert Novak for outing Plame.

Just face the facts; a possibly illegal program was outed and is making the Bush Administration look bad. Don't shoot the messenger. Try defending the program instead.

Ohio,

AQ long ago abandoned using telephone lines (tappable ones) to communicate.

And the question is not whether the president has the power to authorize foreign intell, it's whether he follows the probably cause portion of the fourth amendment. He himself said that's the standard they used, but did not explain why they went around the US court which is charged with handing out warrants based on probable cause.

It's pretty straightforward:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

We have a court set up (as secret one at that), FISA, especially to grant warrants based on probably cause for cases like these. The executive branch is even allowed to tap someone for up to 72 hours before receiving a warrant.

The president went around that court and did not get warrants for these taps.

Please explain to me how it is not legitimate to question whether the president violated the constitution here.

Was is the airconditioning incident, or was it when they blared the rap music? Like I said before "Lame Ducks". *banging head against desk*

Sorry got my wires crossed on that one! we are still going in circles on that one Ship. The majority of the house & senate say no laws were broken, and no need for investigation. Sorry big guy, that's the way the ball rolls.

And the majority of the congress is the same party as the president in question here.

I posted a very straightforward question. How has the president not violated the IV amendment when he skirts the FISA court?

Saying Gonzalez thinks he didn't, or the majority of congress thinks he didn't really doesn't do much for me.

Looking for a specific answer. Do you have one? Or can you cite someone who has one?

Tom, the issue is one of timing.

Let's say we catch a known terrorist who has been identified as a planner of many murderous terrorist acts. We capture him in Iraq. His name is, for argument's sake, Abdul. Abdul has a little black book crammed with phone numbers. He has a laptop with many notes on different contacts around the world. His cell phone record has a list of the 40 most recent calls. A quick glance at the various records show that a certain name appears often, and it belongs to a certain phone number, which was called several times immediately before an attack on American soil, several times immediately after that, and overall it was called many times. This number is located in the United States.

A resonable, prudent, evaluation of this information, sketchy as it is, would prove a connection between the person in America and the proven terrorist, and a likely connection between him and the recent attack.

Are you still with me, Tom? I am typing very slowly and using small words.

Now---what we do NOT know is when Abdul made his last contact with his cell leader. If he was caught at 9:00 a.m. and he made his contact at 8:30, we have almost 24 hours before he misses his next call, after which the cell will know he has been compromised and will immediately begin contingency measures, including moving out of safe houses, changing telephones, dropping old telephone numbers, etc. It may even accelerate an operation if it is almost ready.

But it Abdul is due to make his call at 1:00 p.m., we have only --- do the math, here, Tom---4 hours to mine what we can from the information we have recieved. So it is logical, prudent, smart, and even DEMANDED of those in charge to IMMEDIATELY start to monitor each and every call made from each and every overseas number in that little black book, in that computer, to every single number called---ESPECIALLY to the number in the United States.

Can this be done within the Constitution? Yes. Within the law? Yes. Because all presidents, not just Democratic presidents, are charged with the solemn duty to do what they must to protect this country and its people, and are, therefore, given the power to act in emergencies like this one.

Is is necessary or even possible to still extend the protection of law to those who are monitored, even if the monitoring is done without warrants? Yes. If each and every intercept is then given a stringent judicial review, and if information gleaned can only be used for purposes of national security and not for other purposes, then the person monitored is given full protection under the law and under the Constitution, in spite of the fact that the process had to be expedited for clear and obvious reasons.

It is legitimate to QUESTION "whether or not the president violated the constitution here". What is less legitimate is to refuse to acknowledge the facts when they are presented, and to insist on an interpretation that is not supported by the facts, by precedent, by respected legal and constutional scholars on both sides of the political aisle, and by the facts of modern technology.

Cetainly the Founding Fathers, if equipped with a crystal ball that could show them the marvels of instantaneous international communication, that could show them the types of ways insane people can kill huge numbers of other people, would have found a way to address SPECIFICALLY the constitutional ways to address such problems. But even without that crystal ball, they were wise enough to understand that things change, and dangers emerge, and that there MUST be a flexible and permissible way to deal with them. Which is why certain powers were granted to the president, within the constitution.

"meanwhile, in the real world, as W said the mere fact that this discussion is in the open has alerted our enemies."

Bush said that only to protect his rear. Do you think terrorist really cared if you spy on them with a warrant or without? FISA is a secret court so they wouldn't find out about it regardless.

You guys on this site have some strange blind loyalty. You need to start thinking on your own instead of getting talking points straight from Bush's mouth.

Shipley, you're offering the same tired, refuted arguments that you were last week and the week before that and the week before that, and the week before that. You're not one of those "Flat Earth Society" kooks, are you? If I had a dollar for every time someone on this blog has responded to you that "probable cause" does not apply to the gathering of foreign intelligence, I'd be a rich man.

That said, I'm all for bipartisan Congressional hearings into the matter, if, for no other reason, to satisfy people like Tom. There is much more evidence and legal precedent (Powerline has done volumes on the legal aspects) to support the fact that the President is on solid ground than that he broke the law, and the majority of Americans believe that. If you guys want to continue to make this an issue right up to the mid-term election, then I say "bring it on". Just don't come back here and interrupt the victory celebration on November 8th and whine because it didn't work.

Also, Tom we have to take into consideration the change in the moral climate in this country.

It is now considered OK, permissible, perhaps even noble, according to some, to undermine President Bush, just on general priniciple. People die? That's OK. Within certain groups in this country, it is truly an anything-goes mentality. For reasons unfathomable to reasonable people, a culture of loathing has evolved, a culture of hatred so intense that it trumps self-interest.

It is in the best interest of the people in this country to bave a way to control terrorism, yet there are many who will willingly, gleefully, undermine their own safety and security just to accomplish a "Gotcha" on the President.

Given the attitude toward leaking of classified information, given the conviction on the Left that no one should be punished for revealing anything, no matter how harmful it is to national security, how can you blame the administration for keeping as much as possible separate from those who would betray the country in a heartbeat, just to inflict a wound on the President, and who could count on the support and protection of the media and the entire Left?

When the Left starts being indignant at the publication of classified information,when it demands that leakers be punished, when it stops rewarding those who betray the confidences with which they are trusted, then maybe a new era of confidence can emerge. But for now, we have had it proven to us, over and over again, that the government is rotten at the core, filled with America-haters who feel so superior and above the law that they make their own laws, and put institutionalized hatred above all else.

it's amazing to me that the left who often praise FDR as the greatest Dem. president, often forget what he did to the press during WW2.

shipley - I'd bet ya a dollar to a doughnut hole (& spot ya the dollar) that ol Abe authorized intercepts when BOTH ends were on US soil.

Also, Tom we have to take into consideration the change in the moral climate in this country.

It is now considered OK, permissible, perhaps even noble, according to some, to undermine President Bush, just on general priniciple. People die? That's OK. Within certain groups in this country, it is truly an anything-goes mentality. For reasons unfathomable to reasonable people, a culture of loathing has evolved, a culture of hatred so intense that it trumps self-interest.

It is in the best interest of the people in this country to bave a way to control terrorism, yet there are many who will willingly, gleefully, undermine their own safety and security just to accomplish a "Gotcha" on the President.

Given the attitude toward leaking of classified information, given the conviction on the Left that no one should be punished for revealing anything, no matter how harmful it is to national security, how can you blame the administration for keeping as much as possible separate from those who would betray the country in a heartbeat, just to inflict a wound on the President, and who could count on the support and protection of the media and the entire Left?

When the Left starts being indignant at the publication of classified information,when it demands that leakers be punished, when it stops rewarding those who betray the confidences with which they are trusted, then maybe a new era of confidence can emerge. But for now, we have had it proven to us, over and over again, that the government is rotten at the core, tainted with America-haters who feel so superior and above the law that they make their own laws, and put institutionalized hatred above all else.

Almiranta,

You're timing logic does not hold up, considering the president can tap a line for up to 72 hours without a warrant under the law.

If the above scenerio played out, I have no doubt the FISA court would approve those taps until it was shown anyone on the list was not a terrorist, considering that in 2004 out of 17,000 requests, the court only turned down about 150.

Don't make this out as democrats trying to hinder Bush's attempt to fight terrorism. I have seen no evidence that because Bush went around the court, he was able to get information that helped protect americans.

Again, you say there's president, but do not cite it.

I asked a straightforward question. How is Bush not getting a warrant for eavesdropping on Americans not a violation of the IV amendment and not breaking the law.

Congress has already addressed the issue of time-sensitive taps by allowing that 72 hour window. that argument is not going to work.

So, again, please explain how Bush has not broke the law or violated the 4th amendment. If there's precident of warrantless wiretaps on americans, please cite it.

Question: Can a President during a time of war shut down a particular media outlet because the media outlet is putting this country in danger?

Anyway -- post note: I know someone who works at the NSA and he said that there were about 500 picked to attend the session with the President. Unfortunately, he wasn't picked and he was stuck in a room for over 2 hours - there was even a guard out side his office so that no one could leave!

RS, I notice you don't provide an answer to my question. Just name call. Not impressed.

Almiranta,
You may have actually proved our point that the President COULD HAVE and SHOULD HAVE gone to the court.
What you lay out there would be "probable cause". Tap the phone and worry about getting a warrant up to 72 hours after the fact.

This shouldn't be a partisan thing. This is a country that has laws. If the President can obey only the laws he wants, then we become like them.

Also for whoever brought up the "leak alerted our enemies and made us more vulnerable" argument. What a bunch of crap. Does anyone really think that AQ didn't know we would try and secretly get information? It's not like all of the sudden they say... "Holy Crap... they are trying to bug phones to get our info!".

"AG gonzales stated that presidents back to general washington himself have authorized intercepts of foreign intel on us soil."

So the NYT didn't reveal anything out of the ordinary?

Almiranta, do you ever get the feeling that you're beating your head against a brick wall?

Congress has already addressed the issue of time-sensitive taps by allowing that 72 hour window. that argument is not going to work.

John Hinderaker at Powerline did by far the most comprehensive piece on
the 72-hour argument that I've seen anywhere. Please go read it before you make an even bigger ass of yourself, Tom.

Tom, are you claiming that interceptions were taking place for longer than 72 hours? What is your source for this?

Are you claiming that anyone was unfairly monitored? Who? When? Of the 1/127-thousandth of one per cent of people in this country who had their conversations monitored for any length of time at all, how many were unfairly singled out? How many were innocent of illegal collaboration with enemies abroad, in efforts to act against our country and its people? How many were prosecuted? Persecuted? Annoyed? Spanked?

For one thing, electronic interceptions are not "wiretaps". It would help to keep the terminology correct. Your version has shadowy men tapping into wires, and leaving those taps in place, thereby "tapping" the same phone for more than 72 hours. The reality is that when a number is associated with terrorists overseas, and then called from one of those overseas numbers, the call can be monitored, electronically. It's based on a data mining program initiated by Clinton, to do just that.

For another, presence in the United States does not make one an American. We can have foreign nationals on our soil, as we had Mohammed Atta and his crews, who not only are NOT Americans but who are not even here legally. Please don't drape yourself or them in the flag and try to generate an emotional response based on defense of "Americans".

Third, please drop the other emotionally-oriented claim of "eavesdropping on Americans". You try, no doubt on purpose, to create the image of Big Brother avidly listening in on Aunt Bea talking about apple pie recipies.

While I am researching, take a look at probable cause. In civilian life, probably cause is very flexible. For some vehicles, a break in the front grill at a certain place is probable cause for a traffic stop and theft investigation, because that is where a thief would break the grill to get at wires he needs to cut to shut off the horn alarm. A missing light bulb on interior car lights is probable cause. And so on.

There is absolutely no reason to use reasonable probable cause for some things, and not for others. And any law enforcement official, and the president, can make a call to look further based on probable cause. If Clinton's data mining program overhears a reference to "bombs" and "airplanes" and "the Pentagon" is it even remotely reasonable to be required to turn away from that to prepare a report and request, and go to track down members of FISA, rather than listen to the entire conversation, and even to follow up on the next conversations from that same source? Get real.

That same source can, and probably will, dump that phone after a few days,, so a warrant for a specific phone is not always productive. Or have you forgotten the great opporunity thrown away when it was published that we were able to monitor Bin Laden's satellite phone? Naturally, he dumped it. And these are smart people, who can and do learn from things like this.

The fact is, electronic monitoring has been going on for years and years, involving international communications. Clinton inaugurated an electronic data mining system a long long time ago, and any call that included certain words or phrases was red-flagged. Cite your objections to this, pre-Bush.

Your big problem, Tom, is that you are so transparent. It is clear to anyone reading your posts that your concern is much more oriented toward attacking the President than toward protecting the constitution. And it's hard to have credibility when an agenda is so blatant.

There may be four or five people who were as indignant about Waco, and the Ames warrantless break-in, and the warrantless and illegal surveillances of white supremacists after Oklahoma City, as they are now about the electronic interception of international terrorist calls which are placed to numbers which happen to be geographically located in the United States. But hypocrites, whose defense of the law and of the constitution vacillate wildly according to who is in office, are the ones shouting here and now, and they have little credibility due to their radical anti-Bush agendas. Any pretense to wanting an objective discussion on the true merits of the argument is ridiculous.

When noted and respected legal scholars from all political persuasions agree that the NSA intercepts were legal and constitutional, the bleatings of a Bush-hater don't carry much weight. No, NOT ALL scholars agree--but so many do, and are willing to put their names amd reputations on the line to say so, that there is absolutely no basis for claiming they are all wrong. At the very worst, the issue might be somewhat unclear and open to interpretation---and if that proves to be the case, I hope and pray for a President with the manly parts to do what is right for the country without getting the vapors over whow a Shipley might try to use it against him.

And at all events, intercepting enemy communications during war time does not rise to the level of a constitutional issue...in other words, the enemy does not enjoy our 4th amendment rights, and neither do any Americans who are assisting our armed enemies.

Tom - point me to even one American who has been unjustifiably monitored by the NSA and I'll take note...until then, you're just foolishly putting your country at risk because you don't like the President.

RS, I notice you don't provide an answer to my question. Just name call. Not impressed.

Tom, I reread my post because I wasn't aware that I had called you any names. It's just not something I normally do because it adds nothing to the debate. In asking if you were "one of those Flat Earth Society kooks" I was merely trying to illustrate the absurdity of your arguments. You really need to grow a thicker skin or else make more sound arguments.

The Constitution prohibits "unreasonable" searches without "probable cause." The simple question to be answered is "were these searches unreasonable?"

Knowing what we already know publicly about the communication tactics of terroists, is there anyone with even a smidgeon of a brain going to say that it is "unreasonable" to monitor terrorists calls, either in or out of the country?

If those who want to get into this for any reason other than the obvious political takedown reason really care, then why not be screeching about having your license number photographed at busy city intersections, or the "eye in the sky" surveillance planes that fly over my house regularly who are looking for backyard marijuanna growers, or speeders on the freeway.

This is such a phony liberal bruhaha.

The Constitution prohibits "unreasonable" searches without "probable cause." The simple question to be answered is "were these searches unreasonable?"

Knowing what we already know publicly about the communication tactics of terroists, is there anyone with even a smidgeon of a brain going to say that it is "unreasonable" to monitor terrorists calls, either in or out of the country?

If those who want to get into this for any reason other than the obvious political takedown reason really care, then why not be screeching about having your license number photographed at busy city intersections, or the "eye in the sky" surveillance planes that fly over my house regularly who are looking for backyard marijuanna growers, or speeders on the freeway.

This is such a phony liberal bruhaha.

SLG got it right.
Secure from unreasonable search is the standard... and the warrant is just the preferred procedure of the judiciary when they consider the issue. There have been numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement where the Supreme Court considered the reasonableness of the action and allowed the search. Incident to arrest, hot pursuit and plain view come quickly to mind.
Don't confuse the fourth amendment search provisions with the fifth amendment's due process requirement. There is no 'injury' to privacy until the government acts to deprive a person of 'life, liberty or property without due process of law.'
The NY Times presents all the news it chooses to print, leaving out significant details. Our legal process is an adversary system where advocates for both sides argue their positions before an impartial jury. A judge rules on the law and juries of peers determine the facts. The Times has decided the president broke the law, and yet it is highly likely they don't have all the facts. They offer their conclusions in headlines, sound bites, and editorials, not in the detail sections of their columns.
Having prejudged the administration, the MSM finds it hard to present a fair and balanced account of government action. Artificial procedures and potential abuses become more important than the truth. When the truth be known, it will be buried deeper in their reports, without headlines or analysis.

shortz says:
""AG gonzales stated that presidents back to general washington himself have authorized intercepts of foreign intel on us soil."

So the NYT didn't reveal anything out of the ordinary?"

This is what passes for intelligent political discourse on the Left? Yep, that's about as good as it gets.

When and if any president used this constitutionally granted power in any time of war, at the time it was used it was, most definitely, used in secret. Because making it public makes it non-functional.

And if that ability to mine information is made ineffective, and we no longer have access to that information, great harm has been done.

So, while it would have been treasonous to reveal the plans for D-Day while it was being planned or before it happened, Steven Spielberg is not guilty of any crime for making a movie about it 50 years later.

Had he made the information public when it had the power to change history, yes, he would have been prosecuted. Or shot.

And no, the NYT never, as far as I know, published highly secret, classified, information about an ongoing program---at least not till now. What they did was outrageous, and they cannot justify it using the first amendment or any other excuse. They had a chance to publish something that could be spun and twisted to attack George W Bush, and they took it, in spite of the possible consequences to national security. There was not one single reason to publish this information, other than to try to bring down an administration they do not like, and to help a party they do like regain some political power. It was calculated, it was cynical, it was a cold indifference to lives put in danger, and any pious mouthings of first amendment rights to defend the indefensible are transparently false.

Isn't the President reqiured by the FISA Law to go to the FISA court?

Even if it isn't a fourth amendment issue, then it would still be breaking the FISA law if he is in fact required to go to the Court. So, if the aforementioned premises are true, then the NY Times would not be in fault for informing the public of a breach of law.

Now...bringing the Fourth Amendment back into the argument... I did find an interesting supreme court case. It is United States v. United States District Court. Though it deals with domestic organizations and not foreign intel, it does hold that:

"1. Section 2511(3) is merely a disclaimer of congressional intent to define presidential powers in matters affecting national security, and is not a grant of authority to conduct warrantless national security surveillances. Pp. 301-308. [p298]

"2. The Fourth Amendment (which shields private speech from unreasonable surveillance) requires prior judicial approval for the type of domestic security surveillance involved in this case. Pp. 314-321; 323-324.

"(a) The Government's duty to safeguard domestic security must be weighed against the potential danger that unreasonable surveillances pose to individual privacy and free expression. Pp. 314-315.

"(b) The freedoms of the Fourth Amendment cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security suveillances are conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch, without the detached judgment of a neutral magistrate. Pp. 316-318.

"(c) Resort to appropriate warrant procedure would not frustrate the legitimate purposes of domestic security searches. Pp. 318-321."

Again, I said that this is about Domestic orginizations and not foreign intelligence, but the government's argument was very similar to the argument that it is using now. Here is the case history before it went to the Supreme Court:

"On the basis of the affidavit and surveillance logs (filed in a sealed exhibit), the Government claimed that the surveillances, though warrantless, were lawful as a reasonable exercise of presidential power to protect the national security. The District Court, holding the surveillances violative of the Fourth Amendment, issued an order for disclosure of the overheard conversations, which the Court of Appeals upheld. Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, which authorizes court-approved electronic surveillance for specified crimes, contains a provision in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(3) that nothing in that law limits the President's constitutional power to protect against the overthrow of the Government or against "any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government." The Government relies on § 2511(3) in support of its contention that "in excepting national security surveillances from the Act's warrant requirement, Congress recognized the President's authority to conduct such surveillances without prior judicial approval.""

However, the court still held:

"Section 2511(3) is merely a disclaimer of congressional intent to define presidential powers in matters affecting national security, and is not a grant of authority to conduct warrantless national security surveillances. Pp. 301-308. [p298]"

(All quotes taken from http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0407_0297_ZS.html)

Now, though it is not a Foreign Intelligence Precedent, it is an important precedent in considering the legitimacy of warrantless wiretaps. I will withhold judgement on this until I find a legal precedent more pertaining to foreign intel, but this case should definately be taken into account when considering the NSA investigation.

"Knowing what we already know publicly about the communication tactics of terroists, is there anyone with even a smidgeon of a brain going to say that it is "unreasonable" to monitor terrorists calls, either in or out of the country?"

If someone is proven to be a terrorist (ie... trying to attack the US), no, noone with a brain is going to say it's unreasonable to monitor them.

BUT, that's not what's at issue here. What's at issue is showing probable cause that someone is a terrorist...

This is what is required by the IV amendement, and this is what the Bush adminstration has avoided doing.

And puh-leeeze get out of the liberal mindset that punishing someone for a crime is emotionally based---the reference to "embarassing" the NYT in the 70's. It's the same mindset that felt that efforts to prosecute Clinton for CRIMES were really just mean-spirited evidence of personal dislike for the man. It's a juvenile, small-minded, and narrow way of looking at crime and punishment.

But, on the other hand (the left hand) their INVENTING of crimes is NOT petty or small-minded. It's fully justified, Why? To GET EVEN for the imagined attacks on their Bubba. Yeah, that's a good reason to endanger the country. But it's what I get when I ask why lefties hate Bush so much---every single time, it's 'justified' in their teeny tiny brains by some infantile sense that the only reason anyone ever pointed out the lawbreaking in the Clinton years was spite, so they can/MUST repay in kind.

That does explain the incoherent rage that defines the Left---after all, if every traffic ticket is a personal attack, if every zoning violation is proof that someone is "out to get" someone, if every effort to enforce any law is really just proof of sptte and malice toward the offender, then the world really is an ugly, brutal, place---and everything is fair. This is the only kind of mentality that can excuse the senseless attacks on Judge Alito, that can even attempt to defend invented crimes agsinst the constitution supposedly committed by Bush, that can find it even remotely acceptable to lie and lie and lie again, ignoring the damage done by those lies.

Why is your personal privacy so very important when the President is trying to protect the country but not when people with cameras at malls want to take pictures of the underwear of young women out shopping? They had "no expectation of privacy" in that court decision I believe. There are other cases as well that limit "privacy" rights if the abuse is a liberal one. And from where do all those emails I get selling Viagra and Flowers and whatever come from? From people peeping in at what websites I go to. My credit card number is available for sale also, as is yours. Where are my Privacy rights in these examples? This is a bogus argument. Grow up. Let the President do his job. He is the one mandated to protect the country. If you are worried, don't make phone calls or send emails to AlQueda.

RS,

Exactly how am i making an ass of myself by putting for an argument that the president is violating the IV amendement and asking for people to provide reason as to why he is not.

The link you provided about the 72-hour thing is the best answer someone has provided thus far. It doesn't conclusively show that Bush acted legally, but it's a good argument.

I've done nothing but present facts here, and 99% of you avoid addressing them specifically by saying I'm just going after Bush or am a liberal crackpot. Whatever.

These are real questions that deserve real discussion.

As far as naming US citizens who have been unjustly monitored?

Here's a quote from an FBI official about the program:

"We'd chase a number, find it's a school teacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former FBI official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html?

"The fact is, electronic monitoring has been going on for years and years, involving international communications. Clinton inaugurated an electronic data mining system a long long time ago, and any call that included certain words or phrases was red-flagged. Cite your objections to this, pre-Bush."

I assume you're referring to the carnivore system (it's called something else now)? The Clinton administration developed this, but I don't think it was ever administered. I actually worked with lawyers who were charged with reviewing it. I had reservations about it then, as I do now.

Not sure it has been implemented.

What WOULD constitute probable cause for you, Tom? For that matter, how would you define "terrorist"? Does he have to have a bomb strapped to his body to qualify? Do we have to wait till his body parts are mush and intermingled with those of the innocent men, women, and children he has butchered? Does he have to be a paid member of Terrorist Local 101? Does he have to list it on his resume?

How about if he actively promotes the destruction of the United States in speeches in his mosque and in his community? How about if he collects money to pay for bombs someoene else will strap onto HIS body? What if he just gets a job at an airport so he can educate others on how to take over airliners and turn them into bombs? Does he have to actually have blood dripping from his hands or can we keep an eye on him if he just trains and supports those who do the dirty work?

How far does he have to go to qualify, in your mind, as "trying to attack the US"? Buying bomb materials? Building a bomb? Carrying a bomb? Recruiting someone else to carry a bomb? Planting a bomb? Does he have to actually have his finger on the detonator? What if he is a goofy, smelly, doofus who attracts a lot of attention even before he starts trying to strike matches to set his foot on fire? Is he a terrorist or does he get a pass because he was so inept he didn't really pose much of a problem?

How about being on a call list of one or more proven, captured, terrorists? Hell, I'D check that out---it the proven terrorist is just Cousin Abdullah, and no one in the U.S. knows of his evil secret life, there is no harm done. Question: Once he shows up on Abdullah's Frequent Caller list, just how DO we learn that he is talking about hummus and not plastique? Only one way I know---listen in.

Again, if I run into something sharp and break open the grill on my car in a certain place, I can be stopped and asked to prove it is really my car. That's a much milder "probable cause" than receiving multiple calls from known, proven, terrorists who want to destroy the country.

If footprints leading from my neighbor's burglarized house to my bedroom window are probable cause for entering my house to look for the bad guy, then electronic footprints from known active terrorist cells to my phone number are just as damning---or at least just as suspicious.

Come off it, Shipley---you got nothing. Nothing but an emotionally-based grievance against a guy you know only through the spittle-spattered rantings of ALF Ranken and Randi Rhodes and the like. Don't you realize we all know that if ALF starts in on his historically ignorant Bush-Worse-Than-Hitler rant, you robotic sheep will be writing to Mark and Matt about Bush being worse than Hitler? With absolute conviction, sincere as all get out in your ego-driven belief that you are, by dint of listening to drivel, somehow intellectually superior because you know the Real Truth. Good on you, Tommy Boy. Yeah, you got the inside scoop, the secret stuff, the dirt the rest of us aren't smart enough to figure out. Facts be damned, it just FEELS good to hate, and to be told who to hate, and what excuses you should give for hating. And if your buddies on AA assure you that you are smarter because you hate, then that's good---because no one has ever called you smart before.

"How about if he actively promotes the destruction of the United States in speeches in his mosque and in his community? How about if he collects money to pay for bombs someoene else will strap onto HIS body? What if he just gets a job at an airport so he can educate others on how to take over airliners and turn them into bombs?"

Almiranta, my point is if the US can prove this about people, by all means, monitor them. My concern is that we are tapping people who have nothing to do with terrorism without even trying to get warrants to do so.

Does that not concern you at all?

You ask me what I think probable cause is? It's not up to me to decide, it's of to the FISA court -- if Bush would give them a chance to.

I find it ironic that you're accussing me of making soley emotional arguements when you're the one getting all worked up. I have not once called anyone a name, called anyone partisan, said anyone had alterior motives, all I've asked for is proof to back your arguments. So far, RS is the only one who's provided anything.

The point is Shipley, you don't know what is known about anyone who is on the list nor what might have triggered the monitoring in the first place. And, when they photo id my license number when I drive through an intersection, what is the probable cause that I was breaking the law? They do it because past actions of other drivers make it reasonable to assume that cars speed or drive dangerously at that intersection. The same holds true when they photo you or me at our ATM machine. There is no probable cause that either of us is a bank robber, but somehow they have the right to document our presence there not just by our bank transactions, but by our photographs. Or what gives your grocery store the right to collect information on you through your check cashing or ATM purchases and correlate that info with the time you shopped and what you bought, to determine if you are a beer and pretzels guy or a wine and cheese guy or perhaps a new mother buying baby diapers, all done not to catch bad guys but to gather target advertising data?

The point is Shipley, you don't know what is known about anyone who is on the list nor what might have triggered the monitoring in the first place. And, when they photo id my license number when I drive through an intersection, what is the probable cause that I was breaking the law? They do it because past actions of other drivers make it reasonable to assume that cars speed or drive dangerously at that intersection. The same holds true when they photo you or me at our ATM machine. There is no probable cause that either of us is a bank robber, but somehow they have the right to document our presence there not just by our bank transactions, but by our photographs. Or what gives your grocery store the right to collect information on you through your check cashing or ATM purchases and correlate that info with the time you shopped and what you bought, to determine if you are a beer and pretzels guy or a wine and cheese guy or perhaps a new mother buying baby diapers, all done not to catch bad guys but to gather target advertising data?

The point is Shipley, you don't know what is known about anyone who is on the list nor what might have triggered the monitoring in the first place. And, when they photo id my license number when I drive through an intersection, what is the probable cause that I was breaking the law? They do it because past actions of other drivers make it reasonable to assume that cars speed or drive dangerously at that intersection. The same holds true when they photo you or me at our ATM machine. There is no probable cause that either of us is a bank robber, but somehow they have the right to document our presence there not just by our bank transactions, but by our photographs. Or what gives your grocery store the right to collect information on you through your check cashing or ATM purchases and correlate that info with the time you shopped and what you bought, to determine if you are a beer and pretzels guy or a wine and cheese guy or perhaps a new mother buying baby diapers, all done not to catch bad guys but to gather target advertising data?

SLG,

Your examples are a lot different from listening in on one's phone calls or monitoring their email (without their knowledge).

Personally, if I'm asked for my phone number at check out, i won't give it. There are a lot of privacy issues with selling telephone information and personal transactions.

Specifically, your bankrobber analogy. Do you not see the difference between a company filming someone on their property and tapping someone's home telephone line?

I don't have a problem with tapping suspected terrorist's phone lines (i don't know exactly how much good it will do, but better safe than sorry). But, i would like to establish probably cause (per the IV amendment) before (or 72 hours after) the tap occurs. That's were the FISA court comes in. If 72 hours is not enough, go to Congress and lobby them to extend the period.

Tom says:

"....My concern is that we are tapping people who have nothing to do with terrorism without even trying to get warrants to do so.

Does that not concern you at all?"

We are? Who? Who says? Where do you get this "information"? What people who have nothing to do with terrorism? Who says no one ever tried to get warrants? Where is all this coming from?

We have monitored conversations of approximately 500 people. These people were not chosen at random. NSA did not throw darts at a map, or flip thorugh a phone book. NSA does not have people sitting in a van outside these peoples' homes, wearing head phones, waiting for them to call out.

Yes, it is possible that an innocent conversation might be monitored. And if that were to happen, then what?

The judicial review wouid, or at least should, sort that out---at least as well as a warrant court.

And if we DO spend a lot of time listening to Abdullah and his cousin chat about family matters, who suffers? Nothing heard in this monitoring can be used in a court of law.

You are the one failing to provide examples, or proof. You agree to probable cause, but don't define it. You say you worry about "eavesdropping" on innocent people, but you don't know who those innocent people might be, or even how they happened to come to the attention of the interceptors. The calls originate overseas, from known terrorists, and the only ones monitored are those people who have exhibited behavior sufficient to call attention to themselves, in a terrorist context. In other words, if Abdullah the Terrorist makes two calls to the US, one to his cousin who is active in anti-American rallies and actvities and one to me, the chances are that the call to me will not be monitored. Because I don't participate in anti-American activities, don't have a violent profile, and am not on a terrorist watch list.

If I were to be put on a terrorist watch list because of a call from Abdullah, I would not stay on it long, because an investigation would show that it had to have been a wrong number---I have nothing to hide.

If the monitoring has been abused, give us names, examples, proof. A hinky feeling that this president, more than any other, is going to use this power to indulge in voyeurism of some sort is, frankly, just silly.

And, again, clinging to the illusion that FISA is the only legal approach, or the best approach, or that it is quick and efficient, is in denial of the facts. So is the clinging to the old term of "wiretapping". It is not wiretapping, at least not in any known definition of that term.

And I did give you many examples of probable cause that could excuse police action regarding me, my car, or my house, all of which you ignore. So I repeat: If physical footprints in the snow leading from a burglarized house to my house constitute enough 'probable cause' for the police to enter without a warrant, then electronic footprints from a known enemy of our country, known to be active in his pursuit of the destruction of our country, leading to a telephone in New Jersey, constitute probable cause to find out what that conversation is about.

You have not given us your own acceptable definition of "terrorist" or of "probable cause" or much of anything else---just vague grumblings of what MIGHT happen, which happen to be based on your fear and/or hatred of our President.

Personally, I am a lot more worried about SLG's examples than what the NSA is up to. I don't give my right name or telephone number when I get a supermarket card, because I don't want to be monitored. I don't like the Big Brotherism of the cameras everywhere. I think the potential dangers of this level of, and acceptance of, day to day spying in every aspect of our lives is far more threatening to our civil rights than keeping an eye on people whose actions screan "Watch Out! I'm Dangerous!" and then add to that perception by communicating on a regular basis with other, even more, dangerous, people.

So I suggest you take a breath, take a pill, and cut back on exposure to Air America. A calm and rational evaluation of the facts, not the fears, would go a long way toward dispelling this paranoia----and I'll bet you disliked and distrusted Bush long before this came to light, making you far more vulnerable to emotional manipulation by those who depend on people like you. Well-meaning, for the most part, but easily led.

If you want something to worry about, the Weekly World Report had a front page story not too long ago about giant bats attacking airliners. They even had a picture. And they have much more cred than the New York Times.

Almiranta:
"Because making it public makes it non-functional."

FISA allows surveillance. Its public. You think that makes surveillance non-functional?

I'm not paranoid, and I don't think the Bush administration is using these powers for ill. I just don't think they should have them.

The IV amendment clearly states that the government needs to have a warrant fueld by probable cause to monitor citizens. Bush has admitted to not getting warrants when monitoring american citizens.

As for examples of probable cause? It really doesn't matter what I or anyone thinks if the Bush adminstration goes around the one check to make sure there is probable cause. As you know, our government works on a checks and balances system. We have a court set up as a check on the presidents power to monitor people in the US. He has gone around it.

RS is the only one who has given a defense as to why he did and why it's legal. I'm not sure if I agree, but it's a pretty solid point.

That is a simple look at facts.

I've been calm this entire thread, almiranta. Again, you're the one getting worked up.

First, I'm not sure why my replies are double posting, so apologies.

They aren't "tapping" phone lines, that's the point. They are looking for "triggers" and when those "triggers" are found, those calls are monitored. It is the triggers that need to be considered as to whether the search is reasonable or unreasonable not the monitoring itself. Your phone, or mine, or Grandma Whozits phone is not being monitored individually. Everyone is subject to being filtered through the triggers. At a bank or an intersection, every "body" triggers a photo, not just one who speeds or says to the clerk "give me all your money." What the NSA does is far far far less intrusive than what all of us are subject to each and every day as we go about our lives. If this were a law enforcement issue, I would liken it to being the stake out part of a surveillance where cops try to gather enough evidence to enter the property or get a warrant.

Tom,

I believe that the 4th is primarily designed to prevent the government from going on a fishing expedition...you know, just combing over some one's life and hoping to find something incriminating in there.

If this was what President Bush was trying to do, you'd find no one more outraged than I...but it is quite clear that President Bush has ordered the NSA to moniter enemy communications during wartime...and that is a vital task of the Commander in Chief under the Constitution of the United States.

Lurid rhetoric about "domestic spying" and scare stories about how our privacy is at risk are just fear-mongering, leftwing propaganda against President Bush in particular, but also against the United States in general. This isn't just about President Bush (though the Bush-haters have latched on to it like crack addict on to a cocaine shipment), but it is also part of a long-running leftwing effort to entirely denigrate the United States and everything it does.

Right now, Saddam's attorneys are filing suit against President Bush...it is no surprise, and it is entirely in keeping with the leftwing notion that it is all America's fault. You really should think carefully about the company you are keeping these days.

Funny how telling you somethng you don't want to hear gets turned into getting "all worked up". But I am the one looking at the facts, and not being steered by rabble rousers into making unfounded claims.

And your comment about the surveillance becoming non-functional is silly. If Abdullah is calling Achmed and discussing plans to blow up the Sears Tower, and then is informed that the NSA is monitoring all calls originating with known terrorists to terrorist associates in the United States, doesn't that information make the surveillance efforts "non-functional"? If you define non functional as meaning it doesn't work any more, of course it does. Because once the overseas terrorist knows we can, and do, monitor specific types of conversations, and/or conversations between certain people, he is going to alter his communications to avoid that surveillance.

Hope that simple analysis of the phrase 'non functional' and the explanation of how it applies to informing the enemy of our tactics is not too overwrought for you.

If you only knew any history, this would not be so hard for you. One example is the Enigma machine---a complicated coding machine used by the Germans during WW II. British code breakers broke the code, BUT THEY DIDN'T TELL ANYONE THEY HAD DONE SO. You see, Ship, they DID understand that if the Germans knew their communcations could be intercepted, they would stop using Enigma, and come up with a new way to send coded messages. We would no longer have the advantage of being able to listen in on them. The advantage we had gained by breaking the code would become non functional. The machines would still function---but the Germans wouldn't use them.

So many people understand this. I am always amazed at how many do not.

And, by the way, accusing a woman of being too emotional is also non functional, though a classic fallback position for those with nothing better to offer.

Still haven't answered any of my questions, either, have you?

Having read all the posts, you Lefty's have finally convinced me that you are on to something with the "possibly illegal" argument. You guys have nailed it and it sounds like you may have the goods on Bush.

I completely support your efforts to push this to the limit, go for broke...impeach, impeach, impeach.

This is going to be a winning strategy by November.

I'm sure the "possibly illegal" argument will really resonate with the voting public come election time. After all why would we want to know about some terrorist talking to his/her handlers overseas, when it might be "possibly illegal". Yup, no contest, that's a winner.

So keep riding that pony all the way to election day. I'm sure it will pay big dividends.

So you're gonna kill the messanger who reported that Bush was breaking the law?

Fascism: it's not just for breakfast anymore, it's the unspoken political philosophy of the Republican Party.

Almiranta: Are you afraid to leave your house, because that old lady down the street suspiciously waves at you? Do you think that strange kid who flings newspapers at your house, just might declare Jihad on your dog?

Should we wiretap her conversations with her grandchildren so you can stop wetting your bed? Should we indefinately detain your paperboy?

If bed wetting is why you support warrantless wiretapping, I can suggest a good chiropractor, and solve this thing right here and now. First and foremost though cut back on the coffee and stop being so paranoid, you're weirding me out.

For the rest of us, if a president broke the law he should be impeached, fair and simple.

DESPARATION: it's not just for breakfast anymore, it's the unspoken political philosophy of the DEMOCRATS Party.

Posted by: DAV at January 26, 2006 11:59 PM

Reporting a violation of the law is not breaking the law.

"Everyone is subject to being filtered through the triggers. At a bank or an intersection, every "body" triggers a photo, not just one who speeds or says to the clerk "give me all your money." What the NSA does is far far far less intrusive than what all of us are subject to each and every day as we go about our lives."

SG,

From what I understand of these triggers, they monitor thousands of people, the vast majority are everyday, law abiding citizens. To me, that's an lawfull search of someone's private affairs.

Another question is, if a trigger is hit, and they are monitored more closely, is a warrant then obtained? If so, does the court recognize the triggers as probable cause? Or is the FBI creating its own probable cause and acting on its own. If they are not getting a warrant after a trigger is hit, then it very much looks like a violation of the fourth amendment.

But even before that, using this technology on citizens without probable cause (ie a warrant), is a violation of that 1978 law and the IV amendment in my opinion.

Second, I don't think this program is probably all that effective. From what I've heard, AQ, if they do use phones, use disposable cell phones (maybe those can be monitored, but not that I know of).

But even if they are using monitorable lines, unless the US has an al Qaeda code book, i don't think they are going to get "triggers" that will ID active AQ members plotting in the US.

I just don't think they'll talking to each other on the phone saying "We're going to bomb the Sears Tower tomorrow as planned." In fact, I know they aren't doing that.

thus we're monitoring law-abiding citizens without warrants (violation of fourth amendment) on a fishing expidition that i can't see doing much good.

And as I said before, I don't think Bush and Co. are using this for nefarious acts. But others could in the future, heck he COULD in the next three years. Unless this type of activity has some sort of check on it, we as Americans won't know.

Wow, DAV, what brought all that on?

I'm a private person. I don't like being watched. If every person who is less than totally comfortable with having his/her shopping habits registered, or being on camera wherever he/she goes is as nuts as you try to portray me, we have a serious problem here. But I don't get all wound up about it. It's a fact of life in the world we live in.

But I was making a point, obviously way over your head, which is that the monitoring of selected people, who are selected because of their violent anti-American sentiments and their histories of active connections with known terrorists overseas, is not proof positive this how the administration is going to "eavesdrop"
or "spy" on us all. I made the point that most of us are completely comfortable with personal and intrusive data mining and surveillance of average people, on a day to day basis, and the only reason this particular thing has any legs is because certain elements feel it can be manipulated to scare people and create problems for the administration.

I believe I also made the point that when someone doesn't have a real point to make, he tends to fall back on insults and name calling. When done well, the name calling and personal insults can be fun or funny, even while proving the lack of a defensible position. Too bad yours are so lame Jihad on my dog? And bed-wetting?

However, you did make a point, however inadvertently, which is that when a president breaks the law, he should be punished. Too bad you can't make that retroactive. But for now, we have a president who did not break the law, though it does require an understanding of the law to realize that.

What is amusing is that the issues, the facts, have been printed in the many many responses to this post, and rather than address the facts or argue the issues, you had to resort to what is probably the best you have to offer, and make lame age/gender pseudo-jokes.

Tom, it is great to see you asking questions instead of making assertions.

Your question about whether or not a warrant is requested once monitoring is begun is an excellent one. Because the process was fairly open from the beginning---not publicized, but vetted through several lawyers and Senators---there is no reason to think that warrants have been deemed unnecessary at all, but I haven't heard anyone ask if they are eventually sought. I do know that the results of these intercepts are subjected to judicial review and scrutiny, and it seems that once that has happened, it would be a logical next step to go ahead and issue a warrant, as the review has already taken place. My understanding was that the need was for the ability to act quickly, in the moment.

You are also right about the Sears Tower comment---I just used that as an example of what could be a trigger, and I am sure there are certain words and phrases that are known to our intelligence people which would trigger attention. There are so many ways that hints could be dropped and information passed. I don't remember exactly what the phrasing was after 9/11, but the intercepted quotes we were given in the media were pretty clear without ever using the words World Trade Center. Once you have identified your terrorist and triangulated with known meetings and increased communication activity to indicate a coming action, even comments like "the package is on its way" can be significant enough to help head off a disaster.

Yes, Bush and/or his administration COULD misuse this ability. But the thing is, they always could----and so could every other president. Remember, Nixon had his Enemies List, and had Hoover dig up dirt on people he didn't like. Clinton enemies found themselves targeted by the IRS. Recently the Dems were mining SS numbers and credit info on people they didn't like. The fact is, there is so much information out there, in data banks all over the place, that are easily accessible by the government, that the risks of having something overheard and used in a telephone intercept are comparatively miniscule. It's a risk we have to live with, but have had to live with for a long time. And if this were to happen, I would be in total agreement with what I guess would be your position, which is that whoever did it should be punished.

It really does come down to trusting the man in office, and I think that is where so many get nervous---because of the intense efforts to convince people that this man in this office is a liar, a crook, and totally untrustworthy. And that is the real bottom line for what is, essentially a belief system---some believe he is a good man, some believe he is not.
And arguing belief systems is never very productive, and tends to get people all riled up.

FISA allows the president to conduct warrantless surveillance, without FISA approval, for 15 days after a declaration of war. A draft legislation sought to amend that section and expand its application to authorizations for the use of force, not just formal declarations. It may be that the 2003 draft legislation was a type of pre-emptive measure to protect the program. My suspicion is that the language was ultimately dropped because the administration feared the debate that would have resulted. I suspect the administration balanced the odds. Option #1: Kill the amendment, continue without the cover of law, and hope no one would find out about the program. Option #2: Proceed with the amendment, and hope it passes for legal cover. But if it failed to pass, then the administration would truly be screwed. If Congress rejected this amendment, it would have explicitly rejected the very conduct the administration was engaged in. Perhaps the administration went with Option #1 and rolled the dice.

Agh, what a mess. First off, thanks for article link, Retired Spook. Second, when you're writing this, Almiranta...

"Shipley---you got nothing. Nothing but an emotionally-based grievance against a guy you know only through the spittle-spattered rantings of ALF Ranken and Randi Rhodes and the like. Don't you realize we all know that if ALF starts in on his historically ignorant Bush-Worse-Than-Hitler rant, you robotic sheep will be writing to Mark and Matt about Bush being worse than Hitler? With absolute conviction, sincere as all get out in your ego-driven belief that you are, by dint of listening to drivel, somehow intellectually superior because you know the Real Truth. Good on you, Tommy Boy. Yeah, you got the inside scoop, the secret stuff, the dirt the rest of us aren't smart enough to figure out. Facts be damned, it just FEELS good to hate, and to be told who to hate, and what excuses you should give for hating. And if your buddies on AA assure you that you are smarter because you hate, then that's good---because no one has ever called you smart before."

...if does indeed mean you're the one getting "all worked up" - I would say frothing at the mouth. Tom's the one being polite here.
Also--

"At the very worst, the issue might be somewhat unclear and open to interpretation---and if that proves to be the case, I hope and pray for a President with the manly parts to do what is right for the country..."

If the issue is unclear and open to interpretation, then I hope and pray for an honest, open debate on the issue. Aside from RS's article, I haven't found one here. I would, however, like the President to talk with Congress about the FISA court and work on making a better system (this doesn't include simply ignoring the law - even with good reason, notifying Congress, then forbidding them to tell anyone).

"Tom - point me to even one American who has been unjustifiably monitored by the NSA and I'll take note...until then, you're just foolishly putting your country at risk because you don't like the President." - Mark Noonan

You know he'll never be able to do that. Asking the impossible isn't the same as refuting his argument. Also, I'm sick of the assumption that any time anyone questions Mr. Bush's actions, it's because they "don't like" him to the extent that they're willing to destroy America. Demonizing your political opponents is great for fundraising, horrible for real debate.

As a law profesor, I made an interesting observation about Article 38 of the Iraqi Constitution: it prohibits the kind of government spying that Bush claims as part of his "inherent authority" as Commander-in-Chief.

The freedom of communication, and mail, telegraphic, electronic, and telephonic correspondence, and other correspondence shall be guaranteed and may not be monitored, wiretapped or disclosed except for legal and security necessity and by a judicial decision.

The fact that the Iraqi constitution preserves more liberty for the Iraqi people than President Bush seems to think the U.S. Constitution preserves for its citizens is something I found puzzling, and I can't really think of a good explanation.