http://thenewlifeofnancy.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-have-never-knowingly-taken-steroid.html

re- “It is not that I don’t trust the operators at No Such Agency, actually I do. ”

Sure.

b2

I will even go so far as to say data that is merely “passing through” the US, originated from and destined for foreign lands may be fair game under certain circumstances.

It requires oversight. It is not that I don’t trust the operators at No Such Agency, actually I do. I don’t trust their politically appointed bosses. On this point, we may have to gentlemanly disagree.

Paul, the Constitution doesn’t anywhere that I can find state the power to “declare war” requires a “declaration of war.” When Congress voted to approve an authorization of military force, they used language – perhaps deliberately – that isn’t in the Constitution either.

Which is as much to argue that an AUMF is a kind of declaration of war, and no one has seriously argued otherwise. Or else how do we find ourselves continually rotating forces into combat going on seven years in Afghanistan, and five in Iraq?

The Constitution *is* however, clear on the Article II powers of the presidency in a time of war, and Congress’ only recourse is the power of the purse, oversight hearings and Title 10 regulation. Which ain’t nothin’.

Put another way, the Founders were unambiguously clear that there’s no room in the Constitution for a 535-man council of war to say you can *kind* of go to war, but that the president can’t gather intelligence on foreigners abroad.

Corporations aren’t evil for making money, and they already pay their taxes before the civil suits try to prise more away. And they aren’t evil – in my mind anyway – for acting in good faith to help protect America when the government asks.

I’m sympathetic to privacy concerns and the risk of untrammeled executive power in what seems to be a generational conflict. But the president threw Congress a bone on FISA to get it off the table and gave them a whole year to get their sh!t together on a matter of vital national interest. After a full year authorizing that which they had previously claimed to be patently illegal, they chose instead to spend the balance of the time given them in charades, theatrics and baseball hearings. Before going on recess and leaving the whole thing unsettled.

I’m sick of ‘em.

Nowhere that I can find in article 2 of the Constitution does it say the President gets to do what ever he wants. Further, we are not in a declared war, as defined by the Constitution. Congress did give the president broad powers to combat terrorism back in 2001, which should now be held out as a prime example of why it is bad to write blank checks.

Further, as stated already, an extension is ready to be signed at any time, while the details of the new bill are worked out. If you believe, as I do not, that we are in grave danger of a terrorist attack because the PAA has lapsed, the W himself is also accountable. By arrogantly refusing to sign the extension, he has also put us at risk, if there is one. The House is not a rubber stamp chamber of the Senate. Both institutions are equally in their right to debate, pass or fail to pass any legislation independently.

The FISA is about accountability and not allowing the government to have a blank check or giving huge mega rich telecommunications company’s a free pass.

It will be back in court again I assure you-seems to me there are two other issues that have to be explored-did the PAA violate the privacy laws and does the President have a blank check absent a Congressional declaration of war. Just means they will have to find a better legal vehicle.

As for Google and mouse clicks-that it seems to me proves my point about the danger. This is the same Google that gets on its knees for Communist China every day. What that does prove is that technology is easy to abuse without protections. E.G. go there and link to Cecilia Chung pictures and wait to join your compatriots in jail because both the government and the Triads don’t like you doing so.
That means it is between Congress and the President, which if past legislative battles are anything in the way of an indicator, the House will fold like a cheap suit when they come back. So not to worry. However NSA will still have a few million records it never had a right to, and now does not have to explain why it has them or what it did with them.

President Obama will enjoy having access to domestic files as well.

MOOT POINT ALERT! The Supreme Court recognized the point I made earlier, that this is not the court’s fight. Now, they made a point by picking this particular case to wave off on, but most importantly they recognize this is a squabble between the executive and the legislative to resolve, not the judicial. If Congress doesn’t like how the President is interpreting their laws, then they can write the laws to preclude his interpretation, or take away his money, or any one of a number of enumerated Constitutional actions. I may be wrong, but the way I read the result of the Supreme’s Court action is that the President is not bound to refer any wiretapping decision to the FISA Court. Maybe I’m wrong, but I can’t help but think… How do you like them apples, Nancy?

By choosing this case to bow out on, however, they have left the second highest appeals court as the court of record–the President broke no laws and acted within his authority.

As for the alleged contractual agreements between telecoms and their customers, there’s a lot of fine print in there. You know, doubleclick and Google collect more on you in a week than NSA probably ever has, even in those “vacuum cleaners” they’re always said to be operating. Under the circumstances, though, I’ll put my money on the telecoms’ hired guns versus the trial lawyers’ associations guns.

Zane out. And B2, thanks for the vote of confidence.