The program is still illegal. It may be that the controls in place mitigate privacy concerns, but the NSA's program still violates the law. So you can forget about Bush being proven right on the legality of the program: it's still illegal, and will continue to be so until Congress takes action to legalize it.
Thanks for the comment, but you are incorrect (IMO). For a common-sense reason why tapping international phone calls to terrorist enclaves is (and always has been) legal, see:
Nationa Defense 101
I believe I addressed your post in its comment section. To reiterate, then: but for the fact that Congress has banned warrantless wiretapping, it would be constitutional. However, Congress did ban the procedure, so Bush is violating federal law.
Congress can't override the Constitution without following the appropriate process. Furthermore, every President since Wilson has had unfettered ability to monitor international communications.
As far as the smell test goes, you're saying it's okay for the Government to search my possessions, detain me, and otherwise impede my progress through a border -- but can't scrutizine my electronic communications?
Well, that makes about as much sense as anything else that Democrats tend to advocate. Anti-missile defense, anti-anti-Communism, anti-Welfare Reform Act of 1996, anti-Social Security repair, etc.
you're saying...the Government...can't scrutizine my electronic communications?
I'm not saying that; Congress said that. They make the rules. If they say the President can't wiretap w/o warrant, then he can't. If they were to say your possessions couldn't be searched on entering the country, then they couldn't be. If Wilson could do something along these lines, it only because Congress hadn't prohibited him from doing so.
The Constitution vests the legislative power - the ability to make these rules - in the Congress. That means that when they say the President can't do something, he can't. He can only carry out the powers that are expressly vested in him by the Constitution or, more commonly, delegated to him by the Congress.
You may benefit from learning about our government and its legal structure. It's interesting stuff, and you get hopelessly confused discussing the relevant issues.
You may benefit from learning about our government and its legal structure
Actually, in a time of war the President has constitutional powers to protect this nation. These are powers that liberals in Congress wish to abrogate and deny, but that instead violates the constitution itself.
Period.
The NSA program has now been confirmed as simply a threat assessment tool. That is, international communications to/from known terrorist numbers are automatically monitored to determine a threat level.
If the threat appears significant, escalation occurs.
Unfortunately, it's clear that most liberals hate President Bush more than they hate terrorists.
Actually, in a time of war the President has constitutional powers to protect this nation.
Show me the ***expletive deleted*** "protect the nation" clause, then. Should be easy.
...Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states..."
So the jist of what you're saying: the President can order an entire city in Afghanistan blown to bits (in order to protect and defend)... but can't listen into a satellite-phone in that city that happens to dial up someone in New York City.
Uhm. Right. Ohhhhhhhhhlrighty then.
And, please, watch your language. I do not wish to censor your remarks, but kids read this blog.
Thank you.
Commenting by HaloScan
