Originally posted by Coredweller
That "line" is called THE LAW. It has already been crossed. Just like Eiksirf said, if the current laws don\'t permit adequate wiretapping to protect the public, then change the law so that it\'s easier. The Republican party controls the damn government; how hard can it be?
It\'s crazy to argue that this hasn\'t been proven illegal. There is a procedure in place for obtaining warrants, and it doesn\'t take 72 hours. Bush could have ordered wiretaps, and obtained a warrant AFTER the information was collected. This is all covered under FISA. There was no hinderance to the speed that the wiretaps could be completed. Obviously there must have been ANOTHER reason that the Bush administration didn\'t want to go through the FISA court. Perhaps because the wiretaps were unnecessary and the warrants might have been denied? I don\'t know. In any case, he did not obtain warrants, and therefore it was illegal.
Once again you are wrong. I guess some don\'t fully understand that we are at war.
President Bush has broken no laws in ordering the National Security Agency to conduct selected wiretaps without warrants, the DOJ argued. On the contrary, Bush has acted fully within his authority as the commander-in-chief of a nation at war and the "sole organ" for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, the DOJ stated in a 42-page white paper on the issue.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/nation/epaper/2006/01/20/a14a_nsa_0120.htmlAs for your claim to change the law and the waiting period:
[Excerpt]
Victoria Toensing in yesterday\'s Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece (sub. req\'d so no link) that takes on critics of the Bush administration\'s NSA surveillance program. She points out, among other things, the folly of two of the most often heard arguments peddled by critics: 1) you can always go back and get a FISA warrant 72 hours after placing the tap; and 2) why did the president not ask Congress to change the FISA law.
Even if time were not an issue, any emergency FISA application must still establish the required probable cause within 72 hours of placing the tap. So al Qaeda agent A is captured in Afghanistan and has agent B\'s number in his cell phone, which is monitored by NSA overseas. Agent B makes two or three calls every day to agent C, who flies to New York. That chain of facts, without further evidence, does not establish probable cause for a court to believe that C is an agent of a foreign power with information about terrorism. Yet, post 9/11, do the critics want NSA to cease monitoring agent C just because he landed on U.S. soil?
Why did the president not ask Congress in 2001 to amend FISA to address these problems? My experience is instructive. After the TWA incident, I suggested asking the Hill to change the law. A career Justice Department official responded, "Congress will make it a political issue and we may come away with less ability to monitor." The political posturing by Democrats who suddenly found problems with the NSA program after four years of supporting it during classified briefings only confirms that concern.
It took 9/11 for Congress to pass the amendment breaking down the "wall," which had been on the Justice Department\'s wish list for 16 years. And that was just the simple tweak of changing two words. The issues are vastly more complicated now, requiring an entirely new technical paradigm, which could itself become obsolete with the next communications innovation.
