i find the issue mediapooched but straightforward. i don’t think anyone is changing the constitution. most consider it a living document, though.

listening critically to american media is arguably more work than it’s worth, and than most minds can skillfully handle. i don’t consider myself up to it, anyway. listening gives one an impression that the USA is 9/10 left, (sorry—i should say BLUE to avoid speaking over the viewing audience’s head), and they’ve taken to using Mike Moore style “proof” almost exclusively. it’s a tangled logical minefield. go there for propaganda, not truth, is my advice.

if they could get away with it, the media would describe his nosepicking as impeachworthy, but they settle for only slightly less irresponsible commentary.

the libertarian in me hates knowing i could be spied on, but my safety during war is (surprisingly?) capable of superceding that.

“Give me liberty, or give me a slight theoretical decrease in the already microscopic risk I face from terrorism. On second thought, forget about liberty.”

Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the president power to do such activities, which were congressionally approved. Also, the interceptions were not domestic, they were international, involving one party outside the country. Get a clue.

In 2002, the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review also upheld the president’s warrantless search powers referencing a 1980 court decision. Also, in 2002, a Justice department brief also confirmed this power. 1973’s United States v. Brown and 1978’s United States v. Humphrey — both appellate decisions — upheld the president’s authority to perform warrantless wiretaps in foreign intelligence.

So, as I see it, the real power play here is between congress and the executive branch… hence the reason Arlen Spector is pushing for hearings next month. I don’t think you will see much develop from this. Even Tom Daschle was briefed on this in 2002 and 2004 only got his panties in a wad recently when the story got hyped up by the media.

Of course, I guess if Bush hadn’t done any wiretaps at all and the US was attacked, the left would argue that he didn’t use his powers to properly protect the country.

Gimme a break!

Ya, I love you comparing Bush to Bin Laden too… hope we don’t interrupt your Osama hug-fest….

But, the media in the States is describing the event as impeachworthy.

Also, I’m absolutely not an Osama supporter. You have to admit, though, that the actions of the Administration are either feeding into Osama’s Big Plans, or amplifying their effect.

Osama wouldn’t have given two shits about the States if there weren’t US troops in Saudi Arabia. That’s what has his panties in a bunch, and everything else since the late ’80s is just gravy for him.

I can’t say if the wiretaps are legal or not – that’s up to you folks to decide – but it sure looks like an erosion of the constitution from where I stand, which kinda makes me wonder what the fighting is over. If it’s for freedom, wouldn’t the constitution be a little more untouchable?