Centerfield

I have to wonder if people are beginning to realize that with the so called War on Terror probably lasting for decades, that maybe we should set the ground rules.

I'm in agreement with Simon, and like the Bob J. puts it. While we're at it, can we reset the ground rules for the war on drugs?

I would dispute the label "leading conservatives." Those guys are the far right. They're "leading conservatives" the way that Barbra Streisand and Cindy Sheehan are "leading liberals." In short, they're not mainstream conservatives.

I certainly hope there are investigations. It's my guess there will be, because otherwise Congress has to live in fear of a certain circus in November. They know there's is a real and sizeable moderate middle of people like me that thinks warrant/FISA-less wiretapping is wrong.

You know, Simon, as you already admitted, you ALREADY have a circus. This isn't just some made-up thing, like accusations of Bush arranging for the towers to be blown up. It's a continuing scandal, with considerable resonance among the American people.

And of course the NSA FISAless wiretapping was unconstitutional and contrary to freedom, and IMHO it was sheer denial on Bush' part that could see it any differently. It boils down to this: the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional. FISA was an attempt by Congress and the Clinton Administration to jointly set rules for national-security-related wiretapping that are consistent with the spirit of judicial assent for wiretapping. It in no way binds anybody - the unconstitutionality of unregulated wiretapping does that. Only SCOTUS can decide if it's the right binding precedent.

I think most of us understand, somewhere deep down, that some sort of limit (and FISA is a pretty trivial limit) is needed on executive wiretapping. It's neither right, nor safe to republican government.

After all, how did the existing wiretapping limitations, and the old limitations about sharing intelligence data come into being? Courtesy of reactions to the reality of CIA and J. Edgar Hoover's vast abuse of them, back before said restrictions were created. We don't need an NSA-for-life blackmailing elected officials!

It boils down to this: the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional. FISA was an attempt by Congress and the Clinton Administration to jointly set rules for national-security-related wiretapping that are consistent with the spirit of judicial assent for wiretapping.

Wrong in both particulars, Jon. You will not find a single USSC decision requiring a warrant for the gathering of foreign intelligence information by cross-border electronic surveillance. You WILL find USSC decisions affirming a constitutional authority of the executive to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance activities outside of the normal constraints placed on domestic law enforcement. And FISA dates to 1978, when Bill Clinton was first running for office--for governor of Arkansas. Clinton had precisely nothing to do with the writing of FISA.

FISA was Congress' attempt to place restrictions on executive authority in the wake of gross abuses on the part of J. Edgar's FBI and several administrations. Most notably Nixon's, but running clear back to FDR.

Whoops! You're right - I was wrong about FISA's start. Major braino there. Still, that mistake, IMHO, only weakened my point.

So, anyway, yes, of course you're right, there is respect in SCOTUS decisions for for national security concerns and cross-border surveillance. The cross-border surveillance exception, of course, is why Echelon keeps running, but of course doesn't apply to the domestic surveillance under contention. And isn't going through FISA instead of courts respect for national security concerns?

The cross-border surveillance exception, of course, is why Echelon keeps running, but of course doesn't apply to the domestic surveillance under contention.

Which domestic surveillance? Be specific.

I was on the phone the other day exchanging recipies for fava beans with one of my Islamist friends, and I could hear breathing on the line. I'm pretty sure it was George Bush.

Truth be told, Jon, I don't really care what the issue is or who the President is. I have a longstanding concern of the scope of the imperial Presidency (longstanding as in, since Andrew Jackson). In my view, if the House suspects a President has broken the law, it is the duty of the House to investigate that breach, and it makes no difference to me if it's Clinton committing perjury or Bush possbily violating FISA. That doesn't mean an impeachment must then issue, but it does mean that the House - the people's chamber - should be the primary watchdog over our only national elected officer.

Simon, it took you all the way to Jackson? C'mon, at least give the first Adams administration a nod!

Tully,
It seems to me (admittedly, my assesment rests primarly on John Ferling's Adams vs. Jefferson: the Tumultuous Election of 1800) that most of the mischief and outright abuse of power going on during the first Adams administration was Congressional mischief, more so than on the part of the President, the principle example being the Alien & Sedition Acts.

OTOH, since I've criticized President Bush for signing legislation he knew to be unconstitutional (prominently, BCRA) or should have known to be unconstitutional (e.g. NCLB), I suppose I shouldn't so readily excuse Adams of responsiblity for signing the Alien & Sedition Acts.

I could make the claim that Adams could not have done as he did without the help of his own party in Congress, helpfully passing legislation custom-tailored to thin out the ranks of Jefferson voters. (It backfired a bit.) It could not have happened without Adam's acquiescence. And Madison had his moments. But I was just needling--I agree about Jackson. I've always wondered how much of that behavior was re-directed anger from the bitterness of the campaign. But he's a good illustration of the two-out-of-three principle of federal powers dogfights--the SC went against him, but he had Congress on his side, so he prevailed.

The number of stills in the country suggest that some may still bear a wee grudge against Washington for the whiskey tax, and the resulting Whiskey Rebellion.

Not to be too picky about it, but the Alien Enemies Act and the Alien Friends Act are still federal law, are they not? AE was part of the basis for the internments of Japanese, German, and Italian residents during WW2, IIRC.