I also don't see why it was necessary, given the emergency provisions in sec. 1805, which allow the AG to authorize surveillance without a wiretap, provided he applies for a warrant within 72 hours. That, I would think, covers those situations in which an agency has to act too quickly to get a warrant, and it does so in the best way I can think of: allowing flexible government action while ensuring that a judge will have a chance to pass on the legitimacy of the surveillance.

Finally, about the question whether the use of force resolution counts as a 'declaration of war' under the statute: here I think it's relevant that FISA was written in 1978, after Korea, Vietnam, etc. The drafters could quite easily have said 'when the country is at war', and not 'following a declaration of war by the Congress'. They had to have been aware of the possibility of undeclared wars. That they chose to say 'following a declaration of war by thee Congress' seems more likely to be an intentional restriction than it would have been had FISA been drafted right after WW2, for instance.

President Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to conduct eavesdropping activities on those suspected of having al Qaeda links, who were in the U.S. making overseas phone calls and writing emails to people in other countries. The New...

(See my previous post here.) .... Is it time for the NSA to start monitoring communications between CIA and NYT employees? ...

Is your comment part of your Yankee Doodle, Red, white and Blue speech. If you don't care about securty and being blown up along with the rest of your family, then that is your right and I hardly expect you to respect my disagreement with you.

However, I do expect you to respect other Americans understanding and desire to have the securty from those who would destroy our way of life. If you are only thinking of yourself, then, take your high and mighty know it all thoughts and speeches elsewhere. There is no place for those who only think of themselves in wartime and cry out about the lack of your so called rights when we have those who are trying and doing everything possible to protect us.

This country was founded by men who had suffered the arbitrary power of government and who intended to protect against it. Conservatives used to honor the Founders' ideas as well as their memory, but as I've noted, there are few conservatives left in 2005.

You said:

"Consequently, doing the monitoring without legal authorty did nothing to improve US securty"

How do you know that securty was not improved?

It seems to me that that information was highly classified and if you know that your statement was fact by some inside method, then "You are devulging classified information"

I would assume that you are talking here with emotion and not fact.

Anderson: Why don't you close your clapper trap and realize that the entire program was to protect yourself as well as the American people from further terrorist attacks like 9/11. Or are one of those that would curse out the person who gave you a million dollars with no strings attached.

Some people are never happy with anything.

The requirement that a "United States person" not be a target is only one of 3 requirements. Note the word "and" at the end of 1802(a)(1)(B).

Subpart (A) excludes terrorist groups from its definition of "foreign powers." See sec. 1801.

So I guess I need explained to me how section 1802 legalizes what the WH has done.

So, in short, the President was doing his job, and doing so well within the bounds of the law. After BVill Clinton, it's understandable how Demorats would think this a scandal. It's unlike anything we've seen on his watch.

Serving in its’ customary role as maestro for the mainstream media, the New York Times today trumpeted the clarion call to all news organizations to create the illusion of a leading story for the weekend that would obscure and obfuscate the positive re...

President Bush has personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more

Consequently, doing the monitoring without legal autority did nothing to improve US security.

So the real point is that the administration broke the law for no apparent gain. Why? And of even more importance, why defend breaking the law when you can not even defend it on the grounds of US security?

Losers...