"Err, ahh... on second thought."

AMEN!

Posted by RD at March 15, 2006 11:46 AM

Let me make it very easy so that even you can understand: "The right of the people to be secure in thier persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

Last time I checked, not only doesn't the president have any "inherent" wiretapping powers under Article Two of the Constitution, but the Fourth Amendment trumps Article Two!

The issue is not whether such wiretapping should take place, but rather whether it can take place in defiance of a law passed by Congress (and signed by the President), and in violation of the Fourth Amendment. You want to live in a country where the President has the inherent power to do whatever he wants in his own discretion without independant judicial review, move to North Korea (or elect Saddam Hussein our next president).

Posted by Etaoin Shrdlu at March 15, 2006 7:29 PM

I see you are not making any international calls that show up on your bill, but really don't you think this "If you don't like it move" motif is getting a bit worn and tattered after the first fifty or so years of use? Perhaps something new and fresh would be a bit more, well, crisp.

Posted by Gerard Van der Leun at March 15, 2006 9:58 PM

Perhaps something new and fresh would be a bit more, well, crisp.

Speaking of tired, old, rhetoric, your "I'm all right jack" attitude went out with the British Empire. Apparently, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights only matter to you when it's your rights being trampled on. Trouble is, how can you tell that's not happening now?

Remember, we only have Bush's word for it on how this program is being used, and the basis for the decision whether to wiretap or not is mere suspicion. It would be nice if only members of Al Queda were spied on, but judging from the (only available) evidence that simply isn't so.

So, please stop avoiding the real issue: does the President have the inherent power to ignore statutory law and the Constitution? By the way, if you answer yes, then you won't have to move. We'll be on our way to a nice little dictatorship of our own.

Posted by Etaoin Shrdlu at March 15, 2006 10:42 PM

When 30 self-described partisans were presented with contradictory quotes about the candidates (President Bush supporting, then denouncing Ken Lay; Sen. John Kerry supporting, then denouncing a Social Security overhaul), it was the portions of the brain that process emotion, not rational thinking, that became active. "The thinking caps went off and the feeling caps went on," is how Westen put it to me." -- Is This Column Futile? - CBS News

And, with cap firmly off, I would say that if you wish to go out and find a dictatorship, even a proto-dictatorship around here, you'd best pack a lunch.

One way or another, your move.

Posted by Gerard Van der Leun at March 16, 2006 12:10 AM

MOST of us Cheeseheads can understand it just fine.

Posted by laurie at March 16, 2006 1:38 PM

You draw a distinction between intra- and international communications. So far so good, but-

That sort of distinction- discriminating between investigations genuinely aimed at real threats and the kind of politically-motivated shindies which secret police agencies have been getting up to since Fouche's day- is precisely what the FISA mechanism was designed to draw.

If the criterion for eavesdropping is reduced to "the will of the President", which is what all this garble about "inherent powers" is aimed at achieving, then what mechanism is there to ensure that the eavesdroppers stay on the straight and narrow with regard to the rights of the citizen? The goodness of their hearts?

Even if you can somehow convince yourself that the current administration would just never use the powers they keep arrogating to themselves for shady purposes like suppressing domestic political opposition, a good way to keep the issue in perspective is to imagine the same powers being wielded by an administration which you do not support.

Have you stepped away from the Kool-Aid long enough to do that?

Posted by Ktesibios at March 16, 2006 1:52 PM

"Eek! Hillary is actually using the powers of the presidency to SPY ON AL QAEDA MEMBERS! To listen to their phone calls! And...and...I can hardly believe it... she's doing this EVEN WHEN THEY'RE PHONING SOMEONE IN AMERICA! Even if we're not absolutely, 100% certain that the person they're calling is a terrorist in place, rather than, say, the AQ member's sainted old mother in Dearborn! My God. If I'd only known..."

Well, no. I find myself not shuddering with horror at the thought of a Democratic president doing the same. In fact, I find myself feeling some relief at the thought.

Posted by jaed at March 20, 2006 2:59 PM

(Gerard, your spamfilter thinks a bl*gsp*t URL is questionable content. Just by way of noting this.)

Posted by jaed at March 20, 2006 3:00 PM