From: "Steve Ewing" 

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 23:57:46 -0500, Jeff Shultz
 wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 17:49:28 -0500, Robert Comer wrote:
>
>> You either have checks and balances like our government was intended to
>> be, or you have what Phil is talking about.......
>
> Interestingly enough, both the Democrat and Republican leadership in
> congress were briefed into this program early on.
>
> They didn't notice any problems with it.
>
> So far _real_ experts on constitutional law and FISA, unlike Phil, are
> still sliding back and forth between whether this was legal... or could
> simply be validly argued as legal.

The few that were briefed, were "briefed": they were given an
overview, and then prohibited from saying anything about it to anyone. 
Even if they had problems with it, and they did, they couldn't do anything
about it.

The real issue is not with the wiretaps themselves, were they legal, were
they not: after all, we are still not clear on what was really going on.
What *is* the issue is that by bypassing the FISA court, the administration
was breaking the law.  They had the ability, under the FISA law, to begin
wiretaps immediately with up to 72 hours to apply for a retroactive
warrant.  So much for the timeliness argument.  They just decided, the hell
with it, and decided not to even bother asking.  Why? Were they afraid it
would not be approved?  Even Ashcroft had reservations, and the initial NYT
article reported how the program was modified to ameliorate officials'
concerns.

The bottom line is that the President decided, on the say-so of people he
appointed in his administration, that he has the right to bypass the law
whenever he damn well feels like it.

Look at the signing statement on the McCain torture amendment: essentially
it says, "I am signing this, but reserve the right to ignore it. 
National Security!  9-11!  9-11!"

--
Steve 
http://www.qmss.com/~sewing

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5