# NSA Eavesdropping Program Ruled Unconstitutional **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 17, 2006, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120 "2006-08-17T18:44:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/61 "2006-08-18T19:57:20Z")
[QUOTE=Hamlet] How about a nice bottle of wine, to be shipped to the winner, on only the TSP issue. If it’s reversed for standing or state secret, we’ll call it wash. Good enough? [/quote] Done – although last time I tried to bet wine, we had some trouble shipping the bottle. We ended up having the winner buy the wine and let the loser know the cost. That saved on shipping costs and problems, but preserved the “wine, not cash” aspect of the wager. > [@](#): > > Where do you stand on the TSP issue? Was the judge right? If the case survives to get to the merits, SHOULD she be reversed? No. On the merits, the plaintiffs should prevail. (I say this based on my understanding of what the factual record would contain if this went to trial, of course). ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/62 "2006-08-18T20:04:28Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Done – although last time I tried to bet wine, we had some trouble shipping the bottle. We ended up having the winner buy the wine and let the loser know the cost. That saved on shipping costs and problems, but preserved the “wine, not cash” aspect of the wager. [/quote] Done and done. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/63 "2006-08-18T20:06:53Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] The location of the court challenge makes me wonder who is fronting the ACLU challenge. It would not surprise me to find out that our enemies are using our own legal system against us. [/QUOTE] The ACLU wisely chose a court that has been sympathetic to challenges to wiretapping. Then they put together a crew of plaintiffs that could stand up to any challenge as to their standing in the case. Did a pretty good job, they did. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/64 "2006-08-18T20:09:44Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] The location of the court challenge makes me wonder who is fronting the ACLU challenge. [/QUOTE] What’s Detroit got to do with this? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/65 "2006-08-18T20:14:40Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] No, I’m implying that they are pawns representing the interests of terrorists. [/QUOTE] :dubious: WTF? The ACLU is the ACLE. They weren’t “pawns” of the Nazis back in '78. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/66 "2006-08-18T20:21:51Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] :dubious: WTF? The ACLU is the ACLE. They weren’t “pawns” of the Nazis back in '78. [/QUOTE] I hate Illinois Nazis. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/67 "2006-08-18T20:26:09Z")
Has anyone found a decent independent analysis of the merits of this ruling? I swear, I have found _nothing_ on the internets in the way of news or exegesis that has anything more insightful to say on the subject than “Democrats Go ‘Nyah!’, Republicans Say ‘This Blows!’” Commentary from our fearless leaders amounts to “This is a wonderful ruling! Civil liberties rock!” and “This is a horrible ruling! The terrorists will win!” WTF has this got to do with the constitutionality of anything? I’d be grateful for any good cites. Thanks in advance. ---
**Author:** ![Jurph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jurph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jurph)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/68 "2006-08-18T20:36:52Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] What’s Detroit got to do with this? [/QUOTE] **Magiver** is referring to the fact that Dearborn MI has a large (the largest in the US?) Arab-American population, and by extension, is home to lots of “our enemies”. He makes two leaps: one, that Arab-Americans and/or Muslims from Michigan are helping the ACLU defend this case (seems likely enough) _and_ that those same people are in turn receiving their money from terrorist organizations (not sure if I buy that). I don’t care who they are, though; if they’re American citizens, and their rights are being infringed on the basis of Arab-American ethnicity, then statistics says they’re going to be from California, New Jersey, or Michigan. I hate the “bad guys” that the ACLU sometimes represents, but the ACLU enforces The Rules. Given a choice between “bad guys” and a government that can ignore its constitution as it pleases, I’ll side with the bad guys every time. Hell, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, but I never read where it said I had to support or defend the President’s opinions. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/69 "2006-08-18T20:55:27Z")
[QUOTE=Loopydude] Has anyone found a decent independent analysis of the merits of this ruling? I swear, I have found _nothing_ on the internets in the way of news or exegesis that has anything more insightful to say on the subject than “Democrats Go ‘Nyah!’, Republicans Say ‘This Blows!’” Commentary from our fearless leaders amounts to “This is a wonderful ruling! Civil liberties rock!” and “This is a horrible ruling! The terrorists will win!” WTF has this got to do with the constitutionality of anything? I’d be grateful for any good cites. Thanks in advance. [/QUOTE] [Jack Balkin](http://balkin.blogspot.com/) a Constitutional Law Professor at Yale (and his guest bloggers) are a good resource and they generally avoid partisan hackery. It’s a good spot to start. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/70 "2006-08-18T20:56:10Z")
Thank You! ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/71 "2006-08-18T21:07:51Z")
[QUOTE=Oakminster] So only terrorists believe in the Bill of Rights? Dude, if you seriously take that position, then the “War” (which has never been declared) is over, and we lost. We either have a free society governed by the rule of law, or we all hide under the covers and hope Papa George will protect us from the Boogeyman. [/QUOTE] It’s perfectly logical for enemies of the United States to avail themselves of free representation by the ACLU. and “Papa George” goes away in 2 years, do you think the terrorists are going away? [QUOTE=Oakminster] The problem with the whole “War on Terror” is that the continued existence of this nation has never been at stake–well, at least not to the terrorists. They can crash a thousand airplanes into a thousand buildings, and the country will still be here. The freedoms we have are too precious to be surrendered just because some radical with a bomb might want to do something stupid. Yeah, you or I could die in the next terrorist attack. Or we could get run over by a bus, or drop dead of a heart attack. The world is a dangerous place. That is not a reason to throw away freedom. [/QUOTE] I disagree. I think the continued existence of the United States is in danger. Not in the sense of a loss of land or people but in a way of life. 9/11 did a half trillion dollar damage to the economy with no cost to the combatants. The weapons used were our own aircraft and the tickets were purchased using credit cards. Do the math on what is possible with the level of terrorist training available. Everything we do, EVERYTHING WE DO, relies on the uninterrupted flow of oil, gas, and electrical resources. Given the acts of terrorism that have occurred around the world there is a demonstrated history of what is possible. There is no limit to what a terrorist will do and there is no way to punish a suicide murderer. I’ve never disagreed with the need to keep a watch on personal freedoms but I also understand what is needed to fight terrorism. If you read my earlier post through you should acknowledge the logic behind the need for real-time spying. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/72 "2006-08-18T21:17:32Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] It’s perfectly logical for enemies of the United States to avail themselves of free representation by the ACLU. and “Papa George” goes away in 2 years, do you think the terrorists are going away? [/quote] Got any proof? If not, then you’re just making shit up. > [@](#): > > I disagree. I think the continued existence of the United States is in danger. Not in the sense of a loss of land or people but in a way of life. 9/11 did a half trillion dollar damage to the economy with no cost to the combatants. The weapons used were our own aircraft and the tickets were purchased using credit cards. Do the math on what is possible with the level of terrorist training available. > > Everything we do, EVERYTHING WE DO, relies on the uninterrupted flow of oil, gas, and electrical resources. Given the acts of terrorism that have occurred around the world there is a demonstrated history of what is possible. There is no limit to what a terrorist will do and there is no way to punish a suicide murderer. I’ve never disagreed with the need to keep a watch on personal freedoms but I also understand what is needed to fight terrorism. If you read my earlier post through you should acknowledge the logic behind the need for real-time spying. So, how does the constitution fit into that outlook? As many of us have said, there is no reason the administration can’t go to Congress and get the authorization they need. Congressional Republicans and Democrats have practically begged him to do so. I see no indication that he’d have a problem getting changes to the laws that are necessary for the protection of the US. And it ain’t that hard to get a FISA warrant anyway. Your whole argument is based on the erroneous assumption that the constitution and our laws are an impediment to our national security. They needn’t be, and in this case they aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/73 "2006-08-18T22:17:09Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Got any proof? If not, then you’re just making shit up. [/QUOTE] Got proof of my opinion on what is logical? That’s my opinion. What is not logical about terrorists using free resources to slow down the process of stopping them? [QUOTE=John Mace] So, how does the constitution fit into that outlook? As many of us have said, there is no reason the administration can’t go to Congress and get the authorization they need. Congressional Republicans and Democrats have practically begged him to do so. I see no indication that he’d have a problem getting changes to the laws that are necessary for the protection of the US. And it ain’t that hard to get a FISA warrant anyway. Your whole argument is based on the erroneous assumption that the constitution and our laws are an impediment to our national security. They needn’t be, and in this case they aren’t. [/QUOTE] A FISA warrant doesn’t mean anything if you can’t do it in real time. With programs like Echelon we’ve had the capacity to data-mine large numbers of communications. You’re treating it like it’s possible to tag one data stream, get a warrant, and proceed to follow it as a useful lead. It can’t be done that way because modern technology has advanced beyond that time frame. It would be like playing tennis and waiting on the line judge to determine if a 100 mph serve was in bounds before you hit it. IMO, the only real solution is to do a post mortem evaluation of warrantable material. FISA should be able to do that know without a bunch of political BS interference. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/74 "2006-08-18T22:32:48Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] Got proof of my opinion on what is logical? That’s my opinion. What is not logical about terrorists using free resources to slow down the process of stopping them? [/quote] Youre’ equating “possible” with “logical”. Yes, it’s possible that some of that may be happening, but it’s not logical at all. For it to be the logical reason, it would have to be most likely, which it isn’t. Surely you’re not going to say that only terrorists oppose this action. > [@](#): > > A FISA warrant doesn’t mean anything if you can’t do it in real time. With programs like Echelon we’ve had the capacity to data-mine large numbers of communications. You’re treating it like it’s possible to tag one data stream, get a warrant, and proceed to follow it as a useful lead. It can’t be done that way because modern technology has advanced beyond that time frame. It would be like playing tennis and waiting on the line judge to determine if a 100 mph serve was in bounds before you hit it. > > IMO, the only real solution is to do a post mortem evaluation of warrantable material. FISA should be able to do that know without a bunch of political BS interference. Data mining is only part of it. But if the prez feels he needs to data mine, then get legilsation passed to allow him to do so. His own party controls both house of Congress, for Christ’s sake. And the Democrats haven’t been exactly throwing up barriers either. Bush just doesn’t want to be bothered with constraints. Now, I’m not the kind of Bushwhacker that’s going to say he’s doing that because he’s evil and secretly wants to spy on Americans. I don’t think that’s the case at all. I’m sure he thinks he’s doing what’s best for the country, in the name of national security. But that doesn’t change the fact that we are governed by the rule of law, not the opinions of the executive branch. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/75 "2006-08-18T22:44:50Z")
Sorry about the delay. When I tried to post ealier I got the old “this page is currently unavailable” message. That’s been happening a lot lately and if I were a barbeque pit fan I’d say something about it there. [QUOTE=John Mace] I think the administration is referring to the AUMF right after 9/11/01, not the Iraq war AUMF. I still don’t buy that, but just a note of correction. Even the Democrats in Congress have said: Tell us how you need the law changed, and we’ll change it. Somehow that’s not good enough for Bush-- he seems to think that any law will tie his hands in some way or another. Interestingly, though, the article about this in my paper today (San Jose Merc) indicated that there was good chance the 6th Circuit Appeals Court would overturn this ruling. [/QUOTE] That was probably the authorization I had in mind rather than the Iraq thing. In any case, I doubt that many members thought they were authorizing anything but the use of military force. Even in that case, the president is Commader in Chief only within the bounds set by Congress which has the authorty to “make rules for the government of the [armed] forces.” This should include the authority to make rules concerning the gathering of intelligence. I’m surprised at that speculation about the 6th Court overturing the decision which seems based on the ideology of the court. I always thought an appeals court looked for errors in application of the law to the case at hand and stuff like that. I can’t comment on that through ignorance, but it does appear that the District Court thoroughly broke down the case and addressed all of the points raised. > [@Magiver](#): > > > [@David Simmons](#): > > > > I’ll again say that if FISA’s application actually hinders the gathering of intelligence because of some hitch in obtaining a warrant for a wiretap then the proper course is to go to Congress and tell them about it. And there was, and continues to be, opportunity for the President to do that. I don’t believe it is necessary to break the law and trample the constitution in order to organize and maintain a proper national defence. If such extraordinary measures are necessary then our system contains a fatal flaw and can’t be maintained in any case. > > I agree. It would be logical to take it to Congress were it not for the fact that it is a politically charged issue. Yes, it would certainly be a highly unusual departure from the norm for Congress to deal with a politically charged issue. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Times change and so has the art of information gathering. This is not 1950 when criminal activity was traced to a location (which never moved) and wire taps were something that could be done over time. In the age of lightspeed communication it is now possible to connect to anyone anywhere for pennies on the dollar. Disposable cell phones can be used for a single call and then thrown away. What is required now is real-time data-mining. It is the acquisition of the message (and not the messenger) that brings criminal activity to light. This is what programs like Echelon do successfully. It’s simply not feasible to track communications around the world (in real time) if 20 warrants are needed for each of 20 phone calls that take place in 10 minutes. And the court said that data mining was covered under the protection of official secrets doctrine. The thing that was ruled against was the wiretap of particular domestic telephones without a warrant when there is a regular, authorized pocedure on the books to get one. > [@](#): > > During a time of war, against an enemy that has no rules or physical location, it is critical that we keep up with the technology that is used against us. There are no Queensbury rules of terrorism so we are forced confront our enemies under the constraints of our own political system. The location of the court challenge makes me wonder who is fronting the ACLU challenge. It would not surprise me to find out that our enemies are using our own legal system against us. I don’t believe that this is a war but rather a criminal activity and criminals have been hiding behind constitutional protections for a long time without the sky falling. Look, the constant theme of GW is that I need these powers to protect you. I think this is disingenuous by giving the thoughtless the idea that they, personally, are protected. If terrorism is a criminal activity as I maintain then the best we can expect is to keep it at an acceptable level as is the case with any crime. We expect a certain number of robberies, rapes, assaults and murders in any year and in return for maintaining our freedom from excessive official intrusion we accept that. On the other hand, if this is really a war then we have to expect and accept a certain level of civilian casualties and damage to civilian property since those are the enemy’s targets. No politician dare say that so I don’t fault GW for not doing so. The problem that I see is that he claims emergency war powers in what he himself says will be a generation long struggle. You simply can’t maintain an emergency stance indefinitely and still have a constitutionally regulated US. We have to make up our minds to either accept casualties or an all powerful executive. I’ll vote for the first alternative. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/76 "2006-08-18T23:23:34Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Youre’ equating “possible” with “logical”. Yes, it’s possible that some of that may be happening, but it’s not logical at all. For it to be the logical reason, it would have to be most likely, which it isn’t. Surely you’re not going to say that only terrorists oppose this action. [/QUOTE] No, I’m equating logic with logic. Terrorists are funded by, and fronted by legitimate organizations. It is logical that they would use a free legal resource to their advantage. In fact, it fits the 9/11 MO of using the resources of the United States (airplanes) against it’s own citizens. And surely, I didn’t say anything to suggest that only terrorists oppose this action or I would be accusing you of being a terrorist. It would be like saying the passengers on the 9/11 aircraft were terrorists. I’m saying that terrorists are using our own resources against us. [QUOTE=John Mace] Data mining is only part of it. But if the prez feels he needs to data mine, then get legilsation passed to allow him to do so. His own party controls both house of Congress, for Christ’s sake. And the Democrats haven’t been exactly throwing up barriers either. Bush just doesn’t want to be bothered with constraints. Now, I’m not the kind of Bushwhacker that’s going to say he’s doing that because he’s evil and secretly wants to spy on Americans. I don’t think that’s the case at all. I’m sure he thinks he’s doing what’s best for the country, in the name of national security. But that doesn’t change the fact that we are governed by the rule of law, not the opinions of the executive branch. [/QUOTE] I don’t think this discussion is directed toward the type of data mining in question. It’s not about predetermined queries on a particular person or persons. That kind of surfing can easily be handled through warrants. What is in question is the statistical mining of information to creat the leads needed to track information in real time. They are conceptually different and need to be treated as such. Maybe I’m not making myself clear enough. I could give a rats ass about Bush’s role in this. He’s gone in 2 years and he gets to take a security detail with him. I’ll still be here with nothing but a pen knife in my pocket. I’m not worried about people listening in on my phone conversations. I don’t see it happening. I’m worried about terrorists attacking the infrastructure of my country. I WANT the NSA hunting terrorists to the best of its abilities. Just today on the news there was a story about 2 bombs planted on German trains in late July (why is it just now making the news?). They failed to go off. It would have been Spain all over again. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/77 "2006-08-18T23:30:33Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] A FISA warrant doesn’t mean anything if you can’t do it in real time. With programs like Echelon we’ve had the capacity to data-mine large numbers of communications. You’re treating it like it’s possible to tag one data stream, get a warrant, and proceed to follow it as a useful lead. It can’t be done that way because modern technology has advanced beyond that time frame. It would be like playing tennis and waiting on the line judge to determine if a 100 mph serve was in bounds before you hit it. IMO, the only real solution is to do a post mortem evaluation of warrantable material. FISA should be able to do that know without a bunch of political BS interference. [/QUOTE] FISA allows exactly that! Do you even know anything at all about this subject? FISA specifically allows for the warrant to be filed for with 72 hours _following_ the start of the tap. It’s old, it’s tired, but it’s still applicable: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” The Founding Fathers weep… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/78 "2006-08-18T23:44:24Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] Maybe I’m not making myself clear enough. I could give a rats ass about Bush’s role in this. He’s gone in 2 years and he gets to take a security detail with him. I’ll still be here with nothing but a pen knife in my pocket. I’m not worried about people listening in on my phone conversations. I don’t see it happening. I’m worried about terrorists attacking the infrastructure of my country. I WANT the NSA hunting terrorists to the best of its abilities. Just today on the news there was a story about 2 bombs planted on German trains in late July (why is it just now making the news?). They failed to go off. It would have been Spain all over again. [/QUOTE] We arguing two different things. It may very well be necessary to do all that stuff in order to protect the country. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not Bush has the authority to do it. He doesn’t. And so he needs to get authorization from Congress. Why is that so hard to understand? The idea that he can basically ignore any law because “we’re at war” is absurd. I’m not even bothered by saying “we’re at war”. It’s not technically true, but it’s close enough for government work. Problem is, this “war” has no end, so we’re not talking about temporary, extrordinary authority given to war-time president, we’re talking about trashing the laws and the constution forever. Nope. Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/79 "2006-08-18T23:57:21Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] The issue is whether or not Bush has the authority to do it. He doesn’t. And so he needs to get authorization from Congress. Why is that so hard to understand? [/QUOTE] John W. Dean’s book _Conservatives Without Consience_ reporting on the sociological research findings on the Authorotative Follower might throw some light on this. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2006, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120/80 "2006-08-19T00:20:48Z")
[QUOTE=Zakalwe] FISA allows exactly that! Do you even know anything at all about this subject? FISA specifically allows for the warrant to be filed for with 72 hours _following_ the start of the tap. It’s old, it’s tired, but it’s still applicable: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” The Founding Fathers weep… [/QUOTE] Yes, I’m familiar with the subject. I’m probably the only person in this discussion whose bothered to talk with people in the inteligence field. You’ll get an earful on the climate of politics if you do. And I doubt the Founding Fathers debated the constitution while fighting the British. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-eavesdropping-program-ruled-unconstitutional/369120.md?page=5)