No - construing it strictly against the prosecution. When the accused can point to an ambiguity in the law that permits his conduct, he can’t be prosecuted. The law must specifically define the conduct that is prohibited. The law is construed strictly against the prosecution and construed leniently against the accused.
Got it. That makes sense.
I don’t know if you’ve addressed this point yet (you very well might have) but does the fact that only “foreign intelligence information” is specified change how easily the fed’s actions fit within the constraints of the law?
I possibly could see your point if the people being spied upon only had international correspondences intercepted. But something makes me doubtful that every single email or phone conversation that has been tapped was directed towards a foreign recipient only. If a phone line is wiretapped, would it automatically shut itself off when calls are made or received domestically? How would we know for sure? How would conference calls be handled when some of the conversations intercepted are actually communications made between domestically located individuals? And what about emails? How would the feds be able to distinguish between an email sent to someone residing in Saudia Arabia from an email sent to a person living in Atlanta, GA without actually intercepting the outgoing emails and extracting private information?
The problem is that the only collective body who is assuring us that nothing illegal is going on is the same collective body who is doing the spying. That body being the Executive Branch. This, for some strange reason, gives me a bad vibe.
Bricker, you may want to read up a bit on the history of the events leading up to the passage of FISA.
Prior to FISA, back in the days of J. Edgar Hoover, the NSA was intercepting incoming foreign communications without a warrant. NSA argued, amoung other things, that this was neccesary to maintain national security. They even trumpeted successful disruption of terrorist attacks. But society, and the lawmakers, were not prepared to give up their expectation of privacy in overseas phone calls. On the other hand, they recognized the need to surveil our enemies – and in some cases even US citizens – to maintain our security. So a compromise was struck: FISA. It allows the Executive to surveil our enemies while providing a level of Judicial oversight. Checks and balances.
I can find no compelling reason that the current war on terror cannot be successfully won without checks and balances.
The program the President approved permitted monitoring only overseas calls. All of this is done by computer. The digital recording starts when an overseas call is completed, and is not triggered by a domestic phone call. We’re not talking about alligator clips and a reel-to-reel recorder here.
Now, if you have any evidence that US-to-US calls have been monitored, I will absolutely agree that the President has broken the law. Every vigorous defense I have raised here will be ashes if that’s the case.
Do you? Have such evidence?
So are you saying the Congressional resolution was “a declaration of war by the Congress” “in the absence of a declaration of war”?
Did you read post #210?
Thanks, John. I feel safer already.
Just imagine, next we can determine that The Grinch is our great enemy, and we’ll keep buggin’ people till we can finally take him down and make Christmas safe forever!
-Joe
I did.
The Congressional resolution was not a “declaration of war” within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution. The War Powers Resolution had every reson to define, in highly technical terms, the different circumstances in which the President could order military forces into hostile action.
But the Congressional resolution WAS a declaration of war within the meaning of 50 USC § 1811. That pieve of legislation was simply concerned with being “at war” and not the technical distinctions about how we got there.
How do you figure that when the statutes explicitly says “following a declaration of war by the Congress”. It doesn’t say “when the US is at war”.
I agree the meaning of “at war” is open to interpretion. But “A declaration of war by the Congress” has precise meaning within federal law. If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re of the opinion that congressional authorization of force is an implict “Congressional declaration of war.” I disagree. The congressmen who authorized force disagree, as do legal scholars (see War and Responsibility).
Of course not. But then again, very few of us–including 2/3rds of the US government–knows much beyond what Bush has specifically allowed us to know.
Can you provide a judicial determination that “‘A declaration of war by the Congress’ has precise meaning within federal law?”
Well, that’s argumentum ad ignorantium: we don’t know, so it must be true. Sorry. I don’t agree that Bush has permitted monitoring of purely domestic calls. If he has, then I agree he would have broken the law. But he hasn’t.
Is it just me or does this read like, you can only do this for up to 15 days after the declaration? As in, war is declared on 1/15 you can do this without court order until 1/30, after which you need a court order. As in: “We just declared war, waiting on getting a warrant for the 1000’s of people you want to track is to risky, we’ll give you 15 days, since this is an emergency. After that time is up, you should have enough info and time to get a warrant or use the 72hour rule.”
Why are people saying this means 15 days per person?
Now, if there was a comma after the word “days” in the law above, maybe I can understand…
I read it that way too but I was afraid to speak up lest Bricker put the slapdown on me with a whole bunch of Latin. 
I read it that way at first, that is ante * seeing Bricker’s take on it. But I think he’s reading makes more sense, ipso facto*, in corpus delicti. Dominus vobiscum, amen.
I was going to write a long, vitriolic post expounding on Bricker’s shockingly un-Jeffersonian view of civil liberties and the proper role of government, but instead I put that energy into writing my cogressman and Senators demanding an investigation. And I urge all of you to do that, too.
Already done, and happy undevicesimus to you vibrotronica!
Is The Bush Administration Trashing Civil Liberties of Americans?
Here is another administration-spying-on-US-citizens story that makes me uncomfortable: Is the Pentagon syping on Americans?
(I’m sure 9-11 will end up being the defense for this too.)
Hmm . . . I may have to rethink my opposition to it. 
Seriously though, everytime the Pres. does something that makes me want to scream, I take a little bit of solace in saying “Maybe this’ll help a guy I like get elected next time.”
Although it didn’t work in '04. 