News-Record.com

I don't think Taylor's comments were meant to be understood literally, Doug. Do you?

Understood slightly less literally, the accusations in the first two sentences of Taylor's that you quote are correct. The president and his allies in Congress have pursued, enacted and/or defended policies with the potential and, sometimes, actual consequences Taylor describes. That's not opinion, that's amply documented fact.

Everything you quoted that follows those two sentences is, of course, Taylor's opinion.

So, Mr. Clark did you read the lunatic rantings of that pathetic and severly disturbed , Ms. Rosemary Roberts: " Too many remain meek in the face of evil (wonder who that evil might be ? ) " ?

She has gone around the bend again with her loathing of President Bush. The poor woman is deranged.

She suggests Senator Feingold is a man of courage and that we had better listen to him before this country is plunged into some despotic theocracy. Feingold is a fool and his political stunt ( Censure resolution )is being treated as such by Democrats, Republicans and the public alike. And typical of a tired old liberal she envkoes the boogeyman of McCarthyism.

She says we are living in a tumultous time where dissent is treated as unpatriotic. Well, when we support the toops and the Commander-In-Chief, rosemary's crowd of moonbats, like Cindy Sheehan et al, call us and our leaders war criminals. Got it all bassackwards again lady.

By God, I really think she has lost it. I mean can you read her creepy drivel about Claus von Stauffenberg's role in the attempted assassination of Hitler and not see that, just maybe, Rosemary is dreaming outloud in hope that some hero will take out the object of her hate. I know that this interpretation may seem bizarre but many of Ms. Roberts's other bombastic columns are equally loony and deserve the scorn of reasonably sane people that they usually bring.

Roberts and Helen Thomas have stayed around far too long. Do us all a favor..pack it in. Exit stage left, please !

“Understood slightly less literally, the accusations in the first two sentences of Taylor's that you quote are correct.”
They sure are, Lex, and thank God for that. Under the law, our government has the right and the responsibility to use all of their resources to protect us and enforce the laws. If you have a problem with that, I suggest perhaps you could run for office and change things. Or you could just continue to rant and rave about your imagined injustices on here to no avail.
In case you missed it, here are opinions of FIVE of the FISA court judges who say that the terrorist surveillance program is absolutely legal. They’re the experts, not you.
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/13491.html
As far as the rest of Taylor’s comments, Bush has no more or less authority than any other President to do any of those things Taylor seems so concerned about. Did Taylor (or you, for that matter) get up in arms when Clinton bombed Bosnia with no reason? How about when Clinton failed to protect our country after six attacks by Al Qaida? Clinton took no decisive anti-terror action after Somalia; Kohbar Towers; World Trade Center 1993 bombing; bombing of the US Embassy in Kenya; bombing of the US Embassy in Tanzania; bombing of the USS Cole. Why are you so upset now that you’re being protected when you weren’t upset at all when Clinton allowed us to be attacked again and again and again? I think if someone killed your family or neighbors you’d be all over the Greensboro PD to take some preventive action, wouldn’t you?

Gee, Lex, don’t you have TWO other blogs on which to spout your anti-Bush vomitus? Why don’t you leave this one to the adults?

And of course, when it comes to issues of freedom, privacy, democracy, and inalienable rights, nothing's more important than who comes out "looking better" in the debate. It's one big popularity contest, this Constitutional rights thing.

C'mon, Doug. Turn off the talk radio.

Who came out better in the encounter? Clearly, Bush did.* Doug

Uh Doug! That is like saying Barry Bonds has won the home run records fair and square?

Roberts and Helen Thomas have stayed around far too long. Do us all a favor..pack it in. Exit stage left, please !* Ashanti

Right Ashanti! Have you seen the President poll numbers today! Exit Right and try to dodge the coming impeachment hearing in 2007.

Gee, Lex, don’t you have TWO other blogs on which to spout your anti-Bush vomitus? Why don’t you leave this one to the adults?* Takaneishas Wnashabi Washington

We did and boy did you leave it in Child play pen mess Mr Washington! Clearly you can see what a great leader you have now with his billiant laser focus on your life and this country.

-------------------------------------------------

1. Which USA president made the worst baseball trade in it's history?
2 Which USA president declared war on the wrong country in it's history?
3. Which USA president refuse to declared war on a country in it's
history, when China shot down a USA military jet on purpose?
4. Which USA president has the longest over due library book in it's
history
thinking his wife had given it to him as a marriage gift?
5. Which USA president beat the stuff out of his daughter wrong boyfriend

thinking that there was two of them dating his twin daughters?
6. Which USA president in it's history got a master degree in business
from
a Ivy leaque university and still does not understand how to balance a
budget or his personal bank account?
7. Which USA president got the Katrina beat out of him by a women in a
floppy
hat sitting in a lawn chair in Texas?
8. Which USA president has 4 brothers and one father in government at
sometime in their life to replace him on a moment notice?
9. Which USA president told his vice president to go out and shoot a
lawyer
name Alexlander Hamliton after reading a book about "dueling in sun" [a
cheap
western paperback about a bank loan being past due?]
10. Which USA Vice president shot the wrong lawyer and help declare war
on
the wrong country too?

Thanks once agin for your Little Theater of the Absurd, Connie. You never fail to provide much needed amusement.

Keep on posting!

TWW: If facts constitute "anti-Bush vomitus," then I guess the facts must be biased, huh?

I gave you a link to the facts, you just don't want to believe them.
What you spout is opinion, which you claim is fact. There's a big difference, my friend.

You know I have decided that the Internet is like the Bible in that you can find “links” to justify ANY opinion. I personally don’t care for President Bush and didn’t vote for him the first time; did the second because Kerry was just too much for any sane person to stomach. Now we are stuck with him AND THE CONGRESS WHO APPROVES HIS ACTIONS. Will we all just stop forgetting that Congress holds the real power and this do-nothing brotherhood of incompetents are playing the same game we out here in Blog land are playing, ie. Verbal Bush Bashing in lieu of taking any concrete actions?!

TWW: The link is to a tedious piece of polemic, not the facts. The judges in fact testified to no such thing. (Audio/video -- about 2 hours, 20 minutes -- is the 2nd item on this page of search results; the only transcript I've found online is subscription-only.) They made clear they were not addressing the legality of the president's warrantless domestic surveillance. They were addressing the merits of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (which is not at issue) and, to some extent, of Sen. Arlen Specter's proposed changes to it.

*yawn*

Specifically, beginning about 35 minutes, 18 seconds into the clip, this exchange occurs:

* * *

Leahy: Judge Keenan, you bring back some -- some memories for a number of us on this panel who were prosecutors. I won't go on to telling war stories.I do have a question. It's been reported that [the current and immediate past chief judges of the FISA court] expressed doubts about the legality of the president's warrantless wiretapping program. Both insisted that information that came through NSA surveillance NOT be used to gain warrants in the FISA court. Do you agree with the decision of the presiding judges to bar the Justice Department from using information obtained from this program in FISA applications, Judge Baker?

Judge Harold Baker: I'm not familiar with her decision on that, and I'd, uh, I'd like you to excuse me from interfering in the proceedings of the existing court. I don't know, see, what's been presented to them. I really am in the dark on that and for me to give an answer on that would be wild -- would be speculation.

Leahy: Judge Brockman, do you have a different answer?

Brockman: No, I'd give the same answer.

Leahy: Judge Keenan?

Keenan: I'm afraid, Senator, I would give the same answer. I don't know what the program is and I have never been briefed.

Judge ??? (not shown on camera; voice different from Keenan's): I agree with my colleagues, Sen. Leahy.

Brenda, you are so correct. Doesn't appear that the Dem's are going to do any better this next time around either. The farleft nutzoids(FLN) are pushing Feingold or what ever the nuts name is and the regular Dems are running as fast as they can from him. Hillary has already been doomed by the FLN to be too much in the middle to really win. So who the heck to they have. The FLN and the Reg Dems will once again shoot themselves in the foot it appears and have no one of value to run. Of course we can hope that they wake up and run Joe Liberman and young Allen from Virgina. That would be a ticket that many , regardless of party could go for.

*zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*

Lex, buddy, you're putting me to sleep with that leftist drivel.
Bush won, get over it.

Shorter TWW: Facts = "leftist drivel"

Oooo-kay. Whatever.

Lex, please direct me to any legal finding or legal authority that has found the president GUILTY of a crime involving the terrorist surveillance program.
You can't because there hasn't been any legal determination of this.
So your *opinion* that President Bush did something illegal is just that, your opinion. It is not fact, even though you wish it were.

Thanks once agin for your Little Theater of the Absurd, Connie. You never fail to provide much needed amusement.

Keep on posting!* Bubba

Right Bubba! How about these absurd poll numbers for the Bush agenda in this country as of today!

1.Bush approval rating 33% including Bubba support

2. Bush kicking the camel dung out of Iran by nuking them at 18% including Bubba riding the first nuke missle into Terhan to show support

3. Bush promising to clean up the whole scandle mess in DC by November in time to save to the Republican congress at 5% including Bubba support

4. Bush promising that the War in Iraq will be declare a victory by november to save the Republican Senate at 4 % including Bubba support for liddy dole as the next leader of the senate when and if, she ever returns to North Carolina to face her citizens about her love of the Bush agenda

Bubba! I suggest a instant absurd therapy course to cure your unconsitutional support of the Bush agenda before you become one of his supporters by his amazing wire tapping program.

TWW: I've never asserted that there has been any "legal finding" that the president is guilty of a crime. That wasn't the issue in this post. The issue was whether Mr. Taylor's assertions to the president in Charlotte were factual.

I said that what Mr. Taylor asserted when he spoke to the president in Charlotte was factual. (Specifically: "While I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone ... ") You actually agreed ... which is good because the president has in fact asserted that right, beginning with his radio address in December shortly after the New York Times broke the story and continuing since, as any perusal of his speech transcripts at the White House Web site will show. So we agree.

If you want to change the subject to the legality of that program, fine, but let's take that discussion elsewhere, since it has nothing to do with Doug's original post.

The most significant thing about Harry Taylor's comments at a George Bush function is the fact that it is thought significant.

Lyndon Johnson saw and heard a lot of criticism during his appearances and travels. Presidents since Lyndon Johnson have also been made aware of criticism.

Other Presidents have addressed meetings in which people voiced displeasure. This was the incumbent President’s opportunity to explain a decision or to convert somebody.

Bush, however, only preaches to the choir. His audiences are screened so that the whole audience consists of Bush supporters in a big cocoon.

He ignores those not already converted. During his second campaign the American Federation of Government Employees sent a questionnaire to Bush and Kerry, planning to print their responses in a federal employee newsletter. George Bush didn't bother responding.

Protestors are kept blocks away from travel routes and meeting sites and are never seen by the President.

I have always voted Republican except for when Richard Nixon ran and won and when George W. ran the second time. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are not conservatives. They are fascists who appear to want to replace the Supreme Court and the Congress with a Board of Directors.

I applaud Harry Taylor.

Thanks for the reply, Lex.
So I assume you'll have no more rants on your own little personal blog about President Bush and his illegal wiretapping?? Funny how your beliefs change when you post here for the employer that pays your salary; but I guess you don't want N&R readers to know your real beliefs.
Spoken like a true hypocritical Democrat.

I'm dealing in facts, not beliefs, here, TWW. In fact, not only has the president admitted violating FISA, he also has pledged to continue doing so. So whether you or I think he has broken the FISA law or not is no more relevant than whether you or I think 2+2=4.

The only remaining legal question w/r/t to the warrantless domestic wiretapping is whether the authorization to use military force against Iraq and/or the president's Article II warmaking powers absolve him of criminal liability for violating FISA and constitutional liability for violating the Fourth Amendment, as his backers claim. And, indeed, no one in any official capacity has ruled on that question yet. That's where things stand at the moment.

I am not a lawyer, but my reading of the work of people who are lawyers suggests that the most relevant precedent in this case is the Supreme Court's ruling in the Youngstown case. It says, basically, that the president has a heck of a burden of proof if he wants to claim that his implied constitutional powers (e.g., in this case, implied extensions of his express warmaking authority in Article II of the Constitution) trump any enacted federal legislation in that area. In other words, as I understand this issue, if you believe that a president's warmaking powers include X and Congress hasn't legislated one way or the other on X, you've got a good case. If Congress has specifically authorized X, in fact, you're bulletproof. But if you believe that a president's warmaking powers include X and Congress has specifically made X a crime already, you are on very, very thin (but not nonexistent) legal ice.

That's not to say that the Supremes couldn't, and wouldn't, overturn Youngstown if a suit involving the wiretapping came to the high court. But unless/until that happens, the president is sworn to uphold the Constitution and the law, although as he does he also may pursue legal/constitutional means of changing either if he wishes.

But this president hasn't upheld FISA as he is sworn to do. He has violated it repeatedly and has pledged to continue doing so. Until Congress or a court calls him on it, that's where we are at the moment.

And that's a fact.

Thanks for giving your OPINION on whether the President has done anything wrong. However, it is still your OPINION and based on what you THINK, not what any legal authority has determined. You claim that President Bush has "violated it repeatedly." That is your OPINION, it has not been proven in a court of law to be anything of the sort. No evidence, no case. Why do you continue to categorize this as FACT when it's only your OPINION?
The Terrorist Surveillance program has not been determined to be illegal. I hope it continues because it's a sound, legal, and effective weapon in fighting terrorism. And, like it or not, you're safer for the actions of President Bush.

TWW, if I follow your logic to its inevitable conclusion, then OJ didn't kill anyone.

Lex, I'm sure both you and I have an OPINION on whether OJ killed anyone. But the fact remains that he was not found guilty in a court of law for murder.
You seem to have a problem distinguishing fact from opinion.

Uh, OK, TWW, whatever.

Actually, at the risk of making Doug mad, that needs a response. It's not that I have a problem distinguishing fact from opinion. It's that you have a problem distinguishing matters of fact from matters of law. Another example, kind of reversed: People who have been convicted of crimes, and their convictions upheld, who were in fact innocent.

If a majority of the Supreme Court finds that the sky is chartreuse with pink polka dots, then it's true as a matter of law, I guess. But it is in no way a fact.

You keep stating your opinions as if they were fact.
In talking about the FISA law you said that President Bush "has violated it repeatedly." No legal authority has determined that. None. That's not for you to decide, that's for a court to decide. It's your OPINION that he has violated it; it's my opinion that he hasn't. Neither of us is tasked with making that legal determination, so our opinions carry the same weight in this matter.
I think that by stating your opinions as if they were facts, both here and on your N&R blog, you're violating the ethics of a journalist and ruining your reputation. Your position at the N&R causes people to look to you for truth, you state your opinion as if it were truth. You're a poor representative of the N&R. If I were editor you wouldn't write for me.
You're one of the things that's wrong with this newspaper. Instead of being impartial, you're driven by a political agenda that blinds you to common sense and rational analysis of news.

Like I just said ....

To elaborate, TWW, please walk through this syllogism with me.

-- FISA bans warrantless domestic surveillance.
-- The president says he has engaged in warrantless domestic surveillance. There is evidence corroborating what he says. There is no evidence calling what he says into question.
-- Ergo, the president has, as a matter of fact, violated FISA. We do not need a court to tell us that.

That's just Logic 101.

What we need a court for is to address the question of law, not fact, that remains: whether the AUMF and/or the president's Article II warmaking powers are a defense for the president, as his administration has claimed.

Regarding "impartiality": Impartiality does not mean ignoring what's right in front of your face. It does not mean pretending that something that happened did not. If I witness a fatal shooting, then, as a matter of law, I may have witnessed first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, self-defense, accident or justifiable shooting by a law enforcement officer, among other possibilities. But I do not need the court to tell me, as matters of fact, that the victim is dead and that the shooter killed him. I've ascertained those facts on my own.

You follow?

Bigger picture: Impartiality does NOT mean just writing down what officials (including judges) say. Indeed, that kind of faux-reporting is what allows government officials (and others) to get away with wrongdoing. If the N&R had done that, the problems at Project Homestead might never have come to light.

From the White House to City Hall, reporters -- and, for that matter, anyone -- can observe facts and arrive at their own conclusions based upon those facts.

Indeed, that's exactly what the Framers of the Constitution hoped for and intended.

I might be wrong on all this. But I doubt I'd've lasted 22 years in the newspaper business, succeeding at four different papers, if I were.

Peace. Out.

Legal precedent has affirmed that the president is not limited by FISA rules. Check your history. He is within the parameters of his executive power to do so.
To report something as a fact when it isn't is reprehensible conduct on the part of someone the public looks to for facts.

I did check my history, TWW, which is why I linked to and described the Youngstown ruling above. (10:45 a.m. 4/10 comment) If you think there's any case law that trumps Youngstown w/r/t FISA, by all means please provide a link.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
Some excerpts:
"Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence."
"More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." "
"In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects."

The President has the authority to do what he's doing. That's why it hasn't been prohibited, impeded, or stopped due to lawsuits or any other action.

[["Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.]]

The issue is not warrantless spying in and of itself; no one is claiming the president needs, as a matter of law, a warrant to spy on foreign communications.

The issue is warrantless government spying on Americans, in America. With very few exceptions (e.g. an American using a telephone in the embassy of a foreign country), it is NOT legal. FISA makes it a felony. After the existence of the spying program ws reported, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service examined the issue and concluded that the president was breaking the law; its 44-page report is here (*.pdf file).

[[The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence."]]

Warrantless physical searches were, in fact, legal at the time Gorelick testified in 1994. But Congress, with President Clinton's support, subsequently amended FISA to close that loophole.

[["More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."]]

Again, the court is talking about foreign intelligence information. What we're talking about here is intelligence information on Americans, in America. The court in fact has quite a few concerns about that. From the original New York Times article on the program:

In mid-2004, concerns about the program expressed by national security officials, government lawyers and a judge prompted the Bush administration to suspend elements of the program and revamp it.

For the first time, the Justice Department audited the N.S.A. program, several officials said. And to provide more guidance, the Justice Department and the agency expanded and refined a checklist to follow in deciding whether probable cause existed to start monitoring someone's communications, several officials said.

A complaint from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the federal judge who oversees the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, helped spur the suspension, officials said. The judge questioned whether information obtained under the N.S.A. program was being improperly used as the basis for F.I.S.A. wiretap warrant requests from the Justice Department, according to senior government officials. While not knowing all the details of the exchange, several government lawyers said there appeared to be concerns that the Justice Department, by trying to shield the existence of the N.S.A. program, was in danger of misleading the court about the origins of the information cited to justify the warrants.

Short version: The judge was afraid that if evidence illegally gathered under the president's program were used to get other warrants, those warrants, and perhaps the cases of which they were a part, could be thrown out later. (Reading between the lines, it appears she also might have been worried that Justice lawyers might have to perjure themselves about the origin of some evidence in order to keep the president's spying program secret.)

[["In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects."]]

Again, this is talking about warrantless physical searches at a time when they were still legal. Months afterward, with Clinton's support, Congress closed that loophole.

If you think this article provides legal justification for warrantless domestic wiretapping, you're quite wrong, and I await any other evidence or analyses you might have.

[[The President has the authority to do what he's doing.]]

Again, given the text of the Fourth Amendment, FISA and the tests and limits on executive authority laid out by Justice Jackson in the Youngstown case linked above, I see no basis for your claim that the president has the authority to spy on Americans in America without a warrant. If you think you have any evidence that it is legal for him to do so, please provide it.

[[That's why it hasn't been prohibited, impeded, or stopped due to lawsuits or any other action.]]

According to the Portland Oregonian, there are at least seven such lawsuits pending nationwide.

The terrorist surveillance programs targets communications between foreign suspects and contacts in the U.S. It's not spying on "Americans in America."
So, the sky is not actually falling, Lex.
And President Bush has still not done anything wrong or illegal, and has not been charged, prosecuted, or legally prevented from undertaking legal surveillance programs.
If you can find any legal findings to the contrary, please cite them.

[[The terrorist surveillance programs targets communications between foreign suspects and contacts in the U.S. It's not spying on "Americans in America."]]

According to the Times' original article on the subject, "nearly a dozen current and former officials" say Bush ordered exactly that, without a warrant, in violation of FISA. FISA allows warrantless wiretapping only "if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that ... there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." (There is also, of course, the "hot-pursuit" provision -- you can start wiretapping such communications without a warrant but must seek a FISA warrant within 72 hours.)

Not only have the administration officials told this to the Times, the president also has admitted it.

[[And President Bush has still not done anything wrong or illegal ... ]]

Whether the action was "wrong" is a subjective judgment -- i.e., a matter of opinion. Whether it was illegal, on the other hand, is quite clear: It certainly was, and remains, a violation of FISA and of the Fourth Amendment's ban on warrantless searches. The only remaining legal question is whether the AUMF or the president's Article II warmaking powers offer an adequate defense. As I pointed out above, the Congressional Research Service concluded that it did not.

[[... and has not been charged, prosecuted, or legally prevented from undertaking legal surveillance programs.]]

The fact that a sitting president hasn't been charged or prosecuted proves nothing about the legality or illegality of his action. An illegal action remains illegal whether or not someone is prosecuted for performing it.

You keep insisting that what the president is doing is legal. I keep offering documentation that it is not. You have offered no documentation in support of your claim. Do you have any?

You keep offering your OPINION that what the president did is illegal. That is your opinion, not fact. The determination of whether an act is illegal is made in a court of law, not by journalists. The president has the authority to do exactly what he's doing. The NSA has a whole office full of lawyers who look at each and every tiny little thing that the NSA does to insure legal compliance. If you research, you'll find the speeches by the Director of NSA about this, and documentation. He has explained it far better than I.
President Bush has not been convicted of anything. What he's doing is perfectly legal under the executive powers that go with his office.

I read the speech and Q&A by Michael V. Hayden, Deputy Director for National Intelligence and immediate past NSA director, here. Yeah, he says three NSA lawyers signed off on the program. But he offers no basis for believing their action to be correct other than that the program is justified by the AUMF, a claim that ignores the plain meaning of the AUMF text. Moreover, he says the attorney general signed off on the program. (Of course; he's the same guy who, as the president's counsel, told him he could go ahead with the program in the first place, back in 2001.)

There's just one problem: Legal opinions, legal reasoning and so forth are not the same thing as the law itself and do not carry the same weight under our system.

We are a nation of laws, not men. The law -- both the FISA statute and the Fourth Amendment -- says the government may not wiretap Americans without a warrant. Bush has done so. Ergo, Bush has violated the law. That's not my opinion. That's a fact. (And I take no pleasure in believing this; I'd like to think that everything any president does, particularly in the area of national security, is both effective and legal.) The only remaining question is whether anything in the Constitution, ratified treaties, statutes or case law -- not just lawyers' opinions -- provides Bush anything in the way of a defense. If such a defense exists, no one has found it.

Again I say: Provide documentation for your claim.

Let’s say I saw a fire truck exceeding the speed limit. Is he guilty of speeding? No, not until a court says he’s guilty. He may be operating under the exemption of NC GS20-145, which allow him to speed in some circumstances. Was he exceeding the speed limit—yes. Was it illegal—no.
If a state trooper sees you exceeding the speed limit and gives you a ticket, has he found you guilty? Can he tell people as a matter of fact that you're guilty of speeding? Nope, that determination is made in court.
You *think* President Bush violated a law so YOU have judged him guilty? You’re not a lawyer, and your layman’s opinion has no more weight than that of anyone else, regardless of whether you’re a journalist or not.
President Bush has many options and powers available to him in the fight against terrorism, many of which you probably aren’t even aware. This is one of them.
Do your employers support you stating as a N&R employee in an open and public forum that the President is guilty of a crime? Because if you say that as a N&R employee then that represents the opinion of the newspaper. Is that the position of the N&R? Are you authorized to make this position statement for the newspaper?
As an aside, the terrorist surveillance program has resulted in the capture and death in Iraq and Afghanistan of many terrorist suspects. The special ops guys, CAG, NSWG, OGA/DA, etc., often go out on “NSA Hits” generated by NSA intercepts and capture or kill terrorist cells and leaders.
This surveillance program has more than proven its worth. It has not been determined to be illegal, and the President is well within the parameters of his powers to continue it.
You've seen the documentation that what the President is doing is not illegal, why do you keep asking me to restate it?

[[Let’s say I saw a fire truck exceeding the speed limit. Is he guilty of speeding? No, not until a court says he’s guilty. He may be operating under the exemption of NC GS20-145, which allow him to speed in some circumstances. Was he exceeding the speed limit—yes. Was it illegal—no.
If a state trooper sees you exceeding the speed limit and gives you a ticket, has he found you guilty? Can he tell people as a matter of fact that you're guilty of speeding? Nope, that determination is made in court.]]

And if you're doing 55 mph in a 55 mph zone and someone passes you quickly, someone in a vehicle with no emergency lights, you know that whether they are cited or not, whether they are convicted or not, they are speeding.

[[Do your employers support you stating as a N&R employee in an open and public forum that the President is guilty of a crime?]]

Nice try. What I have said is that as a matter of FACT, not law (see my comment at 1:07 p.m. 4/11 for elaboration on the distinction), he has engaged in actions that are barred by the FISA statute. Indeed, the president himself has admitted that he has engaged in such actions. There is no question of fact on this issue. I don't presume to speak for my employer, but I'm pretty sure that if you claim the sky is chartreuse with pink polka dots, I'm not going to get in trouble for saying, no, the sky is blue.

The remaining question of law is whether the AUMF and/or his Article II warmaking powers provide him a defense to criminal charges. That question remains open, but a review of the FISA statute, the AUMF, the Fourth Amendment and applicable case law (primarily the majority's opinions in the Supreme Court's Youngstown case) suggest very strongly that they do not. In the absence of a court ruling either way, however, I remain open to other arguments should they surface and be buttressed with adequate documentation.

But that ain't what you have done. You've claimed that what the president is doing is legal, but you have provided no basis for a reasonable person to believe that. You have highlighted no statute, no provision of the constitution, no court ruling, nothing that makes it legally OK for the president to order wiretapping of U.S. citizens in this country without a warrant. Such a basis also could include:

-- A showing that I have misread the FISA statute.
-- A showing that I have misread the Fourth Amendment.
-- A link to a U.S. statute that at least contradicts FISA, if not trumping it.
-- A link to a treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate that would grant this power to the president and/or explicitly or implicitly trump U.S. statutes on the subject.
-- A link to Supreme Court rulings that trump Youngstown.

You've accused me of floating my opinion as fact, when in fact I have drawn very clear and careful distinction between matters of fact, law and opinion. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing except links to reports of lawyers' opinions and officials' statements. We're a nation of laws, however, and those carry no legal weight whatsoever.

Please, if you have any real basis for your claim that warrantless wiretapping of people in this country is legal, bring it.

When you speak as a representative of the News & Record, sir, you speak for your employer. I'll ask again, are you authorized to state on behalf of and representative of the N&R and claim that President Bush has committed a crime? Is this statement of yours the official and for-the-record position of the N&R?
President Bush is, indeed, intercepting the electronic communications of terrorists. That is a fact without dispute. Same as a speeding vehicle...the question is not whether it's exceeding the speed limit, but whether such speeding is illegal. That is a determination for a court of law.
However, there is no legal finding that these intercepts are illegal. There is much evidence to the contrary, centered around his executive powers as Commander in Chief, and the powers given him by Congress to wage war against terrorists.
He has not been charged in a court of law; no lawsuit has been adjudged against him; no legal injunction to forbid him from protecting our country using the powers he has.
Instead of sending you a copy of the US Constitution, the minutes of Senate hearings, the opinions of the Attorney General, quoting what I've already referred you to, et. al., I'll ask you to give me a court case cite in which:

--President Bush has been convicted of a crime in this matter
--A lawsuit in which he has been deemed liable, or any legal action showing criminality on his part in protecting our country.

If you can't provide me with such evidence, please quit telling lies as a representative of the News & Record. Your journalistic integrity is nonexistent.

I'll be awaiting your "evidence."

[[When you speak as a representative of the News & Record, sir, you speak for your employer. I'll ask again, are you authorized to state on behalf of and representative of the N&R and claim that President Bush has committed a crime? Is this statement of yours the official and for-the-record position of the N&R?]]

Buh-bye, TWW. I've invited you numerous times to provide documentation for your claims; you respond by 1) repeating your claims without providing any sort of factual or legal basis for them, 2) offering up various straw men and 3) insulting my professional integrity repeatedly and calling me a liar. You are unable or unwilling to make your argument based on the facts. I guess you must think the facts are biased.

We're done here.

So, you can't support your position, huh?
The onus is on YOU, as the accuser, to prove your case.
With your exalted past as a "police reporter" surely you must be familiar with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."
You're the one accusing the President of a crime, so prove it.
You might want to ponder why this issue has fallen off of the radar of late. It's because the executive power given to the President in this matter allows him to intercept terrorist communications outside of the restrictions of FISA. It seems everyone knows this but you. Capitol Hill knows it, the Dems know it. That's why there's no follow up action, it's a dead issue. He's right, you're wrong.
You seem to delight in forming conclusions and then scrambling around to find evidence to support them. You should have paid more attention to the police detectives you followed around and learned to go where the evidence takes you.
You have no professional integrity that I can besmirch; you're regarded in our community as a whiny, sour-grapes liberal loser who uses his position with the N&R to further his political agenda.
Buh-bye.