Monday, 6 February 2006 - 9:11 PM CST

He can surveil American Al Qaeda suspects all he wants, but the Fourth and Fifth Amendments say he can't do it without warrants, i.e., without court orders. Wanna wiretap? Get a warrant.

The President has no constitutional power for warrantless surveillance.

Gonzo's claim that technology has outrun the Constitution is a gallon jug of snakeoil. The AG should have consulted the FISA court and worked something out instead of sneaking around breaking the law and flouting the Constitution and Bill of Rights because he thinks he rules by divine right. If FISA had been unable to approve what the NSA was doing, Congress would have stepped up to the plate. Our scofflaw President didn't ask either one, because he holds himself above both.

If we let him get away with this - and it's far from simply Democrats who are saying so - we can kiss the Bill of Rights good bye. This man is well on his way to subverting American Constitutional government as we know it. This is what tyranny looks like, an unchecked Executive who holds himself above the law and arrogates to himself the powers of the other two branches of government.

Tuesday, 7 February 2006 - 10:38 AM CST

And perhaps we are still fighting this "war" with our enemies under a democrat regime. Perhaps a really intrusive effort to institute widespread gun control will
ensue....
but it will all be for the good. We don't want terrorists to have access to large amounts of guns, do we?

first the 4th ammendment, then the 2nd. how 'bout the
1st?

Tuesday, 7 February 2006 - 11:27 AM CST

I don't worry about our 2nd amendment rights going away anytime soon. A national gun-grab would get really freakin' ugly. More likely there would be a ban on ammo, and that would just cause a bank run on gun stores and Wal-Marts in the run-up to the legislation.

As for the "War" we're involved in, it's such a giant 'Gulf of Tonkin' fabrication, the only people who really think it's necessary are the defense-tech and security companies. After all, they wouldn't make nearly as much if they sold plow-shares.

I'd rather just get back to making our own country great. If we would educate our people and train everyone Swiss-style on civil responsibility (weapons included), we needn't worry about any foreign invaders, anyway. If we'd stop invading third-world turd factories, we wouldn't be stirring up all these jihadi hornets' nests and inspiring them to destroy our country.

Imperialism is our country's biggest problem, not the Emmanuel Goldstein/Osma Bin Laden/Al Qaeda ghost-enemies.

I'd shoot an invader down without hesitation during a real war, but I don't support looking for trouble abroad. Let those people fight their own battles.

Tuesday, 7 February 2006 - 5:05 PM CST

Gun control? Do Democrats still try for that sort of thing? I thought they just passed meaningless assault weapon bans so that they could feel better about themselves.

Tuesday, 7 February 2006 - 5:18 PM CST

There was a composite character (a "Mr. X" maybe?) that meets with Jim Garrison in Oliver Stone's movie JFK. Mr. X goes on this long and extremely interesting mind-jam about how everything is connected, but my favorite line from it (as best I can remember) is his assertion that "the chief organizing principle of any society is its ability to make war."

That may be true. It certainly isn't false.

Don't underestimate the importance of having enemies or of having the power to create or destroy anything. That's how America gets ahead and stays there.

Tuesday, 7 February 2006 - 9:01 PM CST

Thanks for the link, Rider. Very interesting article, although Filius Nullius refers to a non-existent "Article II, Section 9" of the Constitution, which ruins his whole argument.

Also, I think both of you are overstating the case. Lincoln and FDR were very much more "tyrants" than Bush has ever dreamed of being.

Wednesday, 8 February 2006 - 9:20 PM CST

> The President has no constitutional power for warrantless surveillance.

Yes, by all means, hold up the brilliant minds of DU as the source for this opinion, LOL.

Try instead using someone who actually has a clue. Like Volokh, who is an attorney versed in that sort of thing... or Powerline, there's three of them there.

Oh, right. You were looking for a rubber stamp of approval for what you want things to be.

Unfortunately, there is a hole in the Constitution which allows these things to occur, as long as one of them is a foreign national and the communications cross the international border.

And no, you don't get to call me a Bush lackey -- I've been against this thing since "Echelon"... I simply realize that there are things which need to be done which it may not be possible under "normal" requirements.