Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (718996)	12/20/2005 10:57:01 AM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Steve, you are wrong again. The USA Today poll showing Bush at 41% was taken 12/16 to 12/18. The ABC poll showing Bush at 47% was taken 12/15 to 12/18.

To: steve harris who wrote (718996)	12/20/2005 11:02:31 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

All poor poor kenny can post is one liners with some drivel of information that may make him feel better for a few seconds. He is I believe currently over the edge in denial. I doubt any reality can intrude into his democrat bubble. But all should read the Wall Street Journal editorial. Thank You for Wiretapping Why the Founders made presidents dominant on national security. Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST This editorial in the Wall Street Journal cites prior law and makes the case that several have revealed themselves legal ignoramus. Fox has Napolitano and then Turley has been on the other networks saying there is not basis for the President to have down the monitoring. This may seed the blogs and some real legal analysis will likely follow. key points. The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed. The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." ALSO In the war on terror, the communications between terrorists in Frankfurt and agents in Florida are harder to track, and when we gather a lead the response often has to be immediate. As we learned on 9/11, acting with dispatch can be a matter of life and death. The information gathered in these wiretaps is not for criminal prosecution but solely to detect and deter future attacks. This is precisely the kind of contingency for which Presidential power and responsibility is designed. Message 21989298