President had legal authority to OK taps

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The issue, which Schmidt addresses only obliquely, is whether the President can conduct warrentless searches on U.S. citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not as up-to-date on this as you are I'm sure. My understanding is that the NYT bruhaha is about eavesdropping on communications between U.S. citizens and foreign contacts. More info on what you are stating would be appreciated.

[ QUOTE ]
The White House position is that the President's status as commander-in-chief during the now continuous "wartime" means that no U.S. citizen has any constitutional protection from encroachment by the Executive branch -- that the President can use one vague phrase in the Constitution to erase all the others.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may surprised by this but I think this a legitimate point you make. I brought up the legitimacy of the term "War on Terror" in another recent post and I think alot of people have a problem with this term for the reason you imply. When does "wartime" end in such a war as the "War on Terror?"

[ QUOTE ]
And, of course, there's always the howler: "But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept. 11." Bin Laden was at the top of the FBI's most wanted list the day before 9/11. Islamicist terrorists had previously attacked the same target. The intelligence services reported that al Qaeda was "determined" to attack on U.S. soil. A blue-ribbon commission expressly warned, after more than two eyars of investigation, that terrorists attacks on U.S. soil were not only foreseeable but "likely." This is the sort of transparent deception that persuaded tens of millions of Republicans not only to condone and tolerate mass murder in Iraq but also to jettison their own, paid-in-blood rights. The greater threat to Americans is not from without, but from within.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again I think the current bruhaha and the problems with specifically defining the "War on Terror" (is it a war really and if so how do we know when it ends?) give rise to the perception that as you write:

The greater threat to Americans is not from without, but from within.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding is that the NYT bruhaha is about eavesdropping on communications between U.S. citizens and foreign contacts. More info on what you are stating would be appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's right -- there have been some purely domestic intercepts, but NSA claims they were few and accidental. They weren't authorized by Bush's order. The issue is whether the U.S. can spy on U.S. citizens, presumably protected against domestic spying by the 4th amendment, when they communicate with people outside of this country, or perhaps with non-citizens within this country.

Since there is no reason to believe that "terrorism" can ever be eliminated or defeated, the "war on terror" is a euphemism for "permanent war" and permanent plenary power to the President. In other words, the President's power is not constrained by law but by his sense of what he can get away with. Rank-and-file Republicans and appear to believe that he should be allowed to get away with anything and everything.