Why the Netroots Shouldn't Defend Obama's FISA Vote

"I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people - we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law."

Barack Obama, promising on February 12, 2008 not to give immunity to telecommunication companies that paticipated in warrantless wiretapping. Obama voted this month to give telecom companies retroactive immunity from lawsuits. A true profile in courage.

David Sirota wrote about how Obama willingly using the progressive movement to promote his candidacy and ignores the netroots policy concerns.

However, what Obama has also done is taken over key pieces of outside progressive infrastructure and ignored other pieces. Moveon.org, for instance, spends much of its time echoing Obama's message and attacking John McCain rather than using the election as an instrument of leverage to exert pressure on both Obama and McCain on major issues. In other words, Obama has effectively taken over Moveon - or at least its strategic focus. As evidenced by his FISA vote, Obama is also ignoring the Netroots.

I'm not a fan of MoveOn, but Sirota point is something that I have been thinking about for a while. Presidents come and go. The policies they make are matters we have to deal with for generations. Sirota told NPR that progressives using Obama's own website to try to make the Senator change his vote is hope that the Netroots is waking up.

There are progressives willing to ignore Obama's disregard for civil liberties. Kenneth Quinnell talked about how progressives should not call Obama a flip flopper. Quinnell went as far to say that Obama's FISA position has been consistent. Obama's office said the Senator "unequivocally opposes" immunity and "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." Quinnell's podcast is as laughable as Glenn Reynolds' posts about how well Bush has run the Iraq war.

I didn't get into blogging to become an unofficial campaign staffer for Barack Obama. I won't use the excuse that he is better than John McCain. I will freely disagree with Obama or any other candidate.

A Ford Pinto will get a person from point A to B faster than walking. That doesn't mean the Pinto suddenly became a great car. Just because Obama isn't John McCain doesn't mean he didn't flip flop on FISA. Citizens should question candidates positions on policy. Not worship them as if they were royalty.

Bush Signs FISA Bill

It's no surprised that Bush signed the FISA bill. I was struck by Bush statement. The devil is in the details.

This law will ensure that those companies whose assistance is necessary to protect the country will themselves be protected from lawsuits from past or future cooperation with the government. This law will protect the liberties of our citizens while maintaining the vital flow of intelligence. This law will play a critical role in helping to prevent another attack on our soil.

During the 2008 State of the Union address, Bush demanded immunity for telecom companies. Bush refused to admit that telecom companies were involved in warrantless wiretapping. By simple logic, why would corporations not involved in United States intelligence gathering need immunity.

Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America. We've had ample time for debate. The time to act is now.

Why must we pass immunity for people "believed" to be involved in criminal activity. Aren't people innocent until proven guilty? Mr. President, maybe you believed these telecom companies were involved in illegal matters. Maybe you believed it would be embarrassing if telecom CEOs told grand juries about the White House's role in the matter. Mr. President, if you believed that then it is easy to understand why the FISA bill was so important to you.

ACLU To Sue Over FISA Bill

ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero sent out this email about the Senate's FISA vote.

****

Today elected officials in Washington sold out the Constitution -- again.

Cowed by the Bush administration's pre-election scare tactics, the Senate passed privacy-stealing FISA legislation undermining your Fourth Amendment rights.

It's outrageous, unconstitutional and un-American. That's why the ACLU is prepared to challenge this law the moment George Bush signs it -- and you can rest assured, they'll be meeting our lawyers in court.

Our lawsuit will send a powerful message to those in Congress who played it safe when they had the opportunity to defend the Constitution. You can join the ACLU in sending that message by signing on to our ad letting Congress know that if they won't stand up for freedom, you and the ACLU will.

We'll be taking out a full-page ad in a major national newspaper announcing our lawsuit and expressing our outrage at this abandonment of Constitutional principles. Our goal is to run an ad that contains the names of tens of thousands of Americans who believe in the Constitution and want Congress to hear us loud and clear: next time, stand up for our rights.

Click here to include your name in the ACLU's FISA newspaper ad.

The bill that Congress passed and George Bush is about to sign codifies a Nixonian view on executive power that states, "if a president does it, it is not illegal." The ACLU doesn't believe that, and I'm guessing you don't either.

There has never been a more important moment to demonstrate to our leaders that we believe in freedom - not fear. Our ad will carry that simple message.

The more voices we add, the more powerful our message will be. We need tens of thousands of Americans, who are committed to defending the Constitution, to speak up and stand with us right now.

Click here to include your name in the ACLU's FISA newspaper ad.

The bottom line is that no president should have the power to monitor the phones and emails of Americans without a warrant. And no president should have the power to pardon companies that broke the law. This bill was not a "compromise," as some in Congress would like you to believe. The only thing they compromised was your freedom.

George Bush will sign the FISA bill into law in a few short days, but that does not mean our fight is over.

Our lawyers are prepared to file a lawsuit challenging this unconstitutional legislation as soon as the ink dries on George Bush's signature. This is why it is so important that all of us add our names to the ACLU's newspaper ad.

Let our leaders know that you are standing up for freedom and standing with the ACLU.

Click here to include your name in the ACLU's FISA newspaper ad.

It's up to each of us to defend the Constitution. Thank you for standing with us.

Sincerely,

Anthony Romero
Executive Director, ACLU

Joe Garcia on FISA Bill

Florida Congressional candidate Joe Garcia issued a press release on the FISA compromise.

“The laws that were created under FISA were sufficient to meet our country’s national security needs. What the Bush administration has done, again, is present Americans with a false choice between national security and civil liberties, while this bill increases neither. I oppose any broad retroactive immunity provided to companies who may have broken the law. The legal purpose of immunity is to use the protection granted by such immunity as an inducement to divulge information about what occurred. Immunity in this case would do the opposite: it would shut down any investigation into what actually occurred. “

Tough-talking rhetoric is fine. If words matched deeds then Joe Biden would be the Democratic nominee.

Given companies immunity from prosecution has already proven to be a stupid idea. KBR can not be prosecuted for crimes on Iraq soil. Jamie Leigh Jones was gang raped and can not take the perpetrators to criminal court. Many other women have been sexually abused in Iraq because Congress approved not allowing contractor to be prosecuted.

The State Department granted Blackwater security members immunity after the killing of Iraqi civilians. The FBI's investigation was destroyed. No Blackwater member would talk to federal investigators. They all cited their immunity deals.

Congress gave the Bush White House a blank check to allow their corporate allies to commit more crimes. Silly Blue Dog Democrats never learn. The question is has Joe Garcia learned that fundamental lesson?

My Response to Litbrit's FISA Post

Litbrit came out against Barack Obama's support of the FISA bill. I was never surprised. Obama never used his lofty status to defeat the Bush administration's effort to protect telecommunication companies and violate the Fourth amendment. I posted my thoughts at Litbrit's place.

What I missed about John Edwards candidacy is that he would immediately blast any FISA compromise bill. He wouldn't even wait for Chris Dodd. The lefty blogosphere were wondering if Obama and Hillary would follow Edwards. Obama and Hillary gave very tepid disapproval of FISA under Bush.

Obama and Hillary want to be President. Neither showed a desire to take away executive power over FISA, that they could use in their presidencies. Obama isn't going to risk angering many Democrats over FISA.

This issue would have been easy to bash McCain with. Obama can just keeping calling the current FISA system "big brother." If McCain attacked Obama on national security the Obama people just need to call him Bush 3.

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama will win the general election. Obama has the advantage in fundraising and the current polls. If this is how he acts when he has the political advantage then what political courage will he show with Bush-level approval ratings?

Keith Olbermann On Bush's FISA Fearmongering

Keith Olbermann: Mr. Bush, you say that our ability to track terrorist threats will be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger.

Yet you have weakened that ability!

You have subjected us, your citizens, to that greater danger!

This, Mr. Bush, is simple enough even for you to understand.

For the moment, at least, thanks to some true patriots in the House, and your own stubbornness, you have tabled telecom immunity, and the FISA act.

You.

By your own terms and your definitions — you have just sided with the terrorists.

****

You can read the entire transcript.

FISA and the U.S. Attorneys Scandal

Nancy Pelosi has decided to let the FISA law elapse. On her Facebook profile, Pelosi wrote that she voted "to uphold the Constitution to uphold the Constitution." Pelosi and House Democrats showed the spine their colleagues in the Senate lacked. The House Republicans response was to take their ball and go home.

House Republicans have just staged a walkout from the chamber to protest the decision of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership to let an act that expands the government’s surveillance powers expire.

Talking Points Memo has video of Minority Leader John Boehner staging the walkout.



Part of the walkout was a smoke screen: Democrats and the 35 Republicans that didn't walk out voted 223 to 32 to hold Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers in contempt for refusing to testify about their roles in the U.S. Attorney scandal. Bush decided that his staffers were above the law and need not testify.

"This is beyond arrogance. This is hubris taken to the ultimate degree," Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in the closing moments of the debate.

Administration officials purged U.S. Attorneys that would not go after Democrats and bogus voter fraud cases. The White House wanted loyal Bushies to use the Justice Department to win elections. Republican Senator Pete Domenici personally asked Bush to fire U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. Domenici was angered that Iglesias would not (illegally) leak information on possible indictments against Democrats.

U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was fired after issuing a warrant to search Kyle Dustin "Dusty" Foggo. A man involved in the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal and Brent Wilkes's prostitute parties. Wilkes was a major Bush fundraiser. Two days after Lam issued the warrant on Foggo, Justice Department Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson fired off this email.

"the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires."

Nowhere is Lam's record on enforcing immigration laws is mentioned. Sampson admitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department never discussed with her handling of illegal immigration.

Boehner is helping turn the GOP into the party that stands up against enforcing laws. His sense of politics and policy are so misguided that he is helping the Democrats win more House seats. House Republicans are retiring, the party has a nominee that the base can't get behind and Boehner still wants to hitch House Republicans to Bush.

NRCC Fearmongering on FISA Bill

I'm on the NRCC email list. It's painful reading, but occasionally I catch nuggets like this fearmongering message sent out by Chairman Tom Cole. The latest email is titled "The Terrorist Threat to America Never Expires."

Even though our intelligence agencies have helped us successfully avoid attacks on our soil, in a few days from now, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will expire. If Congress lets this bill expire, our intelligence personnel, both here and abroad, will be extremely handicapped and will have a harder time saving American lives from terrorist threats.

The President and Republican leaders in both the House and Senate believe it is long overdue for Congress to pass and send to the President a long-term bill that updates the FISA laws vital to our national security.

Do you agree with your Republican leaders that we need permanent FISA legislation?

American families deserve security and not uncertainty, and they understand that our terrorist surveillance laws help keep our country safe from attack. It speaks volumes about the national security priorities of congressional Democrats that they have failed to permanently close the terrorist loophole after six months. The time for excuses has expired, it's now time for action.

If you believe it’s time to draft responsible legislation that ensures that we quickly close the intelligence gap, sign this petition today.

Cole never mentions that the White House denied violating the Fourth amendment and spying on domestic calls. The Supreme Court ruled in Katz v. United States that national security and executive privilege does not allow the federal government to domesticly wiretap without a warrant.

Retroactive immunity would allow telecommunication companies to gather information and conversations on American citizens. A Mellman Group poll found 63 percent want to government to require a warrant before domestically wiretapping phone calls.

Support for this constitutional right is both deep and wide, cutting across every demographic segment. Whether they are old or young (age 60+ 61% warrants required, age 50-59 61%, age 40-49 66%, age 18-39 66%), more or less educated (college grads 67%, some college 65%, high school or less 57%), black or white (black 83% warrants required, whites 60%), upper class or lower (upper/upper-middle 63% warrants required, middle 66%, working/lower 57%) overwhelming majorities favor requiring warrants for government wiretaps of Americans’ international conversations. Eight-in-ten percent (80%) of Democrats, 56% of independents, and even half (50%) of the President’s own Republicans oppose tapping Americans’ international conversations without a warrant.

Public demand for requiring warrants for wiretaps of Americans’ international conversations also cuts across geography. Large majorities in every part of the country favor requiring warrants: 72% in the Northeast, 64% in the South, 62% in the West, and 57% in the Midwest. Both less religious voters (68% warrants required) and those who are very religious (59% warrants required) oppose wiretapping Americans’ international conversations without a warrant. The same is true of both households with veterans (58%) and non-veteran households (65%).

Public opinion is on the Democratic Party's side. That did not stop several Democrats from voting to extend FISA.

Jay Rockefeller (D-WV),
Evan Bayh (D-IN),
Daniel Inouye (D-HI),
Tim Johnson (D-SD),
Herb Kohl (D-WI),
Mary Landrieu (D-LA),
Claire McCaskill (D-MO),
Mark Pryor (D-AR),
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR),
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA),
Ken Salazar (D-CO),
Tom Carper (D-DE),
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD),
Jim Webb (D-VA),
Ben Nelson (D-NE),
Bill Nelson (D-FL),
Kent Conrad (D-ND),
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

No Democrat in Congress is arguing that terrorists should be protected from wiretapping. The argument goes to sheds when the Bush administration is forced to defend this assertion. The exchange between Russ Feingold and Alberto Gonzales is a perfect example.

Feingold: Do you know anyone in government who ever took that position?

Gonzales: No, but that is not what I said.

Feingold: It is a disgrace and disservice to your office and the President to have accused people on this Committee of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists.

Gonzales: I didn't have you in mind or anyone on the Committee when I referred to people who oppose eavesdropping on terrorists. Perish the thought.

Feingold: Oh, well it's nice that you didn't have us "in your mind" when making those accusations, but given that you and the President were running around the country accusing people of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists in the middle of an election, the fact that you didn't have Congressional Democrats in "mind" isn't significant. Your intent was to make people think that anyone who opposed the "TSP" did not want to eavesdrop on terrorists, even though that was false. No Democrats oppose eavesdropping on terrorists.

Gonzales: I wasn't referring to Democrats.

The White House wants retroactive immunity because they are afraid what telecommunication companies will say about the administration in court. Bush may have foolishly thought going around the FISA court was protecting America. Bush is protecting his own self-interest. The President has made warrantless wiretapping and torture conservative values.

S.2248 Voted Down

The Russ Feingold amendment S.2248 is to "prohibit reverse targeting and protect the rights of Americans who are communicating with people abroad." The amendment only received 38 yea votes. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama dodged the controversial wiretapping issue by not voting.

Democrats voting against the Feingold amendment.

Jay Rockefeller
Dianne Feinstein
Tim Johnson
Mary L. Landrieu
Blanche Lincoln
Daniel K. Inouye
Mark Pryor
Ken Salazar

As usual, Joe Lieberman broke from the Democratic caucas. Joementum is stumping for McCain. There is less reason to let Lieberman chair the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

In other exciting news: John "the Maverick" McCain did not vote on S.2248 or the economic stimulus bill. The latter bill failed to pass a filibuster 59 to 40. Harry Reid changed his vote for parliamentary reasons. So the tax rebate bill can be voted on again.

Political courage is in short supply. But the media can still call McCain a maverick.

John Edwards Against FISA Bill

John Edwards has come out publicly against the FISA bill.

In Washington today, telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press to win retroactive immunity for their illegal eavesdropping on American citizens. Granting retroactive immunity will let corporate law-breakers off the hook and hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush's illegal spying program.

"It's time for Senate Democrats to show a little backbone and stand up to George W. Bush and the corporate lobbyists. They should do everything in their power -- including joining Senator Dodd's efforts to filibuster this legislation -- to stop retroactive immunity. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price."

I received an Edwards campaign asking Floridians to voice their disapproval of the Bush administration-backed FISA bill to Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez.

Mel Martinez, (R): (202) 224-3041
Bill Nelson, (D): (202) 224-5274

Edwards has come out against the bill. Are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama going to show leadership and use their pulpits to sway colleagues. Their silence have spoke volumes about their political courage.

The lobbying power of the telecommunication companies can not be underestimated. The telecom industry has contributed $2,834,423 this election cycle. The Senate voted 76 to 10 to vote on the bill. The bill would have easily passed if not for Christopher Dodd placing a hold on the bill.

The issue is that the bill violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court secretly presides over federal requests for wiretaps. The FISA court rarely turns down requests. The first appeal was filed by the Bush administration. Judge James Robinson resigned in protest. The Justice Department incompetently improperly filed 75 applications. FISA historically rubber stamps wire tap requests. The Bush administration went beyond the court's legal tolerance. The Bushies decided they would still wiretap.

The White House refused to allow Congress to see documents pertaining to the warrantless wiretapping program. The administration relented, to convince Congress to grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies. Which begs the question: if the program is legal then why is legal immunity needed.

Chris Dodd Speech

Christopher Dodd spoke on the Senate floor on the FISA bill.

The President’s wholesale disregard of the rule of law has compounded the damage done in Iraq and has made our nation less secure and as a direct consequence of these acts, we are less secure, more vulnerable and more isolated in the world.

Consider the scandal at Abu Ghraib – where Iraqi prisoners were subjected to inhumane and humiliating acts by U.S. personnel charged with guarding them.

Consider Guantanamo Bay. Rather than helping to protect the nation, the prisons at Guantanamo Bay have instead become the very symbol for our weakened moral standing in the world.

Consider the secret prisons run by the CIA and the practice of extraordinary rendition that allows them to evade U.S. law regarding torture.

Consider the shameful actions of our outgoing Attorney General who politicized prosecutions – who was more committed to serving the President who appointed him than the laws he had sworn to uphold.

Sign the petition.

Update: Dodd will appear on Meet the Press this Sunday. It's a good platform for him to raise awareness about the questionable language in the FISA bill.

Senators Respond to Dodd's FISA Filibuster

Christopher Dodd's live chat on putting a hold on the FISA bill has caused a stir in the netroots. The candidates' aides have been paying attention. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been forced to take a stance.

Obama's spokesman Bill Burton issued this statement.

"Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it."

Hillary Clinton was directly asked about the FISA bill.

Q: Can you discuss your position on the reauthorization of the FISA bill?

Hillary Clinton: I am troubled by the concerns that have been raised by the recent legislation reported out of the Intelligence Committee. I haven't seen it so I can't express an opinion about it. But I don't trust the Bush Administration with our civil rights and liberties. So I'm going to study it very hard. As matters stand now, I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forward that would convince me differently.

Joe Biden has come out against the bill. That's three Senators. How this hurts the Bush administration is Dodd, Clinton, Obama, and Biden are presidential candidates and can give increased media attention to how awful an idea giving retroactive immunity to telephone companies that illegally released private information.

Biden serves on the Judiciary Committee. Arlen Specter has already expressed reservations the bill. Specter and Patrick Leahy couldn't hide their frustration of the White House's refusal to release documents relating to warrantless wiretapping.

You have now had more than ample time to collect and process the relevant documents. Responsive information to those subpoenas is long overdue. You have made commitments to provide responsive information over the last several months and even recently, but no such information has yet been provided.

Instead, we read that a White House spokesperson has now conditioned the production of information on prior Senate agreement to provide retroactive immunity from liability for communications carriers. That is unacceptable and would turn the legislative process upside down. If the Administration wants our support for immunity, it should comply with the subpoenas, provide the information, and justify its request. As we have both said, it is wrongheaded to ask Senators to consider immunity without their being informed about the legal justifications purportedly excusing the conduct being immunized. Although the two of us have been briefed on certain aspects of the President's program, this cannot substitute for access to the documents and legal analysis needed to inform the legislative decisions of the Committee as a whole.

One Senator and bloggers started an avalanche against BushCo. This FISA bill would have been a done deal before the age of blogging an online chats. This is grassroots mobilization that has potential longterm consequences oon civil liberties. If Dodd defeats this bill, this will be proof that political apathy is inexcusable.

I have never seen apathy as a justifiable excuse in politics or one's personal affairs. Every person, I have known whom is apathetic has serious issues in believing in themselves. There is the cynical saying that you can't fight city hall. Right now Chris Dodd and bloggers are fighting the White House an winning.

Christopher Dodd On FISA Bill

Firelakedog set up a video chat with Christopher Dodd. The Senator explains why he put a hold on the FISA bill. A problem with the bill's language is retroactive protection for people that obtained private information from telephone companies without a court order.

Where Is Bill Nelson's Spine?

Susan S has a fascinating post about what a weak-willed pol Bill Nelson is. Remember, Nelson was one of the 12 Democrats, in the Senate, to vote for what is now known as the torture bill. The bill gave the President the ability to bend the Geneva Conventions to his liking.

(b) The Military Commissions Act defines certain prohibitions of Common Article 3 for United States law, and it reaffirms and reinforces the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions.

Nelson voted for this bill out of political fear. The pathetic thing was at the time he was killing Katherine Harris in the polls and raising shitloads of cash. Nelson displayed more cowardness in the Senate Intelligence Committee. He backed Republicans to continue funding the CIA's interrogation techniques.

But the committee stopped short of using its budget authority to shut down the program. In a closed session on May 23, two Democrats, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Dianne Feinstein of California, proposed barring spending on interrogation techniques that go beyond the Army Field Manual, which bans physical pressure or pain. Under their proposal, the only exception would have been when the president determined “that an individual has information about a specific and imminent threat.”

The amendment failed when Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, joined all the Republicans in voting no.

Nelson recently voted for the FISA bill that gives President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales more power to spy on Americans. Susan S had a heated exchange with Nelson at a town hall meeting in Pasco County. This was after Nelson told the audience that the administration lied to him about Iraq WMD intelligence. Susan then went off.

"Then why, when you know they can't be trusted, when you know they lie to you, did you vote for the FISA bill that gives the incompetent Bush administration more power to spy on American citizens?"

Nelson ducked the question and Susan interrupted him again.

"I can't believe you fell for it again. You just gave Alberto Gonzalez more power to spy on us."

Nelson weakly responded on how Gonzales can't be trusted.

Why can't Florida have better Senators than Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez?

Necessary and Proper Clause

Here is the U. S. Department of Justice's letter about the President authorizing the NSA warrantless wiretaps to members of congress.

The President's constitutional authority to direct the NSA to conduct the activities he described is supplemented by statutory authority under the AUMF. The AUMF authorizes the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, ... in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." § 2(a). The AUMF clearly contemplates action within the United States, see also id. pmbl. (the attacks of September 11 "render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad"). The AUMF cannot be read as limited to authorizing the use of force against Afghanistan, as some have argued. Indeed, those who directly "committed" the attacks of September 11 resided in the United States for months before those attacks. The reality of the September 11 plot demonstrates that the authorization of force covers activities both on foreign soil and in America.

Apparently, no member of DoJ has heard of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

The President can not disobey the law the suit his whims. Cogress decides what the executive powers through legislation. George Will explains.

Besides, terrorism is not the only new danger of this era. Another is the administration's argument that because the president is commander in chief, he is the "sole organ for the nation in foreign affairs." That non sequitur is refuted by the Constitution's plain language, which empowers Congress to ratify treaties, declare war, fund and regulate military forces, and make laws "necessary and proper" for the execution of all presidential powers . Those powers do not include deciding that a law -- FISA, for example -- is somehow exempted from the presidential duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

The reason the White House doesn't want to go through the FISA warrant process is because they have been spying on political opponents.

Rich Lowry of the National Review wrote a comedy masterpiece on the NSA wiretaps.

The president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend the United States. If he can bomb the nation's enemies overseas without a court's approval, he certainly can listen to their conversations.

Rich, Congress has to make both acts legal. There are public defenders who barely got through law school who have better legal minds. Has this man ever heard of the War Powers Resolution?