(Part of a series of sorts: Previously: Part I, Part II, and Part III). This afternoon I was suffering surfing (although I think that was a Freudian […]

There is no retroactive approval under the program in question. FISA allows for such, but according to General Hayden and AG Gonzalez, FISA as currently constituted is inadequate for the surveillance in question.

It isn’t that I have a problem with the concept, I simply have a problem with the way the program has developed.

Agreed. I bring it up to point out that this isn’t the first time we’ve faced these types of situations.

One thing I haven’t heard addressed - perhaps you know - is whether these “wiretaps” are retroactively approved, i.e., do they go back after the fact and get some sort of approval?

I should also say I’m in agreement with most of your general points re: executive power, checks and balances, etc. What I’m still uncertain about is whether this particular case is something that rises to the level of hysteria it’s getting, slippery slope or no.

Sept. 11 was a shooting war on our soil, IMHO.

I”ll let the michelle malkin’s of the world debate the internment issue. I think it was wrong then, and would be impracticable now.

And, I would note, Lincoln had a shooting war on US soil.

True the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, yet in this case we do know that once in our history the security concerns of a President in a time of war led to the rounding up of innocent US citizens into camps because they belonged to the same racial class as one of our enemies, and one doesn’t have to go back to the Civil War to conjure that one.

Further, I have studied enough comparative politics to know that executives are prone to take as much power as they can get away with–which is the reason that that Founding Father installed checks and balances.

I would also note that I bring up the slippery slope in question not to argue that that I think we are going that direction, per se, but to illustrate that there is a line in the sand somewhere where the AUMF stops authorizing actions. Those whop argue that it authorizing the current wiretapping program need to acknowledge that their logic over what powers the AUMF give the president have a limit and that we need to talk about what those are, not just slap out the AUMF and say “see!”–which is what the administration has essentially done.

And yes: our fiscal policies are quite concerning.

The Slippery Slope argument is as much of a logical fallacy as the false dichotomy.

I am somewhat ambivalent about the program and the resulting firestorm (as I am about many things these days, apparently). What is clear from what I’ve read is that the administration didn’t just decide to do this willy-nilly. They considered the constitutional questions adn came to a different conclusion than you or I. Until this thing comes before the supreme court (assuming someone else doesn’t hear this sort of case), we have no real way of knowing whether it was “legal” in the technical sense of the word.

I’m much more concerned about the president’s recent budget - which contains much more pressing concerns - that will likely get buried under “wiretap-gate” or whatever ridiculous moniker they throw on this tempest in a teapot.

i have just answered ALL of your latest questions at my blog.

thanks for taking the time to make such a cogent argument aginst what bush has done. too bad feingold and leahy and durbin and others have NOT made such a case.

not that it would change things, materially. it would just elecate the debate.

as for who wins this debate - we shall soon see … the SIC and the SCOTUS will soon weigh in, i believe.

all the best!