Once again, no recent comments from me because you're linin' 'em up and knockin' 'em down...thanks for bringing us this speech, the fun contrasts of the previous post, etc., etc...

I've actually been pretty leary about the surveillance program as outlined - my basic uneducated position has been:
1) The administration probably ought to get a warrant to wiretap US citizens on US soil
2) The courts should hand them out like they're candy
3) The executive branch always seizes power, and congress and the courts are there to keep them in check - which is what's happening here; the administration asserts a privilege, and the argument works its way through the system, either judicially or legislatively.

I just read Gonzales's speech, and I've gotta say, I like this guy. He actually addressed my main concern, which everyone I've heard thus far has sort of pseudo-dodged - why not just get a warrant? His answer is essentially that it's too much work, and we couldn't move quickly enough, even with the emergency warrant procedure - that emergency warrant has to be vetted through lawyers all the way up to the attorney general, who have to make sure all the FISA conditions are met. And even in a normal warrant situation, it will take the work of a couple attorneys a couple days to prep all the supporting documentation.

It sounds to me like the best solution here would be to fix the rules, not to skip Judicial oversight - like, have a different standard that needs to be met in cases of communications where one party is outside of the country. That seems like a better solution to me than just skipping the cumbersome following of rules...

(I just noticed your 2nd comment--This is to the first.)

"to wiretap US citizens on US soil." You leave out the little matter of who's on the other end of the call. You call me, and they need a warrant.

You call Dr Semtex in his madrassa in Quetta, and they do NOT need a warrant, and NEVER HAVE, through all our history. (But you are still protected in your civil liberites as far as criminal matters go--the tapped call can't be introduced as criminal evidence. Gitmo yes, jail no.)

"The executive branch always seizes power". You are letting the Democrats frame the issue. If, as many of us believe, Bush is acting properly with the power he has under Article II, augmented with a Congressional resolution authorizing force, then he isn't seizing anything. And it could be argued that FISA is largely a case of Congress, in post-Watergate foolishness, seizing power and needing very much to be checked.

At the risk of typing over you, I'll reply to a couple things here...

First, you are right, the fact that any information gained by these warrantless wiretaps would be inadmissible in court is something I hadn't thought about...that does actually change things dramatically for me, to be honest. It also highlights, at least for me, the fact that the administration isn't doing this to try to bust pot-smokers or pornographers or something, they're trying to stop terrorists. Warrantless searches are anathema because, in part, of prosecutorial overreach - and that simply is not an issue here.

That being said, any recognized mechanism for wiretapping US citizens on US soil could - and I emphasize could - lead to abuse. I've seen nothing so far to say that it has, and I think regardless, it's a relatively minor matter (I mean, we discuss it because folks are bleating like it's treason or some such nonsense - to my mind, this is tinkering around the edges, an interesting thing to be discussed, but assuredly not central to our civil liberties or anything - even if it were clearly unconstitutional, I'd have a hard time being worked up about it, and I believe it's way open for debate). But I'd love to see a system whereby, say, all the wireless taps and the decisions that went into them were assembled for periodic judicial review, maybe monthly or something. Yes, it would require additional work, but it would insure that there was specific oversight, which would deter abuse.

Regarding the executive branch always seizing power - that's actually not letting the dem's frame the issue, that's actually my opinion from reading a little history. I would have been better off saying each branch of government tries to assert as much power as it can, but it's held in check by the other two (at least it is when things are healthy and functioning). And, by the way, I don't see anything wrong with that. The president asserts authority, and is held back by congress and the courts; congress asserts authority, and is held back by the president and the courts; the courts assert authority...er...well, we haven't done a great job of holding them in check for a while now, but in time through judicial appointments, they too are restrained.

I completely agree with you that the worst part about FISA is the year it was enacted - 1978, at the apex of Congressional power. Worst thing Nixon ever did was fall from power in disgrace, because it destroyed executive power until Reagan...and we're still living with the consequences of that, from splitting logistics off from the military to the reserves to restrictions on intelligence gathering...

And regarding the historical precedent - I definitely value that data highly. However, just because we've always done things in a certain way doesn't mean it's wise to continue to do so. Asassinating foreign leaders (outside of a state of war), suspending habeas corpus, inflicting deliberate civilian casualties - these all have a place in war-making precedent, and all (except in the Hamid case) are currently off the table, whether wisely or not...

"...doesn't mean it's wise to continue to do so." True. And if opponents of the President were to make an honest case and say such-and-such has been done in the past, but we think it should stop, and we are willing to accept the consequent harm to the war effort, I couldn't criticize them. (Though I might criticize the proposal.)

It's the dishonst critcism that makes me angry..

I'm definitely with you on that one. And the proportion of the response to the accusation here - hell, on most every issue - that's what really turns me off. I mean, I'm against faith-based initiatives - I don't want my tax dollars going to a church that, say, won't hire gay folks or fires people who get pregnant out of wedlock (which did happen nearby), or whatever else. But c'mon, people, that doesn't make Bush a frickin' mullah. He wants funds to go to folks on the ground getting their hands dirty, and the money supports those efforts, it doesn't buy new vestments or Jack Chick tracts...sheesh...

Same thing here. Bush is asserting a privilege, a variation on a theme, he took it to Congressional oversight committees, and now that it's been illegally (in fact, treasonously) leaked, the system is sorting out the rules. That's a good thing - and people are pretending it's the end of the republic. Dude, Where's my Sense of Perspective?