http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....910.xml&coll=1

What did I tell you? Bush is going to challenge the constitutionality of FISA.

Only *after* he got caught violating it, of course. But never mind that.

I'm going to need more popcorn....

__________________
Man up.

No, Magoo.

"The legal justifications were laid out in a 40-page report sent to Congress by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales yesterday. The administration has offered many of the same arguments verbally in defending the program since its existence was disclosed last month."

This was done simply in response to the upcoming Senate hearings. It has nothing to do with challenging the constitutionality of FISA. You don't begin a law suit in Congress.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

I didn't say they had yet. I said they were going to.

__________________
Man up.

...the Mob boss does is legal and that's the end of it?

Since when did this country have a Monarch?

Wasn't the whole point of the Clinton witchhunts to prove that NOBODY is above the law, including those in the Oval Office?

Oh wait, the laws are only applied to DEMOCRATS.....silly me.....

I didn't say they had yet. I said they were going to.

You said they were going to by citing this as evidence, which it clearly is not. If anything, I think it is more likely others will challenge the constitutionality of NSA spying, and the Bush administration will be defending their actions commensurate with the strategy outlined by Gonzales. The Bush administration is most likely to be defendants in a case, rather than the plaintiffs. You are suggesting they will be the plaintiffs.

So no, you are not as good as you think you are.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Read the second paragraph I quoted. They are *not* arguing they didn't violate FISA; because clearly, they did. They *are* arguing that if FISA presumes to restrict their right to wiretap, they will argue that FISA is unconstitutional.

Plaintiffs, defendants, who cares? The administration will be the one arguing that FISA is unconstitutional.

__________________
Man up.

Bush is going to challenge the constitutionality of FISA.

Don't get cute. You claimed Bush is going to challenge the constitutionality of FISA, as if to say they are going to file a suit. There is a HUGE difference between being a plaintiff or a defendant in the context in which you make your charge. A defendant may very well argue against the unconstitutionality of FISA, should this issue ever make it to court. But this is a defense, brought on and first caused by a plaintiff bringing suit. But even having said that, this has nothing whatsoever to do with any legal course of action--it is simply the Bush administration complying with a request of Congress relative to the Senate hearings forthcoming.

PER TERMS OF USE PERSONAL INSULTS REMOVED

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Barney, why the abuse? Why are you getting your back up?

Did or did not the administration say that if FISA prohibits warrantless spying such as Bush has done, then the "constitutionality of FISA is doubtful"?

In court, who will be arguing that FISA is unconstitutional?

Perhaps you're saying that Bush's actions will be found to be perfectly okay under FISA. But I though we had already agreed that Bush had violated FISA. Which makes sense: FISA is rather explicitly clear on that point.

__________________
Man up.

boy is in a logical pickle.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Barney, why the abuse? Why are you getting your back up?

I was teasing with you. I didn't mean anything from it. Honest.

But no, I don't believe anyone has "ruled" anything relative to Bush violating any FISA provisions. There are certainly allegations, and Bush has responded that what he is doing is legal; the only point of argument being what may be legal from an Executive standpoint may or may not be legal from an administrative ("FISA") standpoint. And we don't know the answer to that, nor do we know which branch trumps under those circumstances.

Just don't get ahead of yourself. That is the main thing I'm saying. I'm trying not to, because I don't believe anyone can say with any degree of certainty how this will all work out in the end.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill