The Wisdom in Wiretaps
Bush critics seek war-powers loopholes to benefit terrorists.

Saturday, January 7, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

The Bush Administration's use of warrantless wiretaps in the war on terrorism continues to generate controversy, and Congress is planning hearings. Some of the loopier elements of the Democratic Party have even suggested the wiretaps are grounds for impeachment. But the more we learn about the practice, the clearer it is that the White House has been right to employ and defend it.

The issue is not about circumventing normal civilian Constitutional protections, after all. The debate concerns surveillance for military purposes during wartime. No one would suggest the President must get a warrant to listen to terrorist communications on the battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan. But what the critics are really insisting on here is that the President get a warrant the minute a terrorist communicates with an associate who may be inside in the U.S. That's a loophole only a terrorist could love.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110007783

I have asked this before and I will ask it again. What parts of the US constitution should never be bypassed/violated? Can US presidents violate any law they want in times of war?

http://www.modernsurf.com/spam/spamanm.gif

But what the critics are really insisting on here is that the President get a warrant the minute a terrorist communicates with an associate who may be inside in the U.S. That's a loophole only a terrorist could love.
Debunk:

The current law governing such surveillance -- FISA -- allows the administration to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a search warrant up to 72 hours after the government begins monitoring suspects' phone conversations. The existence of this 72-hour window debunks the argument that the administration has to bypass the law to avoid delay in obtaining a warrant.

Originally posted by Rubicon
The debate concerns surveillance for military purposes during wartime

The problem is the war on terror isn't a war so much as a policy stance. It has been as much as admitted that it may be unwinnable or last indefinitely. As such any powers that the war on terror justifies might be justified and used for the forseeable future, perhaps forever