Anyone reading this should read Decius' original post in full... I'm excerpting...

Decius wrote:

Congress clearly authorized the President to intercept battlefield communications in Afghanistan. Congress clearly understood that some Al'Q people where in the USA and some might be US citizens....

Exactly. And exactly why this "war" is so dangerous. There's no well defined "battlefield" and even the "enemy" is rendered without clarity, somtimes painted in very broad strokes. I don't deny that terrorists operate in a way that's fundamentally different from the way other enemies operate. To me, though, that only demands that we be *even more careful* about the way we prosecute the war.

What the hawks and warlords and lazy conservatives seem to miss or ignore is that the terrorists' OBJECTIVE is not the same as any other enemy. They're not in this for land, or money. They're in it to demolish OUR IDEALS. Privacy, freedom of speech and religion, the entire list we hold so dear. Every time our leaders spy on us, or detain a citizen without due process, they're handing victory to our enemies.

But, you hear people say, if we *dont* do that, then our enemies can kill us and then they still win! But they don't do they. The way a terrorist wins is by instilling TERROR. They win by making you change your way of life to suit the fear that they've put into you. If I have to die in a terrorist attack because I and my countrymen were not afraid to live in a free nation where our government is not given any authority it wants, then I will consider my life well spent. We win this "war" on terror by NOT BEING AFRAID to be Americans, by not giving up one iota of freedom in the pursuit of an enemy that is ultimately in our minds, more than they are in our cities.

Frankly, the line is anything but clear. I do not think the Administration should be taking a hard line with Congress about what Congress did or did not authorize. They've also argued that these intercepts are Constitutional regardless of FISA, which is a big line in the sand as it essentially argues that Congress did not have the right to establish FISA in the first place. This is a radical legal position that is very vulnerable.

They're flailing, and there's no other word for it. If it's constitutionally supported, then that'd be the argument. If it was authorized by the AUMF, then that'd be the argument. Since it was authorized by NOTHING, they're spinning and playing the Confuse and Confound game. As usual. As you say, this puts congress in a delicate position, and the outcomes are all somewhat frightening. I say Bush won't back down, and he won't be impeached. His numbers will tumble back to their recent lows (they're up again after all the victory speeches) and Congress will speechify, but I'm so cynical anymore that I don't see any permanent censure coming down.

If I were the President I'd have addressed this in a more conservative way...

I expect, if you were president, you wouldn't have spied on citizens without oversight. I know you're being rhetorical, but I'd rather not give credence to the idea that these actions were even theoretically valid.

Many people are not going to get why we need checks and balances when there are actual terrorists running around.

Just this morning one of the tools (Usually-Silly-Sidekick, i think) on one of the morning radio shows (I know, not the place for insightful analysis, but, still a lot of people listen to this stuff) was taking that position. He was arguing that he does nothing wrong, and doesn't think that we're at that point yet where anyone's rights are really being infringed upon. For the record, Quirky-Cute-Sounding-Chick agreed but Abrasive-Main-Guy didn't. For my part, i wanted to reach through the radio waves and shake someone. If you remove the need for oversight, then what's to stop us from getting to "that point", after all.

It is that short sighted and fear-induced attitude that threatens our nation far more than any single terrorist does.

RE: Bush Defends Eavesdropping Program