POST SCRIPTS

our national borders. It does not allow for eavesdropping on calls entirely within the USA. This is an important distinction to make, because FISA is designed for the collection of foreign intelligence by surveillance and it is set apart by Congress (in law) from the usual "probable cause" warrants that law enforcement must obtain.

---

Why not use the courts and get a warrant? Why does it have to be done in such secrecy?

---

When a warrant is obtained, the details of the warrant, i.e. the reason for surveillance that must contain the, who, what, when, how and why. The law says a warrant is only for a very specific period of time. Once the warrant time has expired the person/s being surveilled must be notified and many details of the warrant can then become known to them. This is their legal right. For an enemy combatant of the USA, this is an intelligence bonanza. It doesn't take a great leap of logic to see that such information will be used to defeat future wire taps and improve terrorist's stealthy tactics. It is just as probable that more innocent lives will be lost when the terrorists have such helpful information.

In 1978 Congress gave the President the authority for warrantless searches in section III of FISA when they said and I quote, "nothing in Title III shall be deemed to limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government."

We have had three successive Presidents that invoked the powers of FISA and there's not been one case of abuse brought before the courts, let alone a case sustaining an abuse! Not one! And that is incredibly significant when you compare what has happen to us since Al Queda declared war on America. There's the real threat and there have been zero cases of abuse by FISA, yet we're dwelling on that and not the terrorists?

Fisa is limited in its focus to gather of overseas intelligence and those very same people we were spying on have done us substantial domestic harm, in 93 and 2001. They are a real and ver visible threat, on the other hand libs make up some hypothetical story showing how FISA “might� be abused! That's a far cry from the reality we've seen on 9/11.

I suspect those people are obstructing FISA for reasons that are more political than patriotic. They have attacked President Bush for using FISA exactly as his predecessors did and claim criminal wrongdoing! Several radical members in Congress have said what President Bush is doing (protecting the United States) is an impeachable offense.

Imagine if the President had information that foreign nationals inside the United States were conversing with terrorist contacts in Iran and he did nothing and as a result we were attacked and lives were lost. Now that would be an impeachable offense! Or imagine that he sought out the blessings of a federal judge who then denied the warrant to use a wiretap and the President did nothing and we were attacked. Again, one could argue that too would be an impeachable offense. Congress said in FISA, he is lawfully authorized "...to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States", how much more clear could it be?

When it comes to life and death issues in national security, the buck stops with the President, not a federal judge or a member of Congress. Yet, there are some groups like the ACLU and even a few members of Congress like Nancy Pelosi, that would willingly risk another 9/11 attack by forcing this President to abandon FISA and meet the heavy burden of proof required in a court ordered wire tap. And lets not forget that by obtaining that warrant the information in it will eventually become public knowledge. It makes no sense to me that we should surrender our intel gathering tactics to Al Queda.

Since no other President was so challenged or threatened with impeachment for using FISA, one might suspect there is a hidden agenda behind all this ballyhoo, an agenda that has nothing to do with protecting your civil rights, but everything to do with gaining political advantage. An advantage I might ad, that comes at the cost of risking American lives and empowering our enemies here and abroad. Now that my friends is what I call a impeachable offense.