It doesn't take away the power, but it does require a warrant. It is not difficult to get a warrant within 72 hours, so why not do it? Why even make it questionable? I don't care what Jimmy Carter did before I was born and before FISA went into effect in 1978; this is 2006, and President Bush's expansion of Presidential power to "anything I want to do" in the name of national security is absurd.

Look at what he has done; he's got us in a war that has no forseeable ending because the goal is vague (defeat terrorism). Then, he claims that he has unlimited war powers so long as we're in this war that has no measurable end. How can this not scare people? The administration doesn't even want there to be oversight to make sure this is being used for the right reasons. Bush could just be using this to spy on his political enemies. I don't know this, but that's the problem; NO ONE KNOWS how he is using his newfound power.

Gee, I thought it was snow, but apparently the sky is falling, because of Bush.

How can someone say they don't care about the precedent set by former presidents, especially one that chose a funeral to play politics?
Also, the concept that congress just passing a bill can take away a constitutional power from the president is just wrong. That would require an amendment to the constitution or a SCOTUS opinion denying the power ever existed.

The goal of the current military operations is not vague at all. While you are worried about the government finding out how much porn you download, our armed forces are overseas ensuring our civilians' safety here in America. There are people and nations actively trying to find a way to cause catastrophic damage to our country, and if stopping them from doing so is vague, then vague is fine by me.

Apparently the sky is falling, and only Bush with unchecked powers can prop it up.

Technically, Congress never actually declared a formal war to my knowlege. Moreover, a war does not nullify the Constitution. The Bill of Rights should not be sacraficed, a government of checks and balances should not be sacraficed, because one man wants to be able to spy on anyone he wants to. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have wiretaps, only that there should be a check on this power as provided (72 hours to get a warrent). This is perfectly reasonable.

I'm not saying that we should ignore precedent, but only meant to imply that times (and laws) have since changed. I wasn't ALIVE then to say that I was opposed to it, but as sure am now, and I'm saying, loud and proud, that this is an abuse of the presidential powers as commander in chief.

I am honestly not a Bush supporter, I think he is a horrible president but sadly was the best choice available for the last two elections.

However, I don't think he is evil or unscrupulous as the democratic propoganda would have you believe. I think there is a time and a place for slippery slope arguments, but when it is invoked regarding everything the president does it loses credibility.
I have a great deal of faith in this country and it's ability to right itself. I just find it laughable and ridiculous that people actually believe that we are heading towards an Orwellian nightmare. If they find out that Bush authorized the wiretapping of someone not reasonably related to our national defense, then we have a problem. Until then, I trust that he is honestly trying to protect the country.

I agree that the vagueries surrounding whether congress authorized this war might just be what Bush slips up on; Truman paid the price for insisting Korea was a police action and not a war, but on the other hand the constitutional protections were eased during WWII because we were clearly at war. That being said, I tend to think we are at war and that congress has authorized it and if they didn't they should.

Having read my first post again, I think it was a little too flippant. Hopefully, this post-dinner post is a little more civilized.

Mike: I agree that if there was a formal declaration of war, many of these legal questions wouldn't be as .... "difficult." Good point.

Thanks, Ben - I can get a little "flippant" myself from time to time. Attacking my porn collection was below the belt though - that's my pride and joy. LOL...(j/k).

I'm a patriotic American, and I think the tendency in this country is towards increased liberty, that though we occationally take steps backwards, we continue to progress on the right track, and that we are capable of overcoming any individual or group who may overstep his or her bounds.

I do think generally that Bush wishes to strengthen our security; I haven't been as anxious to attack the PATRIOT Act as many Democrats, because I think some of it is necessary, just that there needs to be more protections for civil liberties built in.

I kind of feel the same way about this thing. I don't really care that he's wiretapping, I just want oversight of some sort. I still fail to see why he just doesn't get a warrant of some sort, or why he will not at least keep the intelligence committee apprised of exactly WHO he is spying on.

Finally, it just irks me when people defend Bush and his programs without any real reasoning or arguments. I see in the actions of he and his administration a consistent pattern of doing whatever it takes to get their way, no matter how slimy, and it gives me the weebie-jeebies. Thank you for your well thought out reply on this topic; though I continue to disagree, I can certainly appreciate that more than the first, which seemed more like a blind defense.

No, I'll admit that there was no formal declaration of war, but that can only happen if we're at war with an actual nation state, not a loose multinational web of terror groups. This also means that we can't expect to see Bin Laden, Zarkawi and Zawahiri signing surrender documents on the deck of the USS Ronald Reagan. They have declared war on us, though, so we have to keep on fighting until we no longer worry about getting on an airplane or opening a letter. This is Dau Tranh (Vietnamese for total war) and people need to stop carping and moaning about those of us who recognize the fact.

Rex: Can you support your statement that we can only declare against a nation-state? Does it say that in the Constitution? What if we declared war on al-Qaeda and/or the Taliban?

Good point, Hube. I'm no legal scholar, but I'm fairly certain that the only things that US law deal with are what the President needs to do to declare war, and what the Congress is obligated or permitted to do in response, as outlined in the War Powers Act, for example.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm

Who can declare war and on whom and with what are outlined in international agreements, such as the Geneva and Hague Conventions. What our armed forces can and can't do under these conventions and other customs is outlined in the Laws of Land Warfare.

http://www.combatindex.com/law_of_land_warfare_ch01.html

Of course, Al Qaeda, like the Viet Cong, don't follow anyone's rules about shooting down Medevac choppers or hiding troops or arms in religious buildings, so I put it to you that it's all academic.

But if it is an inherent power, Congress cannot place this sort of restriction -- any more than the President can issue an executive order ending a filibuster.

It's called separation of powers, folks.