FISA ONLY ALLOWS 15 DAYS FROM DECLARATION OF WAR

[ddeclue]

Please watch out for our friendly Republican disinformation officers who are trying to convince us that FISA allows a 15 day warrantless search period during "times of war". This is a tremendously deceptive misquote of the FISA law.

The FISA law is EXPLICIT: 15 calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS. There is no way to spin this to mean 15 days after a warrant is issued or that a war grants the President special powers.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec...

US CODE TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war


Release date: 2005-03-17

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.

(Emphasis added).


Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL

[Flabbergasted]

1. Thanks Great info

[FogerRox]

31. Ok Doug I gave you enuf time and you have gotten no where

read this folks

Read how Doug and his other co-hort from FLorida got posts deleted and told by a MOD he was wrong

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2339011

PLease DU members-- what good is a law allowing for wiretaps for the first 15 days only? Thats what Doug is saying. I say his interpretation is wrong.

In a declared war, the Feds can wiretap for 15 w/o court order.

heres the statute-
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html

[ddeclue]

34. It DOES do something useful...

It limits Presidential power.

That was its intent. It was intended to deny the President the tired old national security "necessity" defense for performing illegal wiretaps which had been done by Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and FBI Director Hoover for many years on people like Martin Luther King and John Kerry and the Vietnam Vets Against the War, among many others.

It defined specific procedures to follow in the law and it anticipated the so called "ticking time bomb" scenario by granting the President a very generous tap first ask later 72 hour grace period.

It also defeated the argument that "this information is too secret to take to a judge" by making the FISA court a secret court not open to normal public scrutiny.

So I think the FISA law has turned out to be a very useful law after all and it's karmic (spelling??) justice that Bush has been snared by it and at least theoretically is facing between thousands and millions of years of prison depending on how many calls have been intercepted. (Each one would be a separate felony count worth up to 5 years and you can add in conspiracy and obstruction charges as well).


Welcome to this thread and you'll find that LoZoccolo and I understand and agree with each other but not with you.

Good day sir...


Democratically Yours,

Doug D.

[elehhhhna]

2. Nominated! Great catch!

[LoZoccolo]

3. Uh, no.

The size of the period is extended after the declaration of war. This is consistent with the way the sentence is structured, and would make more sense than what you say. Anyways, denying that the period is extended during a war actually helps, not hurts, the Bush administration's excuses.

[ddeclue]

4. It is extended for the first 15 days after the declaration only.

as it is explicitly written in the law.

After that, it lapses back to the 72 hour retroactive rule.

And also important to note is that Congress has never declared war since World War II so the 15 day period doesn't apply in any case.

Doug D.

[LoZoccolo]

5. Your story doesn't make any sense.

First of all, it's ambiguous at best. Your interpretation is not explicitly written in the law.

Second of all, it doesn't make any sense as you interpret it. Why would they pass a law like that? Like the intelligence they get during the first fifteen days is going to be more important than the rest of the war?

Third of all, your interpretation actually helps scoot along the Republicans' talking point about the courts being too inconvenient to fight terror.

[ddeclue]

6. Yes it does.

There is only ONE correct way to read the sentence below. Didn't you ever have to diagram a sentence in English composition in school?

Removing the two clauses that say:

1) Notwithstanding any other law - this means that this section supercedes any other part of the US Code.

2) through the Attorney General - describes the method by which the President may authorize the wire taps.

That leaves:

the President may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.

The subject is : The President
The verbs are :may authorize
The object is : electronic surveillance

There is a conditional clause attached to the verb:

without a court order - meaning that the President does not require a search warrant.. but...

there is a clause attached to this clause

under this subchapter - meaning that this warrantless search only applies to cases covered by this chapter of the United States Code

there is another limiting clause:
to acquire foreign intelligence information - meaning he can't use it to listen in on the Kerry campaign.

and there is one final limiting clause:
for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.

meaning that this warrantless search provision is limited to a fifteen day window AFTER Congress makes a declaration of War.

If Congress makes no declaration, then the warrantless search window never opens.

Wasn't that fun?

Doug D.
Orlando, FL





US CODE TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war


Release date: 2005-03-17

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.

[LoZoccolo]

9. I've made my point.

By now I don't think you're going to admit that there's more than one way to read it, but I think everyone else can see it.

[ddeclue]

11. No you haven't made your point.

I diagrammed the sentence for you. What more do you need?

For you to be correct the final limiting clause that I mentioned:

"for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS."

would need to actually be broken into two separate clauses using a COMMA like this:

"for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days, FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS."

The comma is missing therefore it reads as one clause not two.

Q.E.D.

Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL

and P.S. to break it up using a comma would still be bad grammar because it would confuse the reader as to what "FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS" referred. If it were done this way it would refer to the subject "The President", not to the preceding clause.

I love language and I'm a computer programmer so I'm very highly aware of grammar and punctuation. Computers are far less forgiving than people when it comes to bad syntax but so is the law.

Doug D.

[LoZoccolo]

13. That's really funny how you diagrammed the sentence, too.

You spent all this time trying to look like you went into painstaking detail, when you really just glossed over the only part I was disputing.

The comma breaking the sentence into clauses would not change anything about what the clause refers to.

And you still haven't explained why you're so adamant about making a point that actually helps the Republicans, or why anyone would pass a law that seems to do something useless.

[ddeclue]

14. Wait a minute..there must be some confusion here..

We're apparently both Democrats and on the same team here.

No I don't see my reading as helping the Republicans. If anything it hurts them.

1) There was no declaration of war - hence the 15 day window never opened. So they have always been limited to the 72 hour rule.

2) If I understand what YOU are saying, you are saying that once a declaration of war has been passed then the President can start the 15 day clock on any surveillance whenever he wants to. That is far less restrictive than saying he can only use the 15 day rule beginning from the declaration of war being passed.

For example, if I understand your point of view on this you are arguing that the President, could today, start a wiretap (assuming for a moment that the 9/11 resolution was "a declaration of war -which it is not) and would not have to request a warrant until January 14th...

I say that even if there was a declaration of war 4 years ago (which again I do not concede) then he CAN NOT do this. His warrantless window was closed over 4 years ago in early October of 2001 for that 15 day rule. He is therefore limited to the 72 hour rule under the FISA law.

Do we agree? Can you clarify your point of view?

Doug D.
Democrat
Orlando, FL

And finally on the comma, it makes the difference between referring to "The President" and to "days" because without the comma it specifies "which" days. The 15 days aren't just any random 15 days but begin at a specified point in time defined by the phrase "following a declaration of War by Congress".

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[LoZoccolo]

16. The excuse for not going to the court...

...has always been that it's inconvenient, that it impedes their investigation. That they had 15 days after they conducted a wiretap to get approval and still didn't get approval hurts their reputation and shows them to be acting grossly lawlessly.

I'm not implying that they are a random fifteen days.

[ddeclue]

20. Well then I think we are in agreement generally.

If I understand it you think allowing them 15 days instead of 3 meant that they had been granted a much bigger window and therefore were far more abusive.

I say the window never opened but that the 72 hour after the fact warrant was plenty of time to convince a judge and was far too generous in the first place given the wording of the 4th Amendment which says no search without a warrant and no warrant without a judge.

So my point is that Bush did far more than enough to be way over the top by ignoring the 72 hour rule. In any event because there was no declaration, the 15 day rule never applied in the first place. Finally Bush ignored the rules altogether out of what I can only assume is an ego the size of an aircraft carrier.

Please read my pieces on brainshrub.com on this subject, I'm sure you will like them:

www.brainshrub.com/president-wiretap
www.brainshrub.com/us-banana-republic
http://www.brainshrub.com/wish-for-more-wishes

Democratically Yours,

Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL

[LoZoccolo]

22. Thank you, I apologize for my tone. n/t

[ddeclue]

24. No problem...

I've allowed some other posters to make me testy over this issue and it is why I started the thread in the first place.. they were making it sound like Bush had 15 days before a wire tap required a warrant in "times of war" thus providing him with a cover story to minimize the legal violations.

I kept going round and around with them and you couldn't get them to agree that the sun rose in the east in the morning or that 2+2=4 and they kept misquoting the actual statute which I pulled down from the web.

Anyways I put this thread up as a debunker to their thread and I thought initially you were one of them..

Again, my apologies as well and I think we understand each other,

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[librechik]

23. the Pukkkes are saying the Iraq War Resolution is the same as

a declaration. Yet they administration itself (Gonzalez) points to the earlier Afghan resolution,

Let's throw down now. Is it a legal declaration of war or no? No weaseling allowed! Although the SCOTUS may not want to see that case coming its way.

[ddeclue]

25. Nope because it does not contain the magic words

"declaration of war" or "state of war exists" or any language close to it.

All it does is authorize the President to use all necessary force just like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964.

Doug D.

[ddeclue]

29. A proper declaration requires:

1) A literal recitation of the "magic words" - The United States does hereby declare that a state of war exists between itself and ________. More or less with some variations but it can't just be anything.

1) A concrete entity upon which war will be waged:

Germany, Japan, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, whatever. but not an abstract idea: drugs, poverty, crime, terror.

Why: Because you can defeat a concrete entity, but not an abstract idea.

2) A reason that war is required:

"They sank my battleship", 9/11, etc. but it must be a concrete reason and not something that would normally be the subject of simple negotiation like "please repay the foreign aid loan we sent you several years ago.."

3) A definition of the terms victory - usually this means adding the word "unconditional surrender" or some similar language.

4) Enforcing language entitling the President to whatever powers beyond being CinC of the military that Congress feels that the President is entitled to. Absent this language, the President does not have any additional "war" powers not already granted him under Article II Section 2 of the Constitution.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[FogerRox]

33. wrong doug the 15 days replaces the 72 hr time frame

read this folks

Read how Doug and his other co-hort from FLorida got posts deleted and told by a MOD he was wrong

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2339011

PLease DU members-- what good is a law allowing for wiretaps for the first 15 days only? Thats what Doug is saying. I say his interpretation is wrong.

In a declared war, the Feds can wiretap for 15 w/o court order.

heres the statute-
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html

[ddeclue]

36. No I got posts deleted because I let you get me irritated...

You are simply wrong and you know it. You seek to go on forever repeating the same story over and over again when I broke it down as simple as it can be for you:

Removing the two clauses that say:

1) Notwithstanding any other law - this means that this section supercedes any other part of the US Code.

2) through the Attorney General - describes the method by which the President may authorize the wire taps.

That leaves:

the President may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.

The subject is : The President
The verbs are :may authorize
The object is : electronic surveillance

There is a conditional clause attached to the verb:

without a court order - meaning that the President does not require a search warrant.. but...

there is a clause attached to this clause

under this subchapter - meaning that this warrantless search only applies to cases covered by this chapter of the United States Code

there is another limiting clause:
to acquire foreign intelligence information - meaning he can't use it to listen in on the Kerry campaign.

and there is one final limiting clause:
for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.

meaning that this warrantless search provision is limited to a fifteen day window AFTER Congress makes a declaration of War.

If Congress makes no declaration, then the warrantless search window never opens.

We can repeat this process all night and all day if you like..

Good day sir.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[ddeclue]

15. Oh and the law does something useFUL

It limits Presidential power.

That was its intent. It was intended to deny the President the tired old national security "necessity" defense for performing illegal wiretaps which had been done by Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and FBI Director Hoover for many years on people like Martin Luther King and John Kerry and the Vietnam Vets Against the War, among many others.

It defined specific procedures to follow in the law and it anticipated the so called "ticking time bomb" scenario by granting the President a very generous tap first ask later 72 hour grace period.

It also defeated the argument that "this information is too secret to take to a judge" by making the FISA court a secret court not open to normal public scrutiny.

So I think the FISA law has turned out to be a very useful law after all and it's karmic (spelling??) justice that Bush has been snared by it and at least theoretically is facing between thousands and millions of years of prison depending on how many calls have been intercepted. (Each one would be a separate felony count worth up to 5 years and you can add in conspiracy and obstruction charges as well).

Democratically Yours,

Doug D.

[LoZoccolo]

17. They might as well not give the President fifteen days at all.

I see no reason why they'd give him fifteen days at the beginning of a war but then limit it to three after the first fifteen days. What is so special about the first fifteen days of a war that they would put this exception in?

[ddeclue]

21. I would have to do more research..

but the theory as I understand it is that if we were ever the victim of another sneak attack like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 then it could initially affect the functioning of the courts and make it impossible for the President to seek their approval.

Remember after 9/11, the FAA instituted their SCATANA plan to ground all aircraft which could strand judges in the boondocks or perhaps the court could be the theoretical victim of an attack and be unable to function until new judges were appointed by the President and approved by Congress.

Anyways that is the reasoning as I understand it.

Once the war was under way, it is assumed that the nations defenses would protect the courts and allow them to remain open and functioning.

Doug D.

[FogerRox]

40. thast the best you could do Doug-- I gave you 4 hrs head start

here is how I see it--

the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days

Only after this happens--

following a declaration of war by the Congress.

what does this mean to you?

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

1) wiretapping only for the 1st 15 days of a declared war-- which might last --oh 3 years-- this is Dougs take

----------or

2) In a declared war the feds can wiretap without a court order for 15 days-
this is my take


read this folks

Read how Doug and his other co-hort from FLorida got posts deleted and told by a MOD he was wrong

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2339011


what good is a law allowing for wiretaps for the first 15 days only? Thats what Doug is saying. I say his interpretation is wrong.

In a declared war, the Feds can wiretap for 15 days w/o court order.

heres the statute-
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html

[ddeclue]

41. I diagrammed the sentence for you...so quit harassing us..

I'll keep diagraming it AGAIN for you until you give up and go away...there IS NO COMMA in the last clause. You can not read it your way unless the missing comma is present. Without the missing comma, "following" must refer to days so as to define WHICH days. They aren't just RANDOM days but SPECIFIC days which follow a declaration of war.

Removing the two clauses that say:

1) Notwithstanding any other law - this means that this section supercedes any other part of the US Code.

2) through the Attorney General - describes the method by which the President may authorize the wire taps.

That leaves:

the President may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.

The subject is : The President
The verbs are :may authorize
The object is : electronic surveillance

There is a conditional clause attached to the verb:

without a court order - meaning that the President does not require a search warrant.. but...

there is a clause attached to this clause

under this subchapter - meaning that this warrantless search only applies to cases covered by this chapter of the United States Code

there is another limiting clause:
to acquire foreign intelligence information - meaning he can't use it to listen in on the Kerry campaign.

and there is one final limiting clause:
for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.

meaning that this warrantless search provision is limited to a fifteen day window AFTER Congress makes a declaration of War.

If Congress makes no declaration, then the warrantless search window never opens.

We can repeat this process all night and all day if you like..

Good day sir.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[FogerRox]

32. yes LoZccolo we see it -- this doug guy doesnt get it though

what good is a wiretap law that allows wiretapping for only the 1st 15 days--of the war-- that is an obsurd notion

Ive tried to break it to Doug-- but he dont get it.

[ddeclue]

37. He and I agree... keep reading...

You are simply wrong and you know it. You seek to go on forever repeating the same story over and over again when I broke it down as simple as it can be for you:

Removing the two clauses that say:

1) Notwithstanding any other law - this means that this section supercedes any other part of the US Code.

2) through the Attorney General - describes the method by which the President may authorize the wire taps.

That leaves:

the President may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.

The subject is : The President
The verbs are :may authorize
The object is : electronic surveillance

There is a conditional clause attached to the verb:

without a court order - meaning that the President does not require a search warrant.. but...

there is a clause attached to this clause

under this subchapter - meaning that this warrantless search only applies to cases covered by this chapter of the United States Code

there is another limiting clause:
to acquire foreign intelligence information - meaning he can't use it to listen in on the Kerry campaign.

and there is one final limiting clause:
for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.

meaning that this warrantless search provision is limited to a fifteen day window AFTER Congress makes a declaration of War.

If Congress makes no declaration, then the warrantless search window never opens.

We can repeat this process all night and all day if you like..

Good day sir.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[LoZoccolo]

51. Well, actually I still don't...

...but I wouldn't go following you around into other threads like it was so important to get you to agree with me like this other guy is doing (sheesh).

[FogerRox]

53. Doug-- it makes no sense

wake up

[FogerRox]

43. thanks you LoZoccolo

the 72 hr time frame gets replaced by the 15 day time frame in a declared war.

Any other takers?

[ddeclue]

45. Sorry he doesn't agree...

[FogerRox]

47. maybe he can speak for himself

do you mind if that happens? Thats ok with you -- right Doug?

[ddeclue]

49. Assuming he is around...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2340413&mesg_id=2340810

That's the link...

Have a nice day...

[FogerRox]

52. I raise you ------- to 2 links

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2340413&mesg_id=2340620


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2340413&mesg_id=2340545

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahah

[Peace Patriot]

7. This seems pretty clear and explicit to me.

"Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS." --US CODE TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811 § 1811. Authorization during time of war

1. A Declaration of War is required. (--that's why Bush keeps trying to construe the declarations that WERE passed as "declarations of war," which they were not.
2. They have 15 days from that Declaration of War for warrantless searches for FOREIGN intelligence.
3. The permission expires after that, and they must get warrants.

I'm not sure of the statutory permissions about after-the-fact warrants. This says nothing about after-the-fact warrants. It doesn't mattter what the political arguments are--whether something "helps" or "hurts" Bush on OPINIONS of what he's doing, or on Bush's far out legal stretchings, arguments against FISA, or whatever. This says he had a 15 day period followiing a Declaration of War to gather FOREIGN intelligence. Even if you stretch the meaning of Congress' resolutions, that period is long past.

It doesn't matter if Bush thinks the FISA courts are too restrictive. That is a law-making matter. If he wants it changed, he has to propose a law for Congres to consider. What matters is, what was the law when he broke it?

[ddeclue]

8. Another section covers after the fact warrants

and it grants him a 72 hour grace period to go get the warrant after the fact but he must do it within 72 hours.

Thanks for backing me up, it sure is impossible to convince some people that the sun rises in the east around here.

Doug D.

[Maestro]

10. Yup.

I don't understand why he isn't in handcuffs right now!

[ddeclue]

12. Thanks! I needed that! :)

Enjoy!

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Maestro]

27. I like your pic too.

Very appropriate.

[AwakeAtLast]

18. My question has always been, "When did we declare War?"

When was a declaration made? Congress authorized military force, but does that constitute
a declaration? If it does not, there are a lot of things that have been done illegally, IMHO.

[ddeclue]

26. 1941??

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fdrpearlharbor.htm

Last time I checked anyways...

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[AwakeAtLast]

35. I meant in this century

Sorry, guess I wasn't clear enough!

:hi:

[ddeclue]

38. It was of course meant to poke fun at Republicans...

That was the last time war was ever declared and of course that declaration closed with the signing of the peace treaty aboard the USS Missouri in September 1945.

Peace,

Doug D.

[AwakeAtLast]

39. Oh, thanks.

Sometimes I think posts are meant in jest, but sometimes I'm not sure. And in GD you want to be sure :D

Thanks for clearing it up for me!

[FogerRox]

54. ahem

here is how I see it--

the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days

Only after this happens--

following a declaration of war by the Congress.

what does this mean to you?

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

1) wiretapping only for the 1st 15 days of a declared war-- which might last --oh 3 years-- this is Dougs take

----------or

2) In a declared war the feds can wiretap without a court order for 15 days-
---this is my take

The origial FISA section 1811 thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2339011


-what good is a law allowing for wiretaps for the first 15 days only? Thats what Doug is saying. I say his interpretation is wrong.

In a declared war, the Feds can wiretap for 15 days w/o court order.

heres the statute-
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html

how do you see it?

[Matariki]

19. HA! CONGRESS didn't declare war

they gave away their 'war powers' to the war monkey.

[ddeclue]

28. Importantly they refused to grant Bush war powers within the United States

Although they did hand him a blank check in Iraq and Afghanistan which much like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution is unconstitutional, they specifically refused him war making powers inside the United States even though they were specifically asked for said powers. This is according to the op-ed by Former Majority Leader and Senator Tom Daschle.

That further curtails Bush's argument that the Constitution grants him "special powers" as a "war time" President which:

1) It does not. All constitutional powers are explicitly enumerated. All unenumerated powers are explicitly reserved to the people and the states according to the 9th and 10th amendments.
2) We aren't at war because there is no declaration of war.

Please see my post on this at:

http://www.brainshrub.com/wish-for-more-wishes


Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[radio4progressives]

30. Thanks for Setting the Record Straight! Good Research!

:applause:

[FogerRox]

42. I rather doubt it

here is how I see it--

the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days

Only after this happens--

following a declaration of war by the Congress.

what does this mean to you?

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

1) wiretapping only for the 1st 15 days of a declared war-- which might last --oh 3 years-- this is Dougs take

----------or

2) In a declared war the feds can wiretap without a court order for 15 days-
this is my take


read this folks

Read how Doug and his other co-hort from FLorida got posts deleted and told by a MOD he was wrong

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2339011


what good is a law allowing for wiretaps for the first 15 days only? Thats what Doug is saying. I say his interpretation is wrong.

In a declared war, the Feds can wiretap for 15 days w/o court order.

heres the statute-
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html

[ddeclue]

46. Keep it up.. I can keep posting all night too..

You are simply wrong and you know it. You seek to go on forever repeating the same story over and over again when I broke it down as simple as it can be for you:

Removing the two clauses that say:

1) Notwithstanding any other law - this means that this section supercedes any other part of the US Code.

2) through the Attorney General - describes the method by which the President may authorize the wire taps.

That leaves:

the President may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.

The subject is : The President
The verbs are :may authorize
The object is : electronic surveillance

There is a conditional clause attached to the verb:

without a court order - meaning that the President does not require a search warrant.. but...

there is a clause attached to this clause

under this subchapter - meaning that this warrantless search only applies to cases covered by this chapter of the United States Code

there is another limiting clause:
to acquire foreign intelligence information - meaning he can't use it to listen in on the Kerry campaign.

and there is one final limiting clause:
for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.

meaning that this warrantless search provision is limited to a fifteen day window AFTER Congress makes a declaration of War.

If Congress makes no declaration, then the warrantless search window never opens.

We can repeat this process all night and all day if you like..

Good day sir.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[mom cat]

44. Why should he pay any more attention to that law than the ones he

has already broken?

[ddeclue]

48. :) Of course....

You are correct.. he has no concept of the law other that c'etat c'est moi. (I am the law..)

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[FogerRox]

50. hey mom-- what do you think?

here is how I see it--

the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days

Only after this happens--

following a declaration of war by the Congress.

what does this mean to you?

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

1) wiretapping only for the 1st 15 days of a declared war-- which might last --oh 3 years-- this is Dougs take

----------or

2) In a declared war the feds can wiretap without a court order for 15 days-
--this is my take



heres the statute-
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html

[ncrainbowgrrl]

55. Locking.

Please do not start new threads only to continue existing flamewars.