Oh. Thats totally trivial. Of course people disagree with me. Don’t make them right though.

Section (f) of that chapter, however, reads as follows:
(f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications

You’ve lost your ability to be the authority at that posting. Everything else you posted was opinion. There are people who agree with you and there are people who DISAGREE with you EVEN Democrats and my QUESTION to you asked you to ADMIT that and …. YOU CAN’T. Game over you lost.

It looks like the exclusive means cite is wrong. what about the ones I gave you, the one orrin kerr cites? is that correct? Does that answer your question?

Go back and answer the question.

Yes. The statute does look clear (including the one I posted). As i said, English 101.

Again, go back and answer the question and be honest with everyone.

I trust Orrin Kerr on this. The statute does look clear. Not even gonzales argues that they were acting pursuant to statute. He’s arguing they can ignore it or rely on the AUMF.

Did you read the words I cited? I cited teh wrong ones before, but now the right ones. What do those say?

Sorry you feel the arrogance to continue acting like the authority on the subject when I posted the text from FISA that CONTRADICTS your claim. And it’s understandable not lawyer mumbo jumbo. Sad day for ya.

I even bolded the word out of all of the text for ya.

Read again

BTW, Would you at least admit there are many (including Democrats) experts in the law who disagree with you and the Democrat leadership or would you be that doubly arrogant to not recognize they exist or discredit those folks?

Keep it up ! THis is great stuff for political newbies to see how you and your side operates. Incorrect accusations…

I was talking to a lawyer for 3 hours yesterday. He thought that the Bush administration has been cutting WIC in CA or nationally. I told him that is completely inaccurate that the budget has increased every year for over 2 decades for WIC. I then went on to tell him about the Democrat inaccurate accusation that went on for 5 months in 1995 about Republicans supposedly cutting Medicare by 270 Billion and also told him that budgets under Arnold have been rising/increasing and these are black and white facts and not subjective.

While beliefs about race and what solutions to take about racial inequities are subjective and pure opinion (yet Democrats inaccurately accuse Republicans of being racist – there are similar percentage of true racists in both parties) there are some things that are black and white like how much the budget increased or not. On the NSA subject you act like the arrogant authoritarian. I’ve read a whole lot and will say that I see enough to know that your arguments don’t hold water and haven’t been precedent. You just keep repeating the same argument over and over despite the contradicting text that I gave you above. And then refused to see the word “international” even though I had bolded it for ya.

But I can see why this prohibition isn’t so clear to you, so lets instead use the one that Orrin Kerr points to:

“A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally . . . engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.” 50 USC 1809.

Orrin’s post. Skip down to ‘now lets turn to FISA.’

Engligh 101 and Reading Comprehension 101 says to me that international encompasses any communications originating from here to Al Qaida or from Al Qaida to here. It doesn’t mean just from Al Qaida to Al Qaida except for in a Democrat obessesed impeach Bush mind even though every Democrat president since FISA asserted the power to gather information without warrants.

I’m not sure if you are purposefully misrepresenting or what but even being confronted with the text you don’t back down because you are arrogant (exactly what you accuse Bush of). Is that IRONIC or what. Should we bow down to you? /end sarcasm

right. we’ve done more than that.

Right. and we’re talking about surveillance on US soil, not foreign. I didn’t add that because it talked about something else.

“Accordingly, if the Bush administration’s clandestine interception of communications has been limited to international communications relating to foreign intelligence information, this statute would appear not to prohibit such interceptions.”

That’s a good reading. And why I didn’t include it. Because this hasn’t been limited that way. It has included, for example, US persons.

Section (f) of that chapter, however, reads as follows:
(f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system, utilizing a means other than electronic surveillance as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.

By my reading of that language, it appears that this statute, at least, does not prohibit clandestine extrajudicial interception of international communications relating to foreign intelligence information. Accordingly, if the Bush administration’s clandestine interception of communications has been limited to international communications relating to foreign intelligence information, this statute would appear not to prohibit such interceptions.

Thanks for setting yourself up. Hope you changed your position of acting like the authority..

“procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.” 18 USC 2511 (2)(f).

That means that if its note done pursuant to FISA, or to title 18 — the criminal law — its not allowed. that’s what exclusive means.

Too bad for Andrew the courts haven’t agreed with Andrew’s opinion. Neither have the last 4 Attorney Generals (2 in Bush’s admin).

Question Andrew: Please show us the text in FISA that “bans” as you assert – the “President’s” authority in protecting this nation. Better to give us that text than your hyperbole.

I’m not overlooking those things. I’m pointing out that the cases quoted don’t talk about those things.