About FDR I do not know. There is a vary famous quote by an infamous German general you might want to look up. The last elections GWB came up with the idea that it might be good to postpon the elections if there was a terrorist attack or something like that, since the country was at war. There was an uproar about it and nothing happened but he brought it up. Check back in the archives.
Power We Didn't Grant By Tom Daschle Friday, December 23, 2005; A21 In the face of mounting questions about news stories saying that President Bush approved a program to wiretap American citizens without getting warrants, the White House argues that Congress granted it authority for such surveillance in the 2001 legislation authorizing the use of force against al Qaeda. On Tuesday, Vice President Cheney said the president "was granted authority by the Congress to use all means necessary to take on the terrorists, and that's what we've done." As Senate majority leader at the time, I helped negotiate that law with the White House counsel's office over two harried days. I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance. On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill defined, Congress chose instead, on Sept. 14, to authorize "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided" the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused. The shock and rage we all felt in the hours after the attack were still fresh. America was reeling from the first attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor. We suspected thousands had been killed, and many who worked in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were not yet accounted for. Even so, a strong bipartisan majority could not agree to the administration's request for an unprecedented grant of authority. The Bush administration now argues those powers were inherently contained in the resolution adopted by Congress -- but at the time, the administration clearly felt they weren't or it wouldn't have tried to insert the additional language. All Americans agree that keeping our nation safe from terrorists demands aggressive and innovative tactics. This unity was reflected in the near-unanimous support for the original resolution and the Patriot Act in those harrowing days after Sept. 11. But there are right and wrong ways to defeat terrorists, and that is a distinction this administration has never seemed to accept. Instead of employing tactics that preserve Americans' freedoms and inspire the faith and confidence of the American people, the White House seems to have chosen methods that can only breed fear and suspicion. If the stories in the media over the past week are accurate, the president has exercised authority that I do not believe is granted to him in the Constitution, and that I know is not granted to him in the law that I helped negotiate with his counsel and that Congress approved in the days after Sept. 11. For that reason, the president should explain the specific legal justification for his authorization of these actions, Congress should fully investigate these actions and the president's justification for them, and the administration should cooperate fully with that investigation. In the meantime, if the president believes the current legal architecture of our country is insufficient for the fight against terrorism, he should propose changes to our laws in the light of day. That is how a great democracy operates. And that is how this great democracy will defeat terrorism.
Daschle's own words contradict his argument. According to him, Congress authorized ""all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided" the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda." Who is being monitored? Those with ties to Al Qaeda, be it known operatives or those whose numbers and/or e-mail addresses come to light due to capture of Al Qaeda operatives or through other intelligence. As noted earlier in the thread, "the Supreme Court has created exceptions where warrants are not needed, finding that the "reasonableness of a search" depends on "the totality of the circumstances. Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of an armed conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States, fits squarely within the 'special needs' exception to the warrant requirement." Intercepting communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al-Qaida in order to detect and prevent a catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable." Furthermore, "in the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad. Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant. In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority." Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." That Congress' resolution did not make specific reference to wiretapping is irrelevant. Bush was granted, as Daschle points out, "all necessary and appropriate force." Communications intelligence is part of this "force." Perhaps Daschle believes the resolution should include all the minutae of what this force should consist of, i.e. "Special Forces soldiers do not need a warrant requested by Bush to go into a cave in Afghanistan and search for Al Qaeda terrorists," or, "police officers in the US do not need a warrant requested by Bush to stop a car driven by hostile-looking Arabs holding explosive devices." If so, he should have requested that at the time he thought "the scope of this language was too broad and ill-defined."
The President clearly has the right to do this. No law has been broken, notwithstanding all the hand wringing angst from that bastion of reasoning....the left. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html
Since you are so certain, then you would have no problem with a trial to find out what judges say on the matter.....
Huh? (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order...under oath thatâ (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed atâ (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; ... (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;
The same people who want to impeach Mr. Bush are the same who promote....Satan ......worshipping.....GAY RIGHTS....NO, GAY WRONGS...... Elton John and Furnish.........married....rooster? hen? Killing babies by sucking their brains out.... Calling for soldiers in Iraq to be traitors... Taking Christmas out of Christmas Taking prayer in any form out of schools Banning Christmas colors being worn at school. Making heroes out of Tookie and others Hillary Clinton .PREZ...........Dick Morris says NO BUENO..If u don't know who Dick Morris is u r not qualified to speak on anything relating to United States ...