As you know, we here at MacStansbury.org love to tell people what to do. In fact, even if we can’t tell you what to do, we’ll tell you where to go! This is one of them times.

It seems that a lot of people, for some reason, have gotten up…

Also- if you have a source on the limitations under the FISA courts I’m willing to read that too. But your assertions that we weren’t able to immediately tap the phones of our enemies is belied by the existence of retroactive warrants.

Furthermore- are you serious with that list? That’s the counter to opposition to the President refusing to apply for a retroactive warrant to spy on anyone he sees fit to? I’m sorry, that’s truly pathetic. Do you see how limited the examples are- they are situations of probable cause and implied consent and simple necessity. They are not on-going programs.

I’ve heard that when blindly presented as a set of proposed laws the Bill of Rights doesn’t receive majority support from Americans- it’s just chilling to watch that opposition in process.

If we learn that Osama bin Laden has recently called certain phone numbers in the U.S., our government should be able immediately to tap the phones of those with whom the master terrorist has been in communication.

That sounds more than reasonable to me.

And here are 28 more categories of warrantless searches that are approved under our current law.

People who were not known Al qaeda members did not have their phone conversations tapped.

As for FISA, the methodology being used didn’t fit under the FISA umbrella.

Once again, we currently have laws that provide for even retroactive warrants for surveillance. All anyone is asking is that the President follow the law by getting a warrant. Then he can spy to his heart’s content. Someone will have to explain why this isn’t good enough.

Over at the Free Republic they like to imagine what expanded Presidential powers would be like in the hands of Hillary Clinton. I don’t know if she is your own personal bugbear but it would be prudent to imagine these powers in the hand of someone who you did not agree with politically.

I understand the macho appeal of your “by any means necessary” crap, but I wish you would propose defending our Constitution by any means necessary, rather than defending a bad president.

My answer is obviously yes, I’m in favor of it.

But I’ll take it a step further…I’m in favor of it by any means necessary. Our Constitutional rights are reserved for citizens of this country. Not for foreign terrorists.

Yes, some Congressmen were informed- then forbidden to say anything of the program- that’s supposed to make me feel better.

If the President wants the trust of the American people he needs to explain why the broad powers of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act were insufficient to protect the US.

I don’t know what you call people in favor of the unchecked power of the Executive branch but ‘conservative’ is not the word.