How did we go from the Congressional authorization to use force against Iraq to perceiving that as the authority to wiretap? I have yet to see that specifically down on paper, anywhere.

It's not from the Congressional authorization to use force against Iraq.

www.usdoj.gov
Just a few days after the events of September 11th, Congress enacted a joint resolution to support and authorize a military response to the attacks on American soil. In this resolution, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Congress did two important things. First, it expressly recognized the President's "authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States." Second, it supplemented that authority by authorizing the President to, quote, "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" in order to prevent further attacks on the United States.

The Resolution means that the President's authority to use military force against those terrorist groups is at its maximum because he is acting with the express authorization of Congress.

What was the problem with obtaining the warrant 72 hours after the fact? That does not constrict the efforts in any way shape or form, and allows them to do what they need to do without violating the law.

The law was not violated, in any case here is the administrations reasons why FISA was too cumbersome for the surveillance program in question.

Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called "emergency authorizations" of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There's a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine IN ADVANCE that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted. That review process can take precious time.

Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA that all provisions of FISA have been satisfied, then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be similarly satisfied, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. And we would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within the 72 hours.

A typical FISA application involves a substantial process in its own right: The work of several lawyers; the preparation of a legal brief and supporting declarations; the approval of a Cabinet-level officer; a certification from the National Security Adviser, the Director of the FBI, or another designated Senate-confirmed officer; and, finally, of course, the approval of an Article III judge.

Now something for you to mull over in your own mind. What do you think would have happened if the President had not authorized the international surveillance program after September 11. That instead he had relied solely on FISA, and the following events took place.

The NSA obtains information that an agent of al Qaeda somewhere overseas is planning a nuclear attack in cooperation with an affiliate here in the United States. The NSA wants to intercept the communications between the overseas al Qaeda operative and the individual operative here in the U.S., but first it asks to obtain the approval from all the lawyers in the administration that this would involve, assembling all of the information needed to complete and insure a succesful FISA application. It begins the process of satisfying all those involved that would need to pass off on it but the next day, while NSA is still working on getting the necessary approvals, a nuclear device levels much of Washington, D.C.

Suppose that disaster had happened a year ago. How do you think the surviving Democrats would have responded? Do you think they would have praise for the administration's refusal to go outside the bounds of the FISA's procedures? Or do you think they would have denounced President Bush and the administration as the most irresponsible, negligent and ineffective officials to be in charge of the executive branch in the history of the nation?

And how does that impede the program? Anyone still inside the United Statews trying to execute terrorist acts and needing to communicate out side the country for whatever reason is STILL going to use a telephone. If not, how are they going to communicate?

How are they going to communicate, well I can think of a couple of ways just off the top of my head, but I don't feel comfortable putting those ideas on the www.