Okay, so you all know, Shooter's cite of a court opinion that seems to accept Bush's claim to be above the FISA law is...surprise, surprise...utter bullshit!

He refers to the Truong case as an example of when the court upheld the president's right to warrantless spying. Only one problem. Truong was before FISA:

The origin of what the government refers to as the false dichotomy between foreign intelligence information that is evidence of foreign intelligence crimes and that which is not appears to have been a Fourth Circuit case decided in 1980. United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980). That case, however, involved an electronic surveillance carried out prior to the passage of FISA and predicated on the President’s executive power.

Ouch.

As for a court opinion after FISA, here's what Shooter's linked court opinion has to say.

In one of the first major challenges to a FISA search, United States v. Megahey, 553 F. Supp. 1180 (E.D.N.Y. 1982), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1984), the district court acknowledged that while Congress clearly viewed arrest and prosecution as one of the possible outcomes of a FISA investigation, surveillance under FISA would nevertheless be “appropriate only if foreign intelligence surveillance is the Government’s primary purpose.”

Since oversight is required to determine what the government's primary purpose is in its surveillance, that's why we have the FISA court, which Bush bypassed.

Why would he bypass a court that had historically been absolutely congenial to any requests to spy on foreign powers, even 72 hours after the fact? Because Bush's spying was in no way restricted to foreign powers and their American contacts, but rather involved purely domestic conversations among people whom the FISA court would not likely grant a warrant. That last part is my supposition, of course. But what other explanation is reasonable?

Increasingly, the president and vice president feel they are above the law. In America, no one is above law.

Either impeach first Cheney, then Bush, or resign. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time, and Congress can serve no other purpose at this juncture in our history.

Poor shooter -- did he fail high school civics or did he just not go to high school?

Whichever, he's clearly assumed the role of the least enlightened thinkers on these pages, regardless what topic he's addressing. But this isn't about Shooter. The reason Shooter won't return to this thread is due to the humiliation he may be feeling as a result of his lie:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/27/nsa_eavesdropping/permalink/ab72282f47f18f6d2ecd058ce7d8a6ce.html

Which I busted him on here:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/27/nsa_eavesdropping/permalink/78acaa34d7fb0c82a1976b8c8c22969f.html

More to the point, isn't it interesting how those on these pages (and elsewhere) who insist on defending Bush also happen to be incredibly stupid? I mean, a little kid could dismantle Shooter's arguments. Same as Tiberius, who hasn't written a thoughtful word as long as I've been here.

The question is, is this just a coincidence? Or is there a pattern of brain deficiency that is aligned with a pattern of Bush support? If the latter, then perhaps the entire Republican party can be disbanded and labeled a mental disorder?

He/she would have recognized that Bush didn't answer this question at all:

Mr. President, federal sentencing guidelines call for jail time in these kinds of cases of perjury and obstruction of justice. Why do you feel otherwise? And are you worried that this decision sends a signal that you won't go to jail if you lie to the FBI?

Any reporter worth his salt should ask this question repeatedly each time Bush appears, until he provides an answer.

Media Matters is wondering when NBC is going to ask Todd to explain himself.

Hell, I can answer that: NEVER! One rule of the last 7 years: neocons do not have to explain why they were wrong.

My birthday is today, and I have to say, Cancerians everywhere are decrying the sullying of our own waters by this truly reprehensible fucker in our midst. I think the best gift for our fine president this year is PRETZELS! The bigger and chewier, the better.

...that they will never have to answer for. I don't expect Tucker will ever appear on TV, and have someone ask him about the issues that Glenn raises. For some reason, the world doesn't work like that. These guys are free to say and do pretty much anything they want, with zero consequences.

Seven months into the "swamp draining" democratic majority, I'm convinced, regretably, that nothing can restore our nation to any semblence of what it used to be, short of a bloody, armed revolution. I hate to come to that conclusion, and personally I won't be involved in it (my family and I are mobile enough to emigrate if such a thing should occur). But to watch the back-and-forth of the Demopublicans and expect anything other than more of the same is completely futile. Reminds me of Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Didn't read it. Oh well.

-RealName

RealLame, everybody familiar with your consistently vacuous remarks knows that this is a lie.