|
From all accounts I've read, legally speaking, the President is allowed to circumvent warrants entirely if it is on the basis of foreign intelligence, up to an entire year. Building off that, and something was brought up in the court ruling I provided, to reiterate this shit is mindnumbing and I could be misreading it, but the courts held that the president is allowed said powers, and that the acquistion of "foreign intelligence" doesn't have to be the primary goal of a warrantless search.
I don't get how the pre-2002 actions of the administration would make the 2002 ruling moot. As a matter of constitutional law, the courts are the branch that interpret the legality of law, if they found no problem with actions taken prior to 2002, where is the issue? Nevermind the volume of issues brought up prior to the ruling, if the court rules in 2002 that actions and provisions allowed by congressional law that are executed by the president are legal, then it's legal, there is no question. One may harbor some personal offense or disdain for actions, but that doesn't make them illegal in any sense, suspect maybe, but illegal no.
Thanks for taking the time to respond Will, really appreciate, hope I properly posted against yours, that's to say in context.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
|