Isilion

This would actually be pretty cut and dried.

I’ve avoided actually looking into this because I figured like most laws USC Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I–Electronic Surveillance would be a hodgepodge of ambiguous legal gobbledygook. Silly me. It turns out that the pertinent sections are actually pretty straight-forward:

From the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

§ 1809. Criminal sanctions

(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—

(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or

(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.

And

§ 1811. Authorization during time of war

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

As I said, if the United States were still under the rule of law..

One would like to think the dawn is breaking, every so slowly, but inevitably.

Thus, in times of great darkness, Bush speaks of sensing a “Third Awakening,” a needed renewal of faith. He speaks for himself, for his political friends and advisors. He speaks for the Republican Party, that gross and devilish perversion of conservatism. He speaks for the stable of declining, compromised Congressmen in both parties, who mutter over their stinking brew at their ungrateful constituents.

But he does not speak for the country. As Americans, we speak for ourselves. This country has stirred, and it is already moving into the light. We watch our government more closely then we have in decades, and we believe almost to a person, that if a politician’s lips are moving, he or she is lying. Our awakening has been slow and uncomfortable, but it has indeed begun. We have come to realize we borrow and buy much but make and retain little. We understand now that we own an expensive oversized military that can literally do nothing to defend or protect us. We hear never-ending talk of freedom, but we see each day more constraints on our freedoms – of speech, movement, association, ownership, choice, and economic productivity.

George W. Bush is a lonely, frightened, declining little man, obsessed with image and power, living out the early stages of a public shunning. It will get much worse, and he knows it. He needs a stiff drink and a trusted friend, and he has easy access to neither.
We Are Waking Up From a Natural Disaster

There are some people who are Americans first and party memeber second.

With Republicans controlling Congress and the White House, conservatives these days ought to be happy, but most aren’t. They see expanding government, runaway spending, Middle East entanglements, and government corruption, and they wonder why, exactly, the country should be grateful for Republican dominance. Some accuse Bush and the Republicans today of not being true conservatives. Others see a grab bag of stated policies and wonder how they cohere. Everyone thinks something’s got to change.

Now seven prominent conservatives dare to speak the unspeakable: They hope the Republicans lose in 2006. Well, let’s be diplomatic and say they’d prefer divided government—soon. (Perhaps that formulation will fool Dennis Hastert.) Of course, all of them wish for the long-term health of conservatism, and most are loyal to the GOP. What they also believe, however, is that even if a Speaker Pelosi looms in the wings, sometimes the best remedy for a party gone astray is to give it a session in the time-out chair.

Time For Us To Go

This is some of the most encouraging stuff I’ve seen in a long time:

As a conservative who’s interested in the long-term health of both my country and the Republican Party, I have a suggestion for the GOP in 2006: lose. Handing over at least one house of Congress to the other side of the aisle for the next two years would probably be good for everyone. It will improve governance in the country, and it will increase the chances of GOP gains in 2008.

Having one-party control of both houses of Congress and the White House may allow national action to be taken more quickly, but it’s contrary to the spirit of our system of government. The Founding Fathers explicitly rejected a parliamentary arrangement, in which the executive and legislative branches are united under the same party. Not only did they separate the legislative and executive functions; they further divided the legislative function into two bodies with different numbers, different terms of service, and different election methods. (Remember that prior to the 17th Amendment, senators were elected by state legislatures.) In short, divided government was baked in the cake by the Founding Fathers, who wanted lawmaking to be slow and difficult, not quick and easy. They reasoned, wisely, that laws able to overcome their institutional obstacle course were more likely to be clearly considered, broadly supported, and equipped to stand the test of time.

Bring on Pelosi