For what it’s worth, I spoke with our General Counsel today, who studied national security law at Yale (and is a rock-ribbed Republican). He thinks the NSA program is “deeply troubling” and thinks that Bush’s expansive definition of executive powers is well beyond any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.

As to American as a battlefield, well, surely you remember that day when war came to our shores? It would be difficult to forget…

(Btw, Bush explicity, umambigiously said torture is not and will not be permitted in his press conference today)…

Read on, if you please…

Al-Qaeda on the line? That’s probable cause, right? Sounds like it should be easy to get a FISA warrant. So again, why not use FISA?

“we’re talking Signals Intelligence here, a well-established complement to battlefield operations”

It is quite scary to imply that America is a battlefield in any but a weak metaphorical sense. War is peace, right? I am unaware of battlefield operations underway in America, so perhaps you could provide a reference. I understand Jose Padilla recently changed custody so the Administration wouldn’t have to make this argument in front of the Supreme Court.

“Now, we’ve got upcoming Congressional hearings, which can go into secret session if need be to discuss details, we’ve got a lawsuit, we’ve got news outlets, we’ve got partisans like you and me…how many of these things would be true if we were really living under some autocratic police state? I’ll tell you what happens if you criticize Vladimar Putin too persistently – you get thrown in jail, even if you’re one of the biggest businessmen in Russia.”

The distance between what Putin did and what Bush can do is smaller than you think. Imagine what would happen if X-Democrat-Billionaire was declared an enemy combatant. That’s right, he’d go to Guantanamo like the rest of them.

Like Sen. Graham, R-S.C., said, can’t you just waive any statute on the books? You could kill a Muslim prisoner with a hammer or expose yourself during the State of the Union address. To distract and discourage our terrorist enemies, of course.

That last little rider, that “of course”, is what we are arguing about, right? At some point, we have to say that the President’s authority is not as expansive as he makes it out to be. I use the extreme examples not to be offensive, but to point out that under your theory of Presidential power (and, I’m convinced, George W. Bush’s), if Bush says it’s for the War on Terror, then it is.

And let me add that “well, sure, it’s bad, but at least it’s not a police state… yet” is not a terribly persuasive argument.

What is the Congress? What is the legislative power? What is the Constitution? The way I see it, your dueling interpretation is deeply linked to “Bush giveth and Bush taketh away.” So what gives? Can the President torture prisoners in defiance of a quite explicit law passed by Congress?

The Attorney General is responsible for the overall supervision and direction of the administration and operation of the Department. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and furnishes advice and opinions on legal matters to the President, the Cabinet, heads of the executive departments, and other agencies of the Federal Government. Records maintained include those relating to the administration of the office.

You may disagree with him (clearly you do), but the man is only doing his job…