In his post on the subject, he challenged many of the more "right-wing" bloggers who comment there, including myself, to sign a waiver of our rights so President Bush can track everything we do. Instead, we challenged his assertions that the wiretaps were illegal, bringing in numerous facts and arguments why they would be legal. DovBear responded with his usual empty rhetoric, which was mindless babble as always. Interestingly, after a commenter named "C" said,
May I say, I find it fascinating listening to people quoting from editorial pages whining about the legality, or lack thereof, on the subject of wiretapping. There is really little worse then watching s/o ramble on regarding a topic of which he has no connection to. The only person actually saying s/t of worth would, I hate to say, Ezzie, b/c he's pointing out facts. Not knee-jerking., DovBear was smart enough to state:
Arguments are what matter. Nothing else.This brought immediate satisfaction, as we threw in over the next hours a number of interesting articles that feel the President acted legally. DovBear added... none.
So, here's some reading for DovBear:
The Justice Department explains why the President's actions were legal.Enjoy!
(Some of these are taken from other bloggers)
Cass Sunstein (a liberal) has a few posts on their legality.
Geof Stone argues it is unconstitutional, but Nephtuli said to check the comments.
Orin Kerr argues they're constitutional. [@ volokh, though volokh is down]
Clinton's associate Attorney General stated it was legal.
The WSJ had an op-ed on the conflicts between executive power and FISA.