NSA Monitoring and Public Law 107-40

Hmm. A bit disconcerting. I finally found the law that authorized the use of military force after 9/11.

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Does that sound like this law authorizes the president to wire tap the terrorists phone calls? I'm quite surprised that the law is such a blank check. Can you just assume that this means that anyone in the US isn't subject to these activities? Not being a lawyer, I wonder if this can allow for the apparent violation of the constitution.

The Volokh Conspiracy takes a whack at analyzing the rather sparse data on topic.

Legal Analysis of the NSA Domestic Surveillance Program: Was the secret NSA surveillance program legal? Was it constitutional? Did it violate federal statutory law? It turns out these are hard questions, but I wanted to try my best to answer them. My answer is pretty tentative, but here it goes: Although it hinges somewhat on technical details we don't know, it seems that the program was probably constitutional but probably violated the federal law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. My answer is extra-cautious for two reasons. First, there is some wiggle room in FISA, depending on technical details we don't know of how the surveillance was done. Second, there is at least a colorable argument -- if, I think in the end, an unpersuasive one -- that the surveillance was authorized by the Authorization to Use Miltary Force as construed in the Hamdi opinion.

Hey, I got the right law at least.

You can read the rest of that post. It's long long long.

UPDATE:
Been trying to find reasoned entries on topic, and have found pretty much a desert. I did find Concurring Opinions, which has an entry that is very similar to the Volokh Conspiracy's.

I'm uncomfortable with the activities related to US citizens, but the politicians ranting on Bush not having the authority just doesn't seem very solid when you read what the lawyers have to say. I still can't fathom why a warrant from the court wouldn't have been fast enough. I'd have thought that the roving warrant, from the PATRIOT Act, would have been appropriate. But then, I don't have, nor does anyone else in the general public, have sufficient information to make an educated decision on this.