Assignment: Gonzales vS. Specter

[riceowl]

So, I'm taking American Constitutional Law (ironically enough, the same class AG Gonzales took from the same professor about 30 years ago), and I need to
support 1 of the 2 positions taken in Alberto Gonzales and Arlen Specter's debate - whether:

1) Specter was right in saying that the 1987 Congressional act provided proper procedure for dealing with surveillance and terrorism, or

2) Gonzales is right in saying that the blanket provision in 2001 provided adequate justification for warrantless surveillance.

I believe I want to argue for 2, but we need to use many precedents to back up the argument.  Any thoughts, ideas, sources for me to use?

[GOP = Terrorists]

I believe I want to argue for 2, but we need to use many precedents to back up the argument.  Any thoughts, ideas, sources for me to use?

There are none.  Though there are probably a Newsmax article or two.  But I wouldn't use that stuff unless you go to Bob Jones or Liberty....

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Given the explict provisions that FISA makes for what expanded abilities that the executive gets when it comes to wiretaps in time of war, I can't see the non-FISA compliant wiretaps as being defensible under 2001 use of force provisio.  At best, a claim that such wiretaps are part of the inherent constitutional powers of the commander-in-chief might withstand scrutiny.  However, I don't think so.