I think you've misunderstood the scope of the case. At issue is a warrant issued by the FISA court. In the warrant, the court placed specific limits on the way the information was to be gathered and shared. The investigating agency was appealing to remove the limitations within the warrant. The case wasn't about the general legality of the FISA court, but rather whether or not they had the authority to include limitations inside the warrant. This sentence from the conclusion should clarify the point:
"we reverse the FISA court’s orders in this case to the extent they imposed conditions on the grant of the government’s applications, vacate the FISA court’s Rule 11, and remand with instructions to grant the applications as submitted and proceed henceforth in accordance with this opinion."
"Many Democrats and some Republicans have disagreed with the president's authorization of the National Security Agency to spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant."
Quoted from
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/24/nsa.strategy/
To say nothing of the fact that the evidence is all tainted. Any intelligence gathered from a warrantless wiretap is inadmissable in court, and thus cannot be used to arrest and prosecute a terrorist.
By the way -- the House of Representatives is actually part of the United States Congress.
There are lots of ways to police the subways and prevent terrorism that don't involve unconstitutional, illegal searches.
Posting pictures of horrible things was not an answer to the question, unless you're trying to say that the government is entitled to engage in any and all egregious behavior because bad shit happened. I would disagree with that, but you feel free to elaborate before I jump to any conclusions.
You're arguing with the wrong person on that. For the hundredth time, I do believe you have a right to own firearms.
I don't understand how you can cling so tightly to a gun as your check on the government's power and reject the judicial branch's checks on the president's power. It doesn't make any sense.
The legal definition is the one that matters here. For the record, its "To have knowledge of facts which, although not amounting to direct knowledge, would cause a reasonable person, knowing the same facts, to reasonably conclude the same thing."
But its beside the point, which is that our government is supposed to be built of checks and balances in order to prevent the abuses of power that historically are so easy for a monarchy to perpetrate. This is really about George W. Bush and his belief in unitary executive theory. Our government is set up to prevent the unitary executive, but Bush sure doesn't care.
His use of signing statements, for example, is infuriating. He signed anti-torture legislation and attached a signing statement that said, basically "except I'll do it anyway if I want to." He thinks he's above the law, or is too stupid to understand the consequences of his actions.