So then, you don't want to know when your government is breaking federal and international law. Or doing what it said it isn't?
Every one of those prizes was given for doing what jornalists are supposed to do. Keep the public, that's you and me and joe six pack, informed about things of vital importance.
That's how we get that educated, informed electorate that's do vital to a working democracy.

Demonstrate for me how either story exposes either federal or international law.

Please, I beg you.

should read: either story exposes a breaking of either federal or international law. SRY.

Aaron, they win the awards because they do what good journalism does -- find the hidden truth and tell the story, especially in an important topic people care about. By their nature these stories tend to be critical of the party in power because the information that makes them look good they make sure is easily available.

Give it a rest.

surely you'd agree that free and inquisitive press is a bulwark of democracy and a mainstay of preventing government over-reaching. And that not all government secrets deserve being kept. So it's a matter of point of view: you say these things are honkey donkey. Other serious people disagree. Such things as warrantless wiretapping and secreting people away for torture deserve, in a country that used to be a bastion of honor, scrutiny. That the courts haven't yet heard the cases doesn't change the principle. Bush has admitted he ignored FISA law. His argument, in essence, is that a president can do any damn thing he pleases. Do you really subscribe to that? And if you buy the wartime modifier, don't you actually think that that raises huge questions? Might it not be possible (surely not Bush, but maybe a misguided democrat) that a president would gin up a war to grab and keep power? Especially such a nebulous thing as a "war on terror?" Given a swing to an extreme, do you think the US is safer with a press that acquiesces to everything the government says, or with one that raises questions and looks under rocks?

Bush ignored FISA law because his authority granted in the constitution trumps any statute derived by congress.

Also, we saw what happened when we go to FISA. When they had Moussoui's computer with all the names of the 9-11 hijackers on it and their plans (just not the date of the attack) back in August of 2001, we could not look at the contents of the computer because the FISA court would not issue a warrant because we could not demonstrate probable cause.

Never again.

Bush does not have the authority to order done anythinng that is specifically forbidden by federal law. He's the President, not the emperor. When he signed the order creating the illegal spying program he broke the law.
And in the case of FISA there isn't even a need to get a warrant until after the fact. So you're Moussoui's computer story is just so much bulls**t.
And in what weird, parallel republican reality is kidnapping people, moving them to another country and torturing them NOT a violation of US and international law.
Don't even bother saying "Never Again" like it means anything. Bush has done NOTHING to ensure that it won't happen again. He's just using it as an excuse to do what we wanted to do anyway. And in case you haven't noticed, the American people are getting tired of it.

IB,

Obviously, you have little or no knowledge of constitutional law. The president's constutional authority cannot be curbed through federal legislation--only an Amendment to the constitution can do that.

If we are at war, the president is in charge of spying--and so long as one person on the phone is a suspected terrorist (i.e. the enemy) he can direct our defense forces (intelligence included) to listen to those phone calls.

As for FISA and that whole 72 hour claptrap you and the left keeps throwing up as a smoke screen still does not deal with the fact that you need to establish probable cause.

People will not apply for a FISA warrant if it risks they can be held legally accountable for not having probable cause in the first place (just like if a police man just waltzes into someone's house--he needs probable cause).

That is the failing of the FISA process--you don't need probable cause during wartime. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and was perfectly within his rights to do so--just like it would be perfectly within Bush's rights to have done so after 9/11. But he didn't.

Get over yourself. Stop trying to usurp Bush's power because he is a republican. Clinton ordered the PHYSICAL searches of people's homes without a warrant and we weren't even at war!

That's how they built the case against the Russian spy they busted. The court accepted the evidence because it recognized that the president was acting within his authority. If the president acted illegally, then the evidence would have been thrown out.

So why is it okay for Clinton to do it and not Bush? Stop changing the goal posts.

So if we are not at war, the president is not in charge of spying? What does that mean? Does the structure of the constitution change if we are at war? Does one branch get more power? Was that the founders intent? What evidence is there to support that view?