Ok follow this logic.
If all a lawbreaker has to do under the newly proposed FISA guidelines is to show some sort of presidential note saying that whatever illegal actions were taken were at the behest of the president that is excused right?
And if as the president asserts, the Justice Department as part of the executive branch acts as an extension of the presidential power (and presumably other parts of the executive branch as well), Then would the Watergate break in have been ok?
Would Liddy and the Cubans gotten a pass?
Contractors hired by the executive branch?
Lt Calley?
Blackwater security thugs?
Presumably all US hired torturers would just have to show their note right?
US Attorneys who prosecuted selectively on the basis of party affiliation just need to show that they were directed to do that, correct?
Update:
A wise commenter downthread did indeed school me on a thing or two.
The main misconception I had was that the absolution provided by the New FISA pertains to Civil law rather than to Criminal law.
If they have a note you cannot sue them.
Another wise commenter pointed out that the note is a priveleged communication, and that their assertion is that they do not have to show it to you.
The whole damned thing reads like a Vaclav Havel play. Postmodernism indeed.