Someone probably should point out that the Constitution is less is question than what the Congress meant to have happen when it set up the FISA court. They wanted to President to have the flexibility to place wiretaps in a hurry without advance court approval, but also wanted those taps reviewed within a few days to make sure the executive was not abusing his power. The President has not explained to the satisfaction of many, what is was about that process that was not working......other than he got turned down more than any other exectutive because of the way he abused the process.

So far the Bush warrantless wire taps have made us less secure. The NSA has sent over one thousand false leades to the FBI whose agents have been jokingly calling the referrals from NSA as "more calls to Pizza Hut". President Bush has been having the Bureau waste its time while producing leads that had already been developed from other means. We know that the 9/11 Commission reported that even before September 11 valuable leads were not pursued and thousands of hours of legally obtained transcripts went untranslated because there was more material to go through than there were man hours available to get the job done. The current president’s domestic spying program has only taken an incredibly difficult job and made it even harder.

I lived under another President who liked to send his people out placeing illegal wiretaps and he especially liked to listen in on his political opponents. In fact he got caught when his minions were discovered placing listening devices in the Democratic Pary Headquarters at the Watergate building. That guy's white house counsel says that the current occupants of the white house are even worse than him. Interestingly, most of the laws that Congress passed regulating domestic spying were passed because of the sleazy things that particular Republican President did. The current guy is just ignoring all of the Watergate era laws so I think we have to suspect that the big net he throwing out there is also being used to listen in on his political opponents. Since the criminals in the Executive branch have NO ONE reviewing and approving what they are doing, even in retrospect, they can do whatever they wish with impunity. The fact that professionals within NSA and the FBI have chosen to risk their jobs leaking the infomration is proof enough that the Bush administration is doing something more sinister than simply listening in on Al Queada calls to domestic phone numbers.

Actually I could care less what Arlen Spacter had to say about it. I'm worried about the Illegal Wiretapping Program because it violates the law. Calling it something pretty like the "Terrorist Surveillence Program" does not make it legal. Calling a whorehouse a "Comfort Hotel" keeps the patrons from giving each other the clap, either.
Nor does a personal attack on a US Senator change the subject away from the felonies committed by the Whitehouse.

There is simply no way any of the republicans now supporting it would being doing so were it Clinton who was found to have been doing it. Simply no way. The spectacle of a president invoking war powers (what, exactly is the "war on terror" by the way? Might it not be useful very specifically to define such a thing. Might it not help figure out exactly what it is we're fighting and how best to do so?) and in effect saying that "war" (as opposed to war) justifies taking any action whatsoever ought to send shivers down the spine ("spine"??? In a politician???) of every republican. But no. And worse, we're subjected to watching Sen Sessions trot out another 9/11 spouse as justification. Who is it again who uses 9/11 for political purposes? Just asking.

There is simply no way any of the republicans now supporting it would being doing so were it Clinton who was found to have been doing it. Simply no way. The spectacle of a president invoking war powers (what, exactly is the "war on terror" by the way? Might it not be useful very specifically to define such a thing. Might it not help figure out exactly what it is we're fighting and how best to do so?) and in effect saying that "war" (as opposed to war) justifies taking any action whatsoever ought to send shivers down the spine ("spine"??? In a politician???) of every republican. But no. And worse, we're subjected to watching Sen Sessions trot out another 9/11 spouse as justification. Who is it again who uses 9/11 for political purposes? Just asking.