[Alter Kaker]

You're wrong on two counts:

1. The domestic surveillance appears to have covered United States persons, which the law expressly prohibits,

2. This other, more important, law:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[angkor]

1. The domestic surveillance appears to have covered United States persons, which the law expressly prohibits,

No, the law has a "substantial likelihood" test.

Work it out on your own.

[Clara Lou]

The domestic surveillance appears to have covered United States persons, which the law expressly prohibits,
By US persons you mean citizens or aliens here legally? What is known about who was spied on? I can't find any hard info on that.

[7mmMag@LeftCoast]

Just because the media intentionally mischaracterizes this as 'domestic' spying, does not make it so. The President and the attorney general have both made it clear that no one was authorized to montitor U.S. citizens, end of story.

In fact both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have stated, on the record, that they were briefed on this program and signed off on it's legality.

This is a political game, and it embarasses me to think that there are people on FR whom are obtuse of the facts.