[Txsleuth]

Wow...I am impressed...you really know your stuff...maybe you should apply to help out.

Regardless of the "legality" of this...as was pointed out in other posts...these taps are not being used to gather evidence for a trial per se...it is to stop another attack...or find out where the cells are, in and out of the US...IMHO..

And...I can't believe the democrats and some Rinos, like Specter and McCain, are going to force hearings that will just harm our clandestine terrorism fight more than it already has been...

It is a lose-lose plan for them....and ultimately a possible lose situation for the US...if this causes us to miss some intelligence that we might have had..if this had been kept secret.

[ndt]

"Wow...I am impressed...you really know your stuff...maybe you should apply to help out."

No doubt a group like the NSA would make me look like an amateur but I'll take any praise I can get.

"Regardless of the "legality" of this...as was pointed out in other posts...these taps are not being used to gather evidence for a trial per se...it is to stop another attack...or find out where the cells are, in and out of the US...IMHO.."

The is a distinct difference between eavesdropping for national security as opposed to doing so for criminal prosecution. Nearly every court case I have seen that dealt with eavesdropping has been careful to point out that they are distinct and that they are subject to different levels of "reasonableness". The requirements for criminal prosecution are well defined by a mountain of case law. The requirement for national security are not.

Almost without exception, when it come to judging the extent of power possessed by president in regards to national security, beyond those specifically enumerated in the constitution, courts have erred on the side of assuming the president does have that power unless specifically limited by congress.