No, they haven't. "Domestic surveillance" is the lefties version of what's being done. What the courts have ruled is legal, and what the President has authorized, is to pursue foreign intelligence without the need for a court approved warrant, even if a portion of that information is gathered within our borders.
Clinton did precisely that when he authorized the FBI to break into Aldrich Ames house and gather evidence without a warrant. It was a matter of national security and the courts allowed that evidence, and evidence derived from what they learned, to be used at trial. Where the quandary and stigma comes from is that Nixon said things like the Watergate burglary were done for National Security as a dodge. The point was specifically made this morning that no one has suggested that Bush is doing anything for any reason other than to listen to terrorists.
Don't let them define the terms of the debate. It's NOT DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE.
There was no trial. Ames and his wife entered a plea bargain.
Where the quandary and stigma comes from is that Nixon said things like the Watergate burglary were done for National Security as a dodge.
Quite true. That is part of the "nub," of what will constitute adequate justification for intruding on what the pulic thinks is privacy. Does there need to be a reason? Does the reason need to attach to the person under surveillance? Does the agent who is asserting he has a reason to intrude need to share the reason with anybody?
Generalities just don't do - but that's all we're gonna get.
Don't let them define the terms of the debate. It's NOT DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE.
It's not foreign surveillance either. And to the charge of it being domesitc, I think a good response is "So what? If the terrorists are in the country, should we stop listening?"
You're right. I should have included the link to potential foreign terrorist connections.