[Blzbba]

'Our joint sarcasm aside (although I wouldn't be surprised if some here really don't care about the Constitution), people would be freaking out if this was happening under Clinton's term."


Indeed. If this happened under Clinton, NOONE would be questioning the source.

[rattrap]

Security for Freedom is a trade PT Barnum would be impressed with.

[mrsmith]

Those of us with knowledge of the Constitution see that president Bush's actions are the same as President Madison's actions in 1812 to obtain private conversations of American citizens with a foreign spy- without legal warrant.
These were reports of conversations that took place entirely domestically, and they were acquired in this country.

The distinction that conversations are protected by BOR limitations on search until they are in the possession of the foreign agent has been and still is effective for letters, but isn't of any use in the case of instantaneous electronic communications. Apparently the standard that such communications that originate in the US have BOR protections is what is evolving to replace the old standard. Personally, I'd keep Madison's precedent- though I see that it has it's faults now too.

American presidents have always had inherent constitutional war power to "repel sudden attacks" (and sole power to deal with foreign agents).

Of course it is a very dangerous power which could destroy all our freedoms. Nixon resigned before certain impeachment for apparently abusing it.

Any president who didn't use it to defend the country from a foreign attack would also face certain impeachment.
...Though the media would be able to lie enough to save a Dem president from a 2/3 Removal vote by the Senate.

[zook]

If 9/11 happened under Clinton, and if Clinton had done the same thing, I would be here saying "BRAVO, MR. PRESIDENT!"

Any president who didn't act this way during such circumstances would be failing his duty.