"Given the security environment our country is in right now, that is somewhat naive. By the time they'd effectively change the law, we might not have a country to worry about. Additionally, precedent has been set time and time again for the President to assume extraordinary powers during times of war."
What you say is true...but who ultimately does the country belong to? We were at war when the last abuses were done. The public knew this and still wanted the power of domestic spying without warrants taken away from the government and they got laws enacted to that effect.
If the President faces a new situation and decides to assume extraordinary power i can understand that. But this is case where the law was changed while we were finishing one hot war and still in a cold war specifically to prevent the President from doing this.
I don't recall us being at war when Clinton assumed the same extraordinary powers that President Bush is assuming. The main difference is that Bush is doing it to protect the people of this country. Clinton did things to protect Clinton.
The President IS facing a new situation, a new enemy who is ruthless and will stop at nothing to destroy this country. Why do Democrats insist on giving them the upper hand while they try to accomplish that? Why tie the hands of those that are supposed to protect us?
As a former Air Force OSI Special Agent duing the last 1970's and early 80's, we were repeatedly stopped from being able to gather intelligence on groups attempting to gain access to our nuclear weapons facilities in Montana. Know why?? They were US citizens. We were restricted from being able to gather information about their activities. How many degress of separation do you think it takes to go from a violent group hostile to the US and actual US citizens. One. Let's not give them any more help than we have to by restricting our military and law enforcement agencies.
There, now it's correct. Besides, this was not "domestic spying" it was monitoring the communications of foreign terrorists, and only when they contacted someone in the US was that person's communications targeted, and even then, only their international communications.
It also appears that if the person seemed to be actively involved in planing or supporting terrorist activities, then a warrant was sought to monitor their domestic communications as well. I think the administration bent over backwards to accommodate the law to well beyond the limits of the Constitutionality of that law.