[Boot Hill]

ndt:   "You left out what followed not one paragraph later...'the executive must seek a warrant before it undertakes domestic security surveillance."

Domestic intelligence surveillance is irrelevant to the current debate over the President conducting warrantless intercepts of foreign intelligence communications. Do you understand the difference?

ndt:   "If the president were to conduct suvailance without a warrant he could be found to have violated the constitutional rights of the person spied upon."

Incorrect, as the holdings in the four appellate cases cited in #25 plainly show, the President has the inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.

ndt:   "Foreign intelligence yes, but if you bothered to read the sentence before that one you would see this...'in the area of domestic security..."

Domestic intelligence surveillance is irrelevant to the current debate over the President conducting warrantless intercepts of foreign intelligence communications. Do you understand the difference?

[ndt]

"Domestic intelligence ..."

There is no question that the president has the power to spy on forign powers, nobody is questioning that. This is all about spying on U.S. persons, and unless those U.S. persons have been shown to be an agent of a foreign power, that is domestic.

The article above even goes the next step and tries to justify a blanket wiretapping of everybody, in hopes of finding somebody.