The administration has basically raised three arguments. The only one that holds water under intense pressure is the inherent authority argument, countered with the 4th amendment.
The "legal under FISA" argument, which Gonzales is making, stinks to high heaven. It is a poor argument, and I am surprized it is even made.
THe "legal under AUMF" argument is fair, but has a number of foraward-looking weaknesses that I have pointed out above.
Bringing up the Ames/Search history is also a weak argument. There was a FISA surveillance law, and Clinton -DID- get warrants for the electronic surveaillance.
Has something changed..I thought Gonzales was not making the argument under FISA at all!
I agree with your take on all three...
BUT, wouldn't you consider the FIRST one the most important anyway??
there is also another argument here, I am not sure where it fits at all - when you make an overseas phone call, once your voice leaves the confines of the united states on that wire - as far as I am concerned, its outside the control of US laws. this is also the basis for things like echelon, as many of these "wiretap" agreements have as their basis, agreements between the US and foreign carriers, who are not subject to US laws.