I see some danger in that approach (which seems to be the approach chosen by Gonzales, DoJ and the President), because it is finding authority for the program in a grant from Congress, instead of asserting inherent authority regardless of what Congress says.
As a result, other point that seems to go by without much probing is the 4th amendment. I think that is important, because at some point in time, the AUMF will be a historical document, with no present effect or force. Should the surveillance stop then?
I see some danger in [relying on the AUMF] (which seems to be the approach chosen by Gonzales, DoJ and the President), because it is finding authority for the program in a grant from Congress, instead of asserting inherent authority regardless of what Congress says.As a result, other point that seems to go by without much probing is the 4th amendment. I think that is important, because at some point in time, the AUMF will be a historical document, with no present effect or force. Should the surveillance stop then?