[Txsleuth]

Maybe they will be more careful then, in the future, when writing AUMFs....

so this should go on THEM, not Bush, IMHO.

BUT, it still isn't a political winner...because I think that people with common sense would assume that this kind of surveillance would be part of ANY WAR PLAN.

[Cboldt]

I think that people with common sense would assume that this kind of surveillance would be part of ANY WAR PLAN.

I agree in that no terrorist worth his salt would assume communication channels are not monitored.

But I disagree in that unilaterally undertaken electronic surveillance of US Citizens has, for the past 39 years (since Katz), resulted in evidence that was inadmissible in Court.

So, if this is part of a WAR PLAN, will the troops come in and take down the terrorists on the domestic end of these calls? Will the perps be incarcerated in military brigs? Will habeas corpus be suspended, to facilitate military trials?

Any clear take on the issue of NSA surveaillance must think through the use of the infomation, as well as what limits and what oversight will be applied - all of that is infinitely variable, and needs to be adjusted to suit changing circumstances.