I do not think he has the power per se. And he isn't asserting a power, per se. He qualifies the activity as ALWAYS involving a suspect.
This gets to the point I asked you about a couple weeks ago -- what is the planned USE of the information? At some point, it has to be useful to put into ACTION. It's pure waste to listen for the sake of listening.
I've said from the start, we don't have enough information about the legal policies of the program to asses its constitutionality. Depending on one's assumptions, my opinion/conclusion can come out on one side or the other.
And I honestly think that if we know bad guys, suspects, that we ought to be surveilling them in-country even more earnestly than we watch their international communications. Once on the ground here, they can hurt us!
I just read your post with the link to Keith...
Even though they ruled against the Attorney General in that case, they seemed to purposely make the case of it "domestic" intelligence...
I did find this quote, by Chief Justice Hughes, interesting:
"Civil liberties, as guaranteed by the Constitution, imply the existence of an organized society maintaining public order without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of unrestrained abuses".
Chief Justice Hughes
Cox v. New Hampshire
1941
I know that ultimately, this was discounted in this case, but if you picture a Taliban type government overthrowing our government, by using our system of protecting civil liberties in their quest to overtake us...it makes one wonder at the risk vs. precedent.
As you have said....( I forgot that I had asked you your opinion before)..it is a very complicated question, and in some ways, even what the NSA has done up until now, may be not enough...if they aren't tapping domestic calls between terrorist cells within the USA borders...
However, on a purely political basis....what would these same critics be saying if this NSA program had NOT been started, or if they DID wait for warrants, and an attack had occurred before now...
Don't you think the "impeachment" talk would be even louder than it is for his doing it??