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.
And you'll notice the court cases and legislation use the phrase "foreign intelligence information." In that arena, the President has free reign.
What's a real pisser is when your (nominally foreign) enemy is on your soil, in your schools, at your workplace, and in some cases, are "fellow citizens," etc. Rooting it out in that arrangement will necessarily impinge on innocents. And once terrorism is defined down to the level of "ordinary criminal activity" (meaning the number of victims is not dramatically large), the government has an excuse to surveil everybody, at any time, in order to prevent a harm of the magnitude of "ordinary crime." See e.g., Columbine, D.C. Snipers, Manson.
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.
I don't worry about the Taliban-type organized overthrow as much as I do a slow suicide by political correctness and widespread willing individual submission to an intrusive protector.