RE: HERE IT IS

With regard to the burning evesdropping issues, here is an interesting take from Clinton's former Assistant Attorney General that seems to make sense:

Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

This intelligent take both justifies Bush's action and acknowledges the legality of it, but also notes the risk of unfettered use of governmental power to spy on its citizenry. Ultimately, we will have to decide how much freedom we wish to sacrifice to be terror-free. It's pretty close to a zero-sum game.