See John, the problem I have with interpretations like yours, is that it makes it seem reasonable that we all give up our 4th amendment rights in the name of national security, because if we don't, the government won't be allowed to spy on "US persons". Nothing could be further from the truth. The US intelligence agencies spy on "US persons" all the time--within the boundaries allowable by law. Which means, simply, that they must prove to an independent branch of government, the judical branch, that they have probable cause.

Also John, why is it when people like yourself and other Bush Republicans invoke the need to spy on US citizens, you always invoke terrorists instead of the constitutionally protected political dissenters the government illegally spys on, hmmm???

John wowed us with:

"A court review of the legality of what's apparently been done is unlikely, and certainly won't occur in any timely fashion."

It is not within the courts' remit to review the legality of what has happened, actually. It is within Congress' remit. Which is why former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who was chairman of the Intelligence Committee at the time the eavesdropping program was launched, raised the homeland security alert level when he said in an interview Friday that he was never told about the program during his time on the committee.

"I didn't learn about it until well after I was off the Intelligence Committee," said Graham, whose tenure as chairman began several months before the Sept. 11 attacks and ended in January 2003.

Graham's statement raises questions about whether the Bush administration provided timely notice to congressional oversight committees, as is required by law.

And which is why Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he would call congressional hearings as soon as possible. Warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens is "wrong, and it can't be condoned at all," he said on Friday.

And these are the conservative, pro-military, hawk type guys John. Not the bleeding heart liberals.