Well, it appears that lo and behold, it was all made legal:

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30465.pdf

except for some restrictions:

(4) notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any
electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802(a) of this title,
procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a
United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any
purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section
1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the
information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person

the question then becomes, is the paragraph above being adhered to? Let me also be clear that in all cases and all messages that I am concerned about I am referring specifically and only to the surveillance of U.S. citizens within U.S. borders (domestic surveillance) only.



>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179067,00.html
>http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/nsa/index.html
>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/19/opinion/courtwatch/main1135144.shtml
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458
>
>My personal opinion is that no matter how good a leader in a war against terrorism is, how important they are to the success of the security of the country, or what our options were, no President can make his own law or ignore the law. My libertarian viewpoints are showing through here, I'm sure. This is not a country meant to be run by a monarch or a dictator. The executive branch cannot supercede law and privacy for the citizens and especially not when it breaks the law and the Bill of Rights. To do so gives total power to one person and in essence a dictatorship. It does not matter whether or not it has saved lives or prevented further acts of terrorism. You cannot punish the few to protect the many. The same may be true of the Japanese internment camps, McCarthyism, et al. All were thought to protect the masses. If it could be justified then closed door sessions would have approved it (other classified actions have been condoned and made legal in the past when national
>security required it but never based solely on the decision of the President and always voted on by congress to provide an avenue outside the current legal bounderies to protect the country).
>
>I'm sorry, but this action deserves investigation and consideration for impeachment. I'm not saying he should be impeached at this time, but if he personally allowed spying on U.S. citizens outside the Bill of Rights and laws and he is guilty and solely responsible, then it should be considered. If congress did not pass a law to allow it and no congressional action allowed it, then it should be considered. If it is determined that a previous president allowed the same, then that needs to be investigated as well. If congress determines or possibly a joint judicial committee finds sufficient evidence that such spying is necessary then the law will be made to allow for it even clandestine and classified, but no President can make the law or break the law independently.
>
>The current sense is either you support him 100% or you are just like the other liberals and that is total nonsense. Suddenly Republicans and Libertarians are forced into a "you're with us or against us" position. This is ridiculous. If you give up even a part of your rights as a citizen of this country, what else will you give up in the future? Who will be allowed to determine what we must sacrifice? How many personal liberties and how many rights? For how long? What if the war on terrorism lasts 20 or 30 years? Will our children be accustomed to living without civil liberties? What will the mindset of our youth be when it is all over - if it is ever over? If such unilateral actions are allowed then we become no better than the average citizen in any dictatorship. It is not any different imo than watergate. If the spying is necessary in order to protect our country and its citenzens then congress will agree even if it is behind closed doors. I hope we learn in the near
>future that it was indeed approved or that the action was not taken and the law broken under the authority of solely one man. It is an abuse of power.