There are at least several problems with the searches as I see:

1) One would have to put enormous faith in those in power that they will not abuse the power. Highly unlikely. a) Human nature to abuse power b) Those in power have not made it a secret their distain for the laws setup to enforce checks and balances. It's not big secret that Cheney in particular believes that too much power was stripped from the office of the president after Watergate.

2) Because they are circumventing checks and balances with these procedures they put in place, we have no idea the extent of the wiretapping, the extent of those arrested who have been placed in secret detention

I really, trully don't care to argue about who did what in our past. The fact of the matter is there is illegal wiretapping occuring today. And the lack of checks and balances means there's no guarantee that the explanation offered covers all the cases of those eavesdropped upon.



>>What is gained by avoiding fisa? The evidence collected becomes a product of an illegal search and is no good in court. Unless they are going to avoid the courts all together and make these people disappear why no get the retroactive warrents? Do you support the holding of (or what ever Bush feels like doing to) US citizens?
>>
>
>What's to be gained? Hints regarding possible terrorist action and the time necessary to prevent them. Not being party to the results of the monitoring I can only guess that anything that was found that might need to be brought up in court had a retroactive warrant requested.
>
>Do I support the holding of US citizens? Depends on the circumstances. In general, no, not without formal charges. But in regards to stopping terrorist acts - a very narrow lens we are looking through, mind you - then I believe some discretion is in order. And any US citizen that has carried arms against the country has, in my view, already forfeited their rights. Probably a good thing I'm not president.
>
>>You have said you have no problem with Bush's actions. Is there a line he could cross that you would object to? Assuming he thought what he was doing was in our best interest to protect us.
>>
>
>Yes, absolutely. Warrantless physical searches, indiscriminate detainment (such as what happened to Japanese-Americans in WW2) come to mind immediately.