1. Section 2511 (3) is merely a disclaimer of congressional intent to define presidential powers in matters affecting national security, and is not a grant of authority to conduct warrantless national security surveillances. Pp. 301-308. [407 U.S. 297, 298]

"Warrantless" is a wonderfully ambiguous term. Bush's surveillance is not warrantless.

2. The Fourth Amendment (which shields private speech from unreasonable surveillance) requires prior judicial approval for the type of domestic security surveillance involved in this case. Pp. 314-321; 323-324.

This is the crux - we are currently engaging in domestic espionage of non-citizens and those they associate with. Non-citizens do not share the constitutional protection enjoyed by the Black Panthers or some sixties radical dope-heads. If a non-citizen under surveillance interacts with a citizen, the citizen is by default under the eyes of the microscope as well. The US Constitution's integrity and intent is in no way violated. And this is why this whole thing is a non-issue. The NYT hasn't read the text of the Executive Order and they know it will never see the light of day. They can shout about "domestic" surveillance the same way firecracker manufactures plastered "safe & sane" all over the box. It is in truth simply stepped up foreign espionage with a focus on those who are entering America to do possible harm.

The NYT and the political left ARE undermining our national security.

As usual.

And then when the next big terrorist attack occurs they'll point fingers at the right and say "how could you let this happen AGAIN!"

And again the left fringe will declare that Bush planned it all.

(a) The Government's duty to safeguard domestic security must be weighed against the potential danger that unreasonable surveillances pose to individual privacy and free expression. Pp. 314-315.

Again applicable to US citizens only.

(b) The freedoms of the Fourth Amendment cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances are conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch without the detached judgment of a neutral magistrate. Pp. 316-318.

And once again, the court is talking about US citizens.

(c) Resort to appropriate warrant procedure would not frustrate the legitimate purposes of domestic security searches. Pp. 318-321.

This whole case is about protecting subversives rights that are US citizens, and that is all swell and fine. You think the White House crew that surround Bush, haven't thought about the appropriate legal angle to give themselves as much leeway as possible to monitor terrorists and foreign nationals here in the US?

Read the quote Tom posted - about INTERNATIONAL calls being monitored and you will soon see the huge 'loophole' given to Bush as he crafted an Executive Order increasing domestic surveillance on non-citizens.

FDR used the same loophole in the second week of December in 1941. Not surprisingly, the left was cheering him on.