Nixon was charged with illegal wiretapping in his bill of impeachment. He also used "national security" as his rationale.

FISA was created as a result, so it's pretty clear that Congress wanted to govern the use of wiretaps.

The Bush administration thought they could bypass FISA. Nixon claimed that the president could not break the law if he was acting in the name of national security. Bush/Cheney/Yoo appear to be dredging up that argument, too.

Hey, if the shoe fits...the ACLU has it exactly correct. It's an apt comparison, and it would be dumb for Congress not to investigate Bush's NSA wiretap operation, even only if in the name of turf protection.

I believe most Americans would applaud a full congressional investigation into the ACLU. I would like to know how much of their funds come from foriegn sources and who those sources are. How much money comes from foundations and what are the political connections of those organizations. Who are the key people who run the ACLU and what are their political backgrounds. How much money comes from the government itself to fund their
many lawsuits? I am not implying that anuthing they do is illegal, just that they and their motives need to be exposed to public scrutiny and to the light of day.
Congress should also examine how the ACLU with the mere threat of a lawsuit is able to blackmail small communities to abandon perfectly legal practices because of the cost of defending them. What new laws do we need to protect us from these un-American practices?
That would be an investigation I would support!

Well, we've heard from the wingnuts. (see bindare4u, above). So where are all you civil libertarians? I mean, the Cato Institute has weighed in: "Cato senior fellow in Constitutional studies Robert A. Levy says, "President Bush's executive order sanctions warrant-less wiretaps by the National Security Agency of communications from the United States to foreign countries by U.S. persons. Reportedly, the executive order is based on classified legal opinions stating that the president's authority derives from his Commander-in-Chief power and the post-911 congressional authorization for the use of military force against Al Qaeda. That pernicious rationale, carried to its logical extreme, renders the PATRIOT Act unnecessary and trumps any dispute over its reauthorization. Indeed, such a policy makes a mockery of the principle of separation of powers."

Gee, JohnS.... Maybe they're still digesting this:

FISA Court Approved Bush Spy Program

Contrary to claims by Democrats currently hyperventilating on Capitol Hill over President Bush's decision to use the National Security Agency to monitor communications among terrorists, Bush's so-called "illegal" spy program has indeed undergone judicial review.
And a special foreign intelligence surveillance appeals court set up to review the case confirmed that such "warrantless searches" were completely legal.
Notes OpinionJournal.com today:
"The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978."
But the Journal notes that in a 2002 case dubbed: "In Re: Sealed Case," the FISA appeals court decision cited a previous FISA case [U.S. v. Truong], where a federal court "held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
The court's decision went on to say: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

What's more, notes the Journal: "The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about" the Bush surveillance program.

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/20/131610.shtml