President Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to conduct eavesdropping activities on those suspected of having al Qaeda links, who were in the U.S. making overseas phone calls and writing emails to people in other countries.

The New York Times, among others, is making serious accusations:

(Bush) secretly and recklessly expanded the government's powers in dangerous and unnecessary ways that eroded civil liberties and may also have violated the law.

James Joyner and Mark Levin each dismantle any notion that the eavesdropping violated the law. Joyner:

The fact that there have been "three dozen" separate authorizations in a relatively short period would seem an indication that the administration was relying on their authority under § 1811:

§ 1811. Authorization during time of war

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

...§ 1802 allows the president, through the Attorney General, to conduct warrantless searches so long as neither party is a "United States person" within the meaning of the law.

Levin:

...(T)he FISA permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

That leads to this question: If President Bush was legally permitted to take an action that could prevent another terrorist mass murder on U.S. soil, and he didn't take that action, would that be derelection of duty?

And how does Bush's actions compare with those of liberal icon Robert F. Kennedy, as described by this piece in the Atlantic Monthly:

On October 10, 1963, U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy committed what is widely viewed as one of the most ignominious acts in modern American history: he authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation to begin wiretapping the telephones of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Kennedy believed that one of King's closest advisers was a top-level member of the American Communist Party, and that King had repeatedly misled Administration officials about his ongoing close ties with the man. Kennedy acted reluctantly, and his order remained secret until May of 1968, just a few weeks after King's assassination and a few days before Kennedy's own.

(Should those in glass houses throw bugging devices?)

There are any number of questions that are still unanswered. Who was bugged? What was their background? Who were they talking to? What did they say? Were lives saved? Who leaked the information? What was the leaker's motivation? Here's how The Times described its sourcing:

Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.

Well, there are a number of "former officials" who actively campaigned against President Bush's re-election in 2004. Could the paper at least tell readers if any of its sources opposed President Bush's re-election? "Former officials" could include people who worked in the LBJ administration.

Stay tuned.