So what I'm curious about isn't so much whether Bush can be impeached for this, but whether he's now open to civil action from those whose privacy he illegally violated? If Paula Jones can get a judge to allow her to sue a sitting President based on harrassment, shouldn't these victims have equal protection?

Since I think it's fairly obvious that anyone who has been spied on has a valid cause of action, how do they find out they've been targeted? Are FIA requests enough, or would one have to file suit and then subpoena inforation regarding any potential wiretap?

CE makes a good point about impeachment. The issue, however, is NOT that the people were more angry about sex in the White House than illegal wire tapping. I seem to recall Congress on the opposite side the people on these issues.

We will NEVER get impeachment as long as the Congress is controlled by Republicans. Remember, Watergate didn't make people mad until AFTER the Congressional hearings. I also don't recall one person, in 1998, say "Boy, I am so glad they are impeaching the president for having sex with an intern." In that case, the more they investigated, the more people wanted them to knock it off.

Maybe this will light a fire under people's behinds, and elect a Democratic Congress. If that doesn't happen, I am not hopeful that any of these criminals will be brought to justice.

The National Security Authority wiretaps of course have nothing to do with the President's authority as commander in chief. The Constitution says that the President is "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy," and the NSA is not part of the army or navy.

More importantly, the president's authority as commander in chief does not allow him to do whatever he wants with the military. Overlooked, including in Professor Cole's article, is the tremendous authority that the Constitution gives Congress. Congress has more power than just declaring war (Art I, §8, cl. 11), raising and supporting armies (cl. 12) and providing for and maintaining a navy (cl. 13).

Congress also has the right "to define and punish . . . offenses against the Laws of Nations (cl. 9), a power that the Supreme Court has held (albeit in the much-maligned Quirin case) allows Congress to determine the laws of war and the treatment of prisoners of war. Congress can "make rules concerning captures on land and water" (cl. 10). To wrap it up, Congress, not the President has the authority to govern and make rules regulating the army and navy. So the Constitution is clear: the President commands the military, but only within the bounds set by Congress.

The sad thing for me is that when I heard that Bush had authorized illegal wiretaps, the first thing that came to mind was "of course he did."

I mean, this is just what we have come to expect from this administration. I struggle against cynicism, but again, and again, and again, this administration never fails to confirm our worst expectations. War based on false information? No occupation plan? Torture? Secret prisons? Massive deficits? Cutting social programs in order to fund tax cuts for the rich? The list is so long that it is difficult to enumerate.

This is simply how these people operate, and nothing surprises me about them any more.