congress has pretty much ratified everything the administration has wanted until recently. and the courts have held that congress and the exec have had the power to do what they did.
Decker, it's all a matter of perspective. you can say that lincoln had greater grounds to do so, but it's all a matter of perspective. these powers are extended, and then they are taken away. happened w the civil war, and it's happening now.
Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus as part of the imposition of martial law during the Civil War was unconstitutional. I was just pointing out that he faced a much different threat than that of a terrorist attack. [ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional.]
As for FISA, it was enacted with the express purpose of curbing excesses of presidential power, the kind of which Nixon practiced, and Bush merely ignored the law thanks to AG's advice. A warrant is necessary and Bush blew it off. I don't trust the president to have unchecked powers to spy on US citizens.
That is not permissible by a president sworn to uphold the laws of the US.
Your contention that Congress pretty much ratified everything Bush did does not address the issue that Bush simply ignored the Congress, broke the law, then sought retroactive help from a rubberstamp spineless republican led congress.
Everything is a matter of perspective. Let's not go down that relativistic hole.
Bush and AG's main crime is that they acted as if the law/constitution did not apply to the exercise of executive power. It does.