*"On the face of it all, this hardly compares with the outright eavesdropping anti-privacy the new Swedish law seems to be offering its people."

*Thing is, Quest, those opposed to the Bush administration's actions think they do compare. The warrantless NSA surveillance carried out subsequent to 9/11 operated outside of the FISA framework because the administration considered it had a "go" from Congress via the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Terrorists resolution. FISA has an "unless authorized by statute" provision and the administration considers AUMF authorisation enough. Others disagree. The only oversight for the NSA surveillance was a few congressmen being briefed on a privy council basis.

I'm OK with it because I consider the threat serious enough. I see the interception and inspection of electronic communications across the border as no different morally to the interception and inspection of physical items across the border. I do not regard either as a violation of the spirit of the constitution (which is not a suicide pact).

AUMF:
"[Be it resolved] [t]hat the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

The administration's interpretation of this as permitting open-ended warrantless wiretapping is challenged by opponents who point out that FISA permits the president to perform warrantless wiretaps for a period of only fifteen days after a full declaration of war. The opponents regard AUMF as  being less than a full declaration of war and so therefore AUMF should not permit open-ended wiretaps. But (my opinion) legally AUMF is neither more nor less than a declaration of war, it is just different - and its provisions and permissions are different.

This is one for the Supreme Court to decide. They already regard AUMF as an activation of the president's war powers. They have given the administration a pass on one aspect of anti-terror action and a fail on another. We'll see, as the issue is bound to end up before them eventually.