When in doubt, hide underneath a rock.

So, to argue for the surveillance of American citizens, this is what Anthony Coppilino said: "Suppose for example the president obtains intelligence that a nuclear bomb was planted ... right there in Washington, and the only way he was going to find out whether that was going to happen was to grab the person and interrogate him. Would that be in his constitutional authority? I would say so."

Unfortunately for this particular lawyer, he fails to spot that his argument in no way addresses the surveillance of American citizens. In fact, it steps around it. The question is not what the President does with the information, but the way in which he obtains it.

In the laywer's example, no courtroom would deny the President his authority to pick up the suspected bomber. They would approve surveillance on him and his contacts as well. However, the issue is the blanket surveillance on all American citizens who are suspected of nothing, and have no reason to be suspected of anything. This tactic is a failure on two fronts:
1. Too many false positives. The FBI/NSA wastes too much time on too little intelligence.
2. Too much abuse of the power. Once, spying created the Watergate scandal. It kept Martin Luther King, Jr. under constant surveillance. Political activists who spoke out against the current administration were wiretapped.

The surveillance needs to end completely. All spying done against American citizens needs to find itself before the courts, and verified independently from the executive branch of goverment.

Don't die.