Your mind is more fixated on that than mine...
What would Freud say...


Bush has usurped powers EXPLICITLY denied him by law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht..._50_10_36.html
"(a)
(1) 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 periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and..."

Your comments may invoke other issues into play, but what aMFliberal quoted still applies.
Even if they are classifed as a "Foreign Agent", a U.S. citizen SHOULD STILL be a U.S. CITIZENS until the courts say otherwise. (Unless we suddenly gave the president power to revoke citizenry based on suspicions...)
Thus they would be a part of the quoted section B "(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and..."

Bush's actions inside the U.S. would be EXPLICITLY outside the scope of the afore-mentioned powers.
The only way around it would be to declare the participants as no longer U.S. citizens, and Bush DOES NOT have that power.

If you're tapping UNITED STATES phone calls where one of the ends is a UNITED STATES phone, it seems blatantly obvious that there is a VERY SUBSTANTIAL likelihood that the contents of the communication will include conversations which are explicitly forbidden.

And in addition, note the wording. It doesn't say that if a participant is KNOWN not to be a U.S. citizen. It talks about the LIKELIHOOD that such a tap could involve a participants who is a U.S. citizen. In other words, if you have a house which has 3 non-U.S. citizens, and one U.S. citizen as residents, it would be illegal to tap that phone's house because there WOULD BE a "substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party".

Bush is EXPLICITLY violating the law in invading the privacy of American citizenry.


They haven't "failed" to do anything.
Congress refuses to broach the issue, preventing ANY official conclusions from being reached on the issue.