I watched this discussion and victoria was right on the money. Her explanation was very similar to the one I heard on Fox this morning.....
An explanation I heard this morning on Fox was that the FISA was bypassed because FISA criteria may have been difficult to meet in instances where it could not be established that, for instance, all of the people on a captured terrorist's cell phone, were in fact, connected directly to a terrorist organization or terrorist plot. In other words, FISA would not approve wire tapping the terrorist contact, 'John Smith', if it could not be proven he was something more than just the terrorist's barber. Side stepping FISA and it's requirements allows the NSA to tap into any and all of the terrorist's 'contacts' on a confiscated cell phone.
Also, the explanation was given that the Presidential authority to do so without a warrent, is based, in part, by the gravity of the threat. After 9/11, the argument should be that the gravity of the threat gives Bush the authority and also, we are to notice that 'gravity of the threat' is not being used by the Dems in their 'argument' against.
I would add that she stated that a warrent through FISA would NOT cover cell phones, since there was no such thing as cell phones when FISA was enacted. She posed the question to Mr. Bamford....."What would you do in the instance where you were able to get hold of a terrorists cell phone with numbers in it, given FISA doesn't cover cell phones. Mr. Bamford couldn't and wouldn't answer....she repeatedly asked, and finally he answered by saying that it was no excuse because he himself would like to drive faster than the law allows, but must obey the laws. ? hello?