That's because roving wiretaps, etc, are being used almost exclusively on muslims. For now. As Homeland Security's scope increases, so will the applications of this act.
Remember, the WoT is young yet. It took years before the WoD reached the level of, for example, asset forfeiture laws. It's only in recent years that your car can be taken away on suspicion of drug trafficking, without due process--and then never given back, even when you turn out to be innocent. Of course, those laws aren't much of a problem either. After all, the majority of people whose assets are forfeit probably are guilty.
I agree about the asset forfeiture issues of the WoD. But I don't agree that the WoT is necessarily related in any way by virtue of incrementalism or scope creep.
Quite the opposite. The greater danger I see is the loss of urgency and the slipping of scope as the country gets more distant in history from 9/11.
Roving wiretaps are a good thing, and they are in no way a violation of the fourth amendment. Due process is still required. Warrants are still required. The only difference is that the warrant is to follow a ~person~ instead of a device. This is absolutely sensible given the technology of communications today. In fact, if the direction were reversed... to make a wiretap order follow a device instead of a person... it would rightly be ridiculed as a stupid way to conduct investigations.
Of ~course~ it makes more sense to attach the order to a person.