I'll grant you that a judge is used to thinking inside the box. He's not likely to think at first blush that there is any area his judicial procedures don't apply to. On the other hand, a Supreme Court justice who considers the question whether the President has the power to intercept a phone call from Osama bin Laden without a court order would inevitably have to conclude that he does.
And you don't have any idea whether it's Osama who's calling. All you know is that it's an al Qaeda phone number. Nor do you know who's going to answer the phone on this end.
So tell me why it's "unreasonable" as per the Fourth Amendment for the President to intercept that call? Even if the call is to an American citizen, it is precisely the call you want to intercept. It may be the most valuable intelligence you will ever collect.
As Madison put it- defending the legislature's war powers, ironically:
"A declaration that there shall be war, is not an execution of laws: it does not suppose pre-existing laws to be executed: it is not, in any respect, an act merely executive. It is, on the contrary, one of the most deliberate acts that can be performed; and when performed, has the effect of repealing all the laws operating in a state of peace, so far as they are inconsistent with a state of war; and of enacting, as a rule for the executive, a new code adapted to the relation between the society and its foreign enemy. In like manner, a conclusion of peace annuls all the laws peculiar to a state of war, and revives the general laws incident to a state of peace."