IMHO, this just goes to show that no matter what intelligence we would have had pre 9/11, the President's hands would have been tied in acting on that intelligence.
If we had arrested 19 Middle Eastern men and said the reason was they were going to fly planes into buildings, the uproar in the press and by the Dems would have been deafening.
If an al-Qaeda operative in Karachi phones someone in Paris, France and tells him to go to the US to carry out an act of terrorism – obviously the President would have the authority to listen to that conversation without a warrant.
But if an al-Qaeda operative in Karachi phones someone in Paris, Texas and tells him to go to Houston to carry out an act of terrorism -- the President would not have that authority to listen to that conversation without a warrant?
In other words, once a terrorist lands on American soil he must be given additional rights, including an expectation of privacy when he gets a phone call from Osama bin Laden.
That's what the administration’s critics are arguing.