What part of the constitution do you not understand.
ARTICLE IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Therefore, if it is reasonable to intercept Al Quaeda communications, then no warrants are needed. End of story. Not to hard to read and understand something a friggin 8 year old could read and understand.
Even if a warrant was needed, do you not think there is probable cause to intercept the communications of Al Quaeda members and associates? Once probable cause is satisfied, all that is needed is an oath or affirmation and the name of the person. I'm preety sure that was provided to the FISA judges and therefore, there is no need to modify or reject the request.
What part of the constitution do you not understand.
I think you missed my point. I was suggesting that the data may end up showing that Bush was in fact doing the right thing.