President Bush DID work "within the framework". He DOES have the AUTHORITY and the DUTY to protect the country and the people. It's called executive powers.
What you are advocating is not conservatism, but ANARCHY, where you don't want any laws applied to anyone, let the terrorists murder us at will, we mustn't listen in on their conversations, even if that is what can prevent a catastrophic attack and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents.
Executive powers, like legislative powers and judicial powers are limited by the Constitution. The President and the Executive Branch, just like the Congress and the Judiciary have only the powers delegated to them by the Constitution and no others. The Constitution makes the President commander-in-chief of the armed forces and of the milita when called into service of the United States. It does not give him the power to negate the Bill of Rights even if for a good cause.
You apparently don't know the limitations imposed on those powers.
Terrorism could be effectively fought within the laws of the land. Due to many reasons, most government agencies fail their charters. Providing even more power to the already reckless and incompetent is the recipe for tyranny. Given the choice of tyranny or anarchy, I choose the latter.
I would like a demonstration of comptetance on the part of the "organizations" as they are now enpowered. I have seen to evidence of this for quite some time.