That's what I hear so few people say... first that the word "unreasonable" is subjective so there is nothing "clear cut". Secondly, is it not the case the the conditions of wiretap were a) at least one participant in the communication was an al queda name and b) at least one participant was on foreign soil?
I think that is not the case. I think the net is cast more broadly. But we don't know for sure because none of the reports particularly describe the scope of the warrantless surveillance.
If the surveillance is in the scope of FISA, then it's a non-issue. The fact that it's an issue is an indicator that the surveillance is outside the scope of FISA. "Outside the scope of FISA" does not mean the surveillance is unconstitutional - but it takes particular facts (which we don't have) to reach a judgment on that.
Yep. Technically, there was no "wiretap." It is "eavesdropping."
What gives the civil liberty-types diaper rash is that the voice recognition software used in "sweeping" the key words in phone calls might have overheard a sentence or two from two domestics talking about Momma's biscuit recipe. Of course, the NSA is not interested in Momma's biscuit recipe, and dropped the call immediately, but the constamatooshinalists think protecting Momma's biscuit recipe by making the executive branch jump through judicial hoops is the highest priority versus raising the odds that an al-Qaeda call might be intercepted and thereby protecting thousands of lives.