I still belong to the ABA, but I confess I don't know what benefit I get from it, other than being a contrarian to many of their (our?) positions.
I have little doubt where the ABA will come down on this-- when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Problem is, this is WAR. The usual legal niceties do not apply.
The only reason I do business with the ABA is for publications. I like the Asset Protection teatise (don't remember the title off hand). Also, the attorney I work for as of counsel just wrote a book on charitable planning that the ABA will release this month (I hope) I'll pick-up a copy of that as well, but otherwise, I stay away!
I would argue that "war" has nothing to do with it, because the numerous appellate court cases that concluded that "the President had the inherent [constitutional] power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information", never once predicated their conclusions on the existence or absence of a state of war.
Rather, they relied on the President's authority as the nation's sole representative in matters of foreign affairs and his duty to protect the national security.
See for instance,
United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (1973)
U.S. v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 913 (1980)
United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (1984)
In re Sealed Case, 310, F3d. 717, 742 (2002)