Nor must the president seek approval before monitoring communications between al-Qaida and suspected U.S. accomplices. A warrant-based "cops and robbers" approach is wholly out of place in time of war. FISA's backwards-looking civilian law enforcement model would hamper the president's ability to identify targets of pre-emptive action before they strike and undermine his ability to fight the war Congress authorized.
Clinton treated the fight against al Qaeda as a law enforcement problem. And liberals still want to take that approach. But, then again, the typical liberal approach to failure is to do more of what failed in the hopes that it might succeed if you do enough of it.
One thing is for sure, there won't BE any rule of law if Al Qaeda manages a spectacular enough hit on one or more of our cities. Those who love the rule of law, and that includes myself, would do well to bear that in mind.
OTOH, applied lefist philosopy is generally destructive of the rule of law to start with, so Democrats are being disingenuous by definition by referencing it.
I think that is the definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result! See Enabling Behavior For Terrorism