uh-huh. It's pretty laughable to consider what is being alleged as "wiretaps". Further, it is pretty laughable to consider wars prosecuted in the courts. It is pretty laughable to still think that people can't change communications methods faster than FISA paperwork can be handled. But...that's all irrelevant since what we're disscussing isn't a criminal issue at all, and is still a legitimate exercise of the CINCs duties and powers.
We're not talking about CINC war powers, though, we're talking about stopping preventing domestic spying and domestic terrorism by spying on American citizens through a secret court's warrants, and sometimes not even that. We're not talking about wars fought on battlefields prosecuted in the courts, but American citizens prosecuted on the basis of warrantless searches in the U.S., no matter your dismissive "American citizens might happen to be on the other end" comment--especially since these strictures do not apply to foreign powers but only come into play when searching/bugging American citizens is involved. We're not talking about changing communications methods nor are we talking about problems with them--we're talking about simply warrants in the first place, and if you want to bring technological issues into play show me where that is relevant to the issue we're discussing. I saw it stated above as "If it's American citizens, I see no reason why they shouldn't get a warrant."
You obviously disagree with the notion that the Executive should have to get a warrant to tap the phones of American citizens. But you're disagreeing with the Constitution. "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." I don't see any exceptions to that in the plain English, do you? If you don't like it, amend it. That's generally the way conservatives prefer to change the Constitution. If you prefer to change it through Congressional statute in violation of the Constitution's plain language, or SCOTUS fiat, that's peachy, too, but you should probably reconsider who you should be lining up for come next election.
Now, I'm all for trying the SOBs for treason, and hanging their asses. I don't think we should have trials for POWs or for unlawful combatants. I think every one of the non-Geneva-convention-abiding Iraqis and Afghanis and anyone else on the battlefield against us out of a uniform, or from outside the U.S. and caught committing terrorist acts, or from in the U.S. and caught on a foreign battlefield acting against us, should have been shot in the head right there. None of these are American citizens or entitled to Constitutional protections. I'm all for profiling and kicking out all the illegals and building an alligator alley on our northern and southern borders. These folks aren't Americans and don't deserve Constitutional protections. But I'm not at all willing to say that American citizens should be able to have their phones tapped because Mohammed Dirkadirka called a wrong number, because I don't think that Executive powers should extend that far without a warrant in cases where the arrested is a citizen and the territory in which they are arrested is not in rebellion or invaded at all. Wartime, in a war zone, perhaps. But not now, in an area neither invaded nor rebelling.
In fact, the SCOTUS seems to agree with me on something, for once. Ex Parte Milligan leans heavily in that direction. The Jose Padilla case seems to be a similar admission by the President that he knows the SCOTUS will grant him wide latitude in his battlefield powers, but will not grant him infinite war powers domestically.