Are you saying that York is wrong and it's not legal?
I said, " ... it's an error in logic, on several levels, to point to In Re: Sealed case and say 'that stands for the proposition that the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program is Constitutional.'"
First, In re: Sealed Case wasn't on the issue of what constitutes the extent of permissible wiretapping - it never got to a 4th amendment analysis. Second, we don't know what sort of "probable cause" (shorthand for finding a connection to foreign attachment) is present in the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program. It's not possible to draw a reasoned opinion on constitutionality until a fact pattern is presented. Third, the cases that In re: Sealed Case relies on, primarily Truong and Keith, a) involved judicial oversight and b) resulted in some evidence being tossed for failure to meet 4th amendment requirements.