[defenderSD]

Theoretically it's OK to go to the FISA court, but as a practical matter that could take too long in some situations and I've read that FISA has some liberals on it who are too restrictive about wiretapping terror suspects. If NSA is restricted too much within the US, they can probably just their operations offshore and wiretap from the other end of the phone lines.

It's a difficult issue. We don't want to give a president like Clinton unlimited power to wiretap us, but we also don't want to stop the NSA from gathering crucial intelligence in the WOT.

[DoughtyOne]

It won't surprise me if a future president abuses this power. When they do, we'll have to deal with it. Right now IMO there is a justified reason for what is taking place. In the future, there may come a time when the reason is not justified.

I would be willing to bet that if this judge were reviewing the same thing under Clinton, she would deem it to be a separation of powers issue and refuse to rule on it.

[lepton]

and I've read that FISA has some liberals on it who are too restrictive about wiretapping terror suspects.

Actually, the main one resigned in a huff when this first came out, after having been rebuked by the whole of the court for just plain making up requirements.