We spend a lot of time arguing...but until and unless it is shown that the NSA is monitoring purely domestic communications in an intrusive and warrantless manner, the judges ruling is not merely wrong, but quite simply implausible. It's based upon extending the U.S. Constitution to the whole world (selectively, and against U.S. interests), as well as ignoring the difference between criminals acting independently or in very small groups and large foreign organizations carrying out war. This last part is only possible because we have in the past been successful enough in war to allow many to grow up without actual comprehension of it - even if they persist in fearful paranoia of imagined metaphors.
But the Plaintiffs argued that they had a constitutional right to converse with terrorists (actually they said those considered to be such by the U.S. Gov't) and this 'right of privacy' in connection with having discussions with these terrorists was protected against warrantless wiretaps. The Judge ruled the Plaintiffs had demonstrated tangible harm in having their terrorist contacts become relunctant to engage in telephone conversations due to this program.
I am not kidding.
Well said. It also gets down to the definition of domestic and international calls. We all know what the definition of an international call is - the term has been defined for years. They are monitoring primarily international calls where one end is in a foreign country. The word domestic is misleading.