In other words, the military. This is a use of the President's military function, which makes it come under Congress's regulation. That grant of power to Congress was designed specifically for the protection against citizens from the abuse of unrestrained executive power.
The AUMF defense is irrelevant to a discussion of the constitutional defense of the President's actions.
The fact that the administration cited it shows that they view this as a war matter, which makes it a military matter, subject to Congress's regulation.
Arguable, but nonetheless it is an irrelevant digression.
The NSA only exists as a tool for the President because Congress gave it to him. The Congress giveth, and the Congress taketh away. And to whatever extent that it saith so.
You're going to see that statement posted a lot, so you'd better start getting used to it now.
Have at it. A non sequitur doesn't become a logical statement through repetition. The fact that the President has a power under the Constitution doesn't mean it hasn't been infringed. Get used to that fact.
One more time, Congress has the authority to regulate the powers granted the executive by the Constitution, but only in so far as those regulations are for the purposes of "carrying into execution" those powers, not limiting or infringing upon them.
One more time, the AUMF defense is irrelevant to a discussion of the constitutional defense of the President's actions.
One more time, that's arguable, but nonetheless it represents an irrelevant digression to a discussion of the constitutionality of the President's actions.
Nor does it become a non sequitur through your repeated and unsupported assertions that it is.
Even the FISA court itself has concluded that the President has the inherent constitutional power to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. If he has the power, then it hasn't been infringed.