From the this link, a more reasoned approach: You guys may not like it, but there it is. And before you attack me, please do some reading...from both sides of the aisle.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/
Yesterday we failed to get around to the excellent New York Times op-ed column by David Rivkin and Lee Casey of the law applicable to the NSA terrorist eavesdropping program: "Unwarranted complaints." Here is the point made as concisely as possible, consistent with John's longer analysis here last week:
The president has the constitutional authority to acquire foreign intelligence without a warrant or any other type of judicial blessing. The courts have acknowledged this authority, and numerous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have espoused the same view. The purpose here is not to detect crime, or to build criminal prosecutions - areas where the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements are applicable - but to identify and prevent armed attacks on American interests at home and abroad.
Unlike Times reporter Eric Lichtblau, Rivkin and Casey know what they are talking about. Their column belies the gist of the Times's own coverage, and I appreciate the Times's publication of the column. However, it's too late to undo the wrongdoing the Times has indulged or the damage it has wrought.
For more on a related legal point, see today's Wall Street Journal column by Robert Turner: "FISA vs. the Constitution." (Courtesy of RealClearPolitics.)