Getting the facts straight
I love my readers, but when one of them tells me my facts are wrong (as opposed to just disagreeing about what the facts mean), it requires a response. I was informed by the reader that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was told about the warrantless eavesdropping.
I encourage my reader, then, to call the NYT and Washington Post, among others to demand a correction. Because this would not have been an issue if he had. Indeed, my reader's facts are correct on their face that the court was told about the eavesdropping, but that was well after the fact.
Of course, the reader, ELAshley, who posted afterward did some nice research on the topic. And the President does have the power to act 72 hours before getting a warrant under the current law. I think what he did was probably fine, and I am certain that it was in the best interests of the American people. But great power wielded in the hands of one can be a terrible force in the hands of someone less responsible. So yes, I believe that there needs to be a reporting requirement to the other brances of government of each and every one of these warrantless intrusions.
Because I'm not nearly as concerned about the prosecution of terrorists (for which a warrantless search may be held to be improper under the 4th Amendment, should we be so politically obtuse as to allow them such rights), but more in their interdiction and eradication.