A Stitch in Haste

Who's criticizing whose analysis?

OpinionJournal, a/k/a Wall Street Journal:

In this environment, monitoring the communications of our enemies is neither a luxury nor some sinister plot to chill domestic dissent.

--But how do we know they're our enemies? Do we have, um, probable cause to think so? Or even just the less onerous standard of "reasonable suspicion"? Or, um, anything specific enough to get a FISA warrant?

New York Sun:

Yesterday's ruling follows the disclosure in December of an NSA program to listen in on calls between suspected terrorists abroad and those on American soil who might be communicating with them.

--But why do we suspect that they're terrorists? Because we have, um, probable cause or reasonable grounds to suspect it? Enough to get a FISA warrant?

NRO:

The lone judge in American history to order a president to halt in wartime a foreign-intelligence-collection program that has undoubtedly saved lives probably sympathizes with the journalists, and others, who are suing to stop the Terrorist Surveillance Program in which NSA intercepts foreign-U.S. terrorist communications.

--But how do we know that they're terrorists? Because we have, um, probable cause to know it? Enough to get a FISA warrant?

USA Today:

The NSA program applies only to international calls, and only those intercepted while tracking known or suspected al-Qaeda operatives.

--But how do we know or suspect that they are al-Qaeda operatives? Because we have, um, probable cause? Enough to get a FISA warrant?

It's not the wiretapping. It's the warrantless, stupid!

Similar thoughts from defcon:blog.