The best legal and political summary I have seen on the NSA monitoring of the Terrorists (and whoever contacts them from the US) is here. It re-enforces my contention that it is not a question of whether the NSA can monitor our enemies, it is simply a question of what to do with the leads. Right now, as opposed to prior to 9-11, leads about people in the US in contact with terrorists are passed to the FBI and, for those deemed a threat, to FISA for surveillance. James Wilson comes close to realizing this reality:

But suppose that neither the president’s Constitutional powers nor the AUMF justify an exception to the FISA rule. Congress can correct this problem by amending FISA to create an authorization for warrantless surveillance that is directed at people living overseas, even if they communicate with someone living here, provided that this cannot lead immediately to criminal prosecution. If the surveillance produces leads as to who is a terrorist, then a FISA warrant can be obtained to authorize acquiring supportive evidence.

This is what is being done now. If all we need is Congress to agree to this process of passing a lead from the military to civilian law enforcement and the judicial process – why aren’t we doing this? Why are we over thinking all of this? Why is it so damn difficult to provide a lead from the NSA (or any military or intelligence source) to law enforcement to vet? Talk about your dysfunctional political leadership. You want to know why Bush was right? Because Congress and the Talking Heads and the Activists Judges have been debating this thing for a year and they are still paralyzed by inane analysis. Thank God Bush did not wait on all these fools to get their act together, and Thank God the Founders of this country realized national defense cannot be accomplished in a glorified debating society.