CNN Doing a Domestic Spying "Reality Check"

Following up on yesterday's interview with Dan Bartlett, CNN had on Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez this morning. He and Bartlett are peas in a pod. They said exactly the same thing, and once again, journalists seem to have a hard time asking the most basic an simple question:

How is wiretapping without a court order NOT a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution?

The Fourth Amendment is unambiguous:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fourth Amendment, United States Constitution

Going after terrorists does not automatically suspend the United States Constitution. Period.

CNN is about to "fact check" its interview with Gonzalez with Jeffrey Toobin. We'll see if it's any better than last night's Larry King suck up hour:

Interview with Former President George H.W. Bush; Evangelists Robert Schuller and Son Discuss Ministry

Oh yeah, and here's what Daddy Bush had to say about syping on Americans without a court order:

Well this may surprise you, but I support the president, because you know, we -- we've gotten -- we've gotten a little forgetful, Larry about 9/11. And I think if one call is intercepted that can guarantee against another such plot or make another such plot fail, it's worth it.

And he spelled out what they're trying to do in listening and it's not like they're invading everybody's homes, some guy in Des Moines talking to somebody in Reno. That's not what this is all about, so I'm supportive, and I think a lot of people say, "Well, you're pounding or impugning our civil rights. You're not giving -- you're invading our privacy."

It's a very narrow band that's being used, and I think the president's pretty darn clear on it. And fortunately, the country seems to be backing on him from what I've seen.

We're only violating your civil rights a little...

UPDATE 1: Saw the segment, it was pretty useless. This is NOT a transcript, but here's the basics: Toobin pointed out you need a warrant under FISA, but that it's a "political" issue and there is no "case" to be judged because no one can prove their calls were violated. Miles did point out that FISA gives after the fact warrants, and basically asked - should we trust them? Ensor's answer - I've met them and they are admirable but what about checks and balances?