Agree to disagree I suppose. The article shows that multiple Courts of Appeals have examined the issue, and not given carte blanche to the executive to search a

Agree to disagree I suppose. The article shows that multiple Courts of Appeals have examined the issue, and not given carte blanche to the executive to search and seize Americans abroad without review and potential exclusion of the evidence derived. On the legislative side, Congress expanded those authorities because Justice successfully argued that the then current authorities (not including the programs unilaterally authorized by President Bush which were widely seen as illegal), were not sufficient to counter the threat. That suggests that the Courts (or perhaps executive branch overseers like Attorney General, see the Ashcroft-Comey-Gonzalez hospital incident) were offering substantial opposition to the orders being given to NSA. I expected that article to include a certain case, In Re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, which which is a very interesting opinion about the 4th amendment in a foreign territory context, and and intelligence vs law enforcement context. You might find it interesting. Note that I'm not suggesting that these authorities are necessary or sufficient to counter any given 'threat', just that Courts have examined the executive's actions, even in the context of gathering foreign intelligence overseas, and crafted rules and doctrines to check its impact on the 4th amendment. A couple of other background law review articles(pdf warning): 1] http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1288&context=dlj http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... 2] http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/articles/2013/10/Atkinson_66_Vand_L_Rev_1343.pdf http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/articles/2013/10/...