Nice catch at Kos from the transcripts of the Gonzales domestic surveillance hearings:
BIDEN: The truth is, there is no definition of when we're going to know whether we've won, because Al Qaida, as the president points out, has mutated into many other organizations that are not directly dealing with bin Laden and are free agents themselves.
BIDEN: Is that correct?
GONZALES: It is certainly true that there are a number of terrorist groups who share many of the same objectives of Al Qaida in terms of destroying America.
BIDEN: So as long as any of them are there, I assume you would assert you have this plenary authority.
GONZALES: Well, Senator, obviously if Congress were to take some kind of action, and say the president no longer has the authority to engage in electronic surveillance of the enemy, then I think that would put us into the third part of Justice Jackson's three-part test, and that would present a much harder question as to whether or not the president has the authority. [emph added]
If only, if only! Why oh why has Congress never seen fit to take such action? I bet if they did, it might look like this:
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information [2a]; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3)  or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.
The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. 
Since 50 U.S.C § 1802 (a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.  Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties [10a] and civil liabilities. [11a]
Man, wouldn't it be great to have had a law like that? Then all this confusion over domestic surveillance being illegal, might have been avoided. Opportunity missed, I guess.
Maybe today Gonzales will explain why terrorist plots involving an overseas call are too important to bother with fundaments of civil liberty and privacy--but plots between two US persons calling each other a block apart aren't worth bothering with--because people might get upset. Again, I'm glad no one's upset now, and that the administration doesn't want to worry us and get our blood pressure going. Thanks, Al!