If this happened under George Bush, you would be outraged. Be outraged by Barack Obama too!

[stevenleser]

29. FISA has already been found constitutional at the US court of appeals for 2nd Circuit

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/duggan.htm

.
.
.
Defendants moved to suppress the fruits of the FISA surveillance on a variety of grounds. They contended that FISA surveillance violates a target's First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights because it is too broad; violates the doctrine of separation of powers because it requires the courts to decide political questions; and denies due process and equal protection to aliens. In addition, defendants contended that the requirements set forth in FISA had not been met because an insufficient basis had been provided for the issuance of the surveillance order and because the government had failed to comply with FISA's "minimization" requirements. They also contended that FISA had been improperly used simply to obtain evidence of criminal activity rather than to protect the national security. Defendants asked the court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine these issues.
.
.
.
We regard the procedures fashioned in FISA as a constitutionally adequate balancing of the individual's Fourth Amendment rights against the nation's need to obtain foreign intelligence information. The governmental concerns are detailed in the passages quoted above from Keith and the legislative history of FISA, and those concerns make reasonable the adoption of prerequisites to surveillance that are less stringent than those precedent to the issuance of a warrant for a criminal investigation. See generally United States v. Belfield, 223 U.S. App. D.C. 417, 692 F.2d 141, 148 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (examining in camera review procedures of FISA (see Part II. B. 2., infra)). Against this background, the Act requires that the FISA Judge find probable cause to believe that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, and that the place at which the electronic surveillance is to be directed is being used or is about to be used by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and it requires him to find that the application meets the requirements of the Act. These requirements make it reasonable to dispense with a requirement that the FISA Judge find probable cause to believe that surveillance will in fact lead to the gathering of foreign intelligence information.*fn5 Further, if the target is a United States person, the Act requires the FISA Judge to determine that the executive branch's certifications pursuant to ? 1804(a)(7) are not clearly erroneous in light of the application as a whole, and to find that the application properly proposes, as required by ? 1801(h), to minimize the intrusion upon the target's privacy.

We conclude that these requirements provide an appropriate balance between the individual's interest in privacy and the government's need to obtain foreign intelligence information, and that FISA does not violate the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
.
.
.

4th amendment requires a warrant. Admin is getting one.

What you are saying is that it is improper for the judge involved to grant one in this situation. That is more of an issue with the judiciary than the executive at that point, isn't it?

Appeals courts and the SCOTUS address fourth amendment issues all the time http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/06/05/supreme-court-s-fourth-amendment-surprises.html . I am sure as soon as someone has standing they will appeal.