Wiretapping Justified

Providing a perfect example of something I've written about before, John Gibson justifies wiretapping as a tool against terrorism:

Also, for a little context here, it should be noted that Britain has recently discovered that there are 700 active Al Qaeda members running around Britain--at large--—whom authorities are trying to locate and, presumably, jail.

How did Britain discover this information? Wiretaps, that's how.

The NSA is doing important work. I hope the people who have been demanding information get the information they need to realize this is not something they want stopped.

The argument boils down to wiretapping can lead to good things, so we should do it. Nice argument. Totally irrelevant to anything, but nice anyway.

The question has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not wiretapping is a good thing. The question is, can the president be allowed to violate the law and pursue this spying in an illegal way or not? The president does not feel himself bound by the law. Is he right or not? I've always been told no one is above the law. Is that meaningless drivel we pound into school children's heads or does it actually mean something? The law provides a process by which the president can do all the spying he wants. He simply chooses to ignore it and do whatever he wants without those pesky and inconvenient laws and Constitutions to get in the way.

Mr. Gibson references a British operation, which I will assume is legally pursued since I haven't actually read about it before. Surely Mr. Gibson can understand the difference between obeying the law and committing a crime? That's obviously too hard a concept for our president to grasp, but, well I won't say it.