"Warrantless" is a wonderfully ambiguous term. Bush's surveillance is not warrantless. The whole point of the story is that no warrant was sought nor received. What on earth are you talking about???

This is the crux - we are currently engaging in domestic espionage of non-citizens and those they associate with. Non-citizens do not share the constitutional protection enjoyed by the Black Panthers or some sixties radical dope-heads. You are just completely wrong. Search warrants are required for searches performed on US territory. When the police want to break down a door or tap a phone, they have to apply for a warrant regardless of what they think the citizenship status of the target is. As this link shows non-citizenship now makes it easier to get a warrant. It does not make the warrant un-necessary. To wit:
Thanks to the post-9/11 USA PATRIOT Act, the FBI now can get a warrant to eavesdrop if it can make two key showings. (The government also must certify that it cannot obtain the relevant information through other means, but it is up to the government alone to decide if such certification is proper.)

The first showing is of "probable cause," but, crucially, not the usual kind of probable cause. It is probable cause to believe that "the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

Thus, for instance, probable cause to think the target being wiretapped is a spy for Iraq would suffice. The suspected spy need not be shown to be doing, or even planning, anything illegal when the wiretap is granted.

This is not true for spying done on foreign territory, but treaty arrangements with the owner of that territory would pertain (and our willingness to honor our treaties).

The NYT and the political left ARE undermining our national security.

As usual.

And then when the next big terrorist attack occurs they'll point fingers at the right and say "how could you let this happen AGAIN!"

And again the left fringe will declare that Bush planned it all.

Yadda yadda.

(a) The Government's duty to safeguard domestic security must be weighed against the potential danger that unreasonable surveillances pose to individual privacy and free expression. Pp. 314-315.

Again applicable to US citizens only.

(b) The freedoms of the Fourth Amendment cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances are conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch without the detached judgment of a neutral magistrate. Pp. 316-318.

And once again, the court is talking about US citizens.

(c) Resort to appropriate warrant procedure would not frustrate the legitimate purposes of domestic security searches. Pp. 318-321.

This whole case is about protecting subversives rights that are US citizens, and that is all swell and fine. You think the White House crew that surround Bush, haven't thought about the appropriate legal angle to give themselves as much leeway as possible to monitor terrorists and foreign nationals here in the US?

You know, if this whole thing wasn't based on a mistaken (putting it charitably) interpretation of the law you are still making the huge assumption that the people spied upon were not citizens. Where did you get that information from, pray tell?

Read the quote Tom posted - about INTERNATIONAL calls being monitored and you will soon see the huge 'loophole' given to Bush as he crafted an Executive Order increasing domestic surveillance on non-citizens. The way the law reads is that taps performed on US soil require warrants. If they do the tap in the foreign country, they do not need the warrant.

Note on what I said above: there are some cases where authorities may perform a search without warrant. I don't believe that any of those exceptions pertain to this story. And in any case, the administration is not making that argument.