The surveillance is targeted, says General Michael Hayden, the former head of the National Security Agency and current deputy director of national intelligence. Probably not the best choice of words, in a military man's mouth, given the recent recent history of "targeting". The general clarified that, shortly after 9/11, he was told that a program of warrantless surveillance was authorized.
That's what President Bush classifies as "tactics", explaining that Congress did not prescribe those when it gave him "the authority to use necessary force to protect American people".
That reference, presumably, would be to the use of force in Aghanistan, and later in Iraq. The conveniently confused label of the "war on terror" did not seem to impress Congress to the point that it would relinquish all constitutional garantees. Conditions for monitoring and surveillance were greatly facilitated by the "Patriot Act", and with a system of accelerated and confidential court authorization. Those courts were immediatley criticized for being mere rubber-stamps, but no senator or congressman has yet volunteered that he knowingly supported a system of warrantless surveillance.
The president insists that Congress was briefed, and that "all kinds of lawyers" reviewed the process - those same lawyers, possibly, who created a unique system of courts and detention outside of any national or international legal precedent. Secrecy, absence of oversight or rescourse: the thinking is similar and, once again, it was done "to protect the American people". They are supposed to trust the president, and not those pesky civil liberties organizations now demanding an investigation in the matter. But as George Bush started his persuasion campaign, most Americans thought it a good idea to have an independent look into the matter. Trust, but verify?