Unfortunately, that's something that a lot of Democrats and morons in the media don't seem to get.

Byron York has an informative piece on the wiretaps that have caused all of this ruckus over the past few days. Remember the 9/11 commission and its "report card" on the government's anti-terror efforts earlier this month? York points out that the eavesdropping program was designed to address some of the government bureaucracy's shortcomings in the wake the 9/11 attacks.

Paul Mirengoff over at Powerline suggests a good question we ought to be asking these liberal Democrats who are so outraged at the wiretapping program.

With respect to wiretaps, candidates should state what length of delay is acceptable between the time the government learns about the telephone number of someone in the U.S. with whom a terrorists has been in communication and the time the government taps that phone. They should also state whether, if it takes longer than that amount of time to obtain a court order, the government should wait for the court order or go ahead and tap the phone.

I should note that, according to all the reporting I've heard, that the eavesdropping in question dealt with phone calls or e-mails that crossed international borders. There should really be no debate about whether or not these sorts of communications are subject to warrantless examination. If you send a package across a border it can be searched. Same thing if you as a person cross a border -- you can be searched for any reason, or no reason at all.