This is an example how one case sets precedent. The legal case is extraordinary. Yet the Constitution is not to be violated, and the previous FISA laws even permit domestic spying in "emergency", and that a warrant can be obtained post facto. Question: If there is probable cause (as this particular case might be)--THEN WHY NOT GET A WARRANT? The Constitution only forbids "warrantless" spying. No need to trample it.

Here is the 4th amendment, which every American should want to safeguard, it prevents tyrannical government powers:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

More than "very troubling," it is sickening.