With George W. Bushs’ support of Amnesty, he may find a lot of conservatives won’t be running to defend him.
People tend to not read the definitions section, but that's where one should always start.
"Electronic surveillance" as it pertains to the law with bold sections to show the reason why the NSA actions, as billed, don't fit the law:
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or
(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.
...and anything that does not fit that very specific definition is not subject to that law. The NSA non-flap has been billed as "listening in on INTERNATIONAL calls between known or suspected terrorists overseas and either someone else overseas or someone in the U.S....but the communications were trapped outside the U.S.
The law does not apply if the billing is true and even if it DID apply, there's that whole "under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy" part....good luck to them in proving that a person calling a known terrorist overseas has a REASONABLE expectation of privacy.