In spite of what the NY Times and it's book-peddling journalist, James Risen, think, President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

As John Schmidt points out in his Chicago Tribune piece, "President had legal authority to OK taps," four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant. And we simply cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11.

I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

Apparently a majority of reasonably-minded Americans, concerned with the safety and security of our nation, agree with him.

Related: NY Times' James Risen Not Concerned With NSA Eavesdropping Under Clinton

Other coverage: Ace of Spades