I was going to make a reply along those lines; that such are the attitudes that enable tyrannies, but on reflection I reconsidered. It is my belief that AC was driving in a different direction. I believe AC was indicating that governments sometimes have a case to make that one of their prime directives (defense of the nation) may lead them on occasion to skirt legalities. Please note, I am not saying the defense justifies the action in any particular case. I am saying what I believe AC was driving at: the NSA, and the present tyranny, has gone way beyond the point where they can even make that defense with a straight face.
Just to clarify, the constitution is not something to be honored only when convenient. The constitution, underlaid as it is by human rights, does not say whatever the NSA or congress or the president decides it says. It does not even say what the supreme court decides it says. It says what it says. I really mean that. The supreme court is an instrumentality of the constitution, not the reverse. When the supreme court says "the constitution really means X when it says Y", or "it really means Z but it just forgot to say Z", it has gone rogue - the former, since the latter by definition cannot go rogue.
The founders never intended that the integrity of the constitution rely on the supreme court, nor does the constitution say that it does. The only ones who can fix the tyranny uncovered by Snowden and others are the people. The people are the ones who have to fix a presidential institution and congressional institution and judicial institution gone rogue. The constitution is the people's champion and guide, but the supreme court is not a police force they can call up to fix things. Only by asserting their rights and voting with their rights uppermost in their mind can they fix things.