Question: as I understand it, the packet switching technology that drives the internet and email is such that a given transmission might end up being routed almost anywhere, including outside the U.S. Does that mean Bush can now intercept most or all of our email?

Not as far as I know. My very superficial understanding at this point is that there have been arguments that because some overseas calls and emails do spend time being routed thought the U.S., and this has made warrant requirements burdensome beyond reason. If however these FISA amendments do give AGAG sole discretion sans judicial review to just pluck any email or telephone calls between U.S. persons and anyone overseas as he sees fit, then I oppose them. The thing that bothered me most reading Lederman is it does not seem that these new powers apply only to transmissions having a nexus with suspected terrorism.

It is certainly possible half of those Senators do not even understand what it is they passed -- I don't. It may be totally heinous. Or not.

It simply is not clear to me yet what actual technological or potentially legit legal hurdles these amendments are intended to address, if any.

You quote this from AP:

[...] Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass [...] said the surveillance act makes clear that a warrant is not required to eavesdrop on foreign targets who are overseas, even if their communications cross into a U.S. network.

WaPo quotes:

White House officials complained that Democratic proposals do not give them a crucial tool: the ability to begin wiretapping without having to go to a court. "Every day we don't have [this wiretap authority], we don't know what's going on outside the country," a senior White House official said. "All you need is one communication from, say, Pakistan to Afghanistan that's routed through Seattle that tells you 'I'm about to do a truck bomb in New York City' or 'about to do a truck bomb in Iraq,' and it's too late."

Now, I'm not inclined to give much credence to "Senior White House Officials." But I'd really like to know the truth of this matter -- someone is either lying or very wrong.

This is what Anonymous Liberal quotes, my emphasis:

Several officials said that after President Bush's order authorizing the N.S.A. program, senior government officials arranged with officials of some of the nation's largest telecommunications companies to gain access to switches that act as gateways at the borders between the United States' communications networks and international networks. The identities of the corporations involved could not be determined.

The switches are some of the main arteries for moving voice and some Internet traffic into and out of the United States, and, with the globalization of the telecommunications industry in recent years, many international-to-international calls are also routed through such American switches.

One outside expert on communications privacy who previously worked at the N.S.A. said that to exploit its technological capabilities, the American government had in the last few years been quietly encouraging the telecommunications industry to increase the amount of international traffic that is routed through American-based switches.

The growth of that transit traffic had become a major issue for the intelligence community, officials say, because it had not been fully addressed by 1970's-era laws and regulations governing the N.S.A. Now that foreign calls were being routed through switches on American soil, some judges and law enforcement officials regarded eavesdropping on those calls as a possible violation of those decades-old restrictions, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court-approved warrants for domestic surveillance.

Historically, the American intelligence community has had close relationships with many communications and computer firms and related technical industries. But the N.S.A.'s backdoor access to major telecommunications switches on American soil with the cooperation of major corporations represents a significant expansion of the agency's operational capability, according to current and former government officials.

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/08/senate-caves-in.html

Just my quick read of the statute - correct me if I'm wrong. Gotta go!

No can do, cuz I'm no expert either. But consider the NYT piece I quoted, and this from today's Wapo:

Adding to the urgency for the administration is a secret ruling by a FISA judge earlier this year that declared surveillance of purely foreign communications that pass through a U.S. communications node illegal without a court-approved warrant -- a requirement that intelligence officials have described as unacceptably burdensome.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080302296_2.html

But a lot of the comments on this thread seem unrealistic.

I'll say, but what also seems over the top to me is the utter certitude that this bill is actually that awful. Myself, I lack the capacity or energy to do the research necessary to make that determination, but nothing I've read so far convinces me that it means Bush gets to go back to the status quo obtaining when the NYT leaked the warrantless wiretap scandal in '05.

It is entirely possible that in the next several days Glenn and others will write detailed analyses showing that this FISA legislation is, in fact, that horrible. But I've not seen that yet. And let's remember, as we all kept insisting in righteous anger to the lying Republicans in the run-up to the midterms, we do NOT oppose eavesdropping on terrorists, as long as it is done lawfully. If these amendments are not just carte blanche to eavesdrop on any and ever electronic communication that involves a U.S. person and someone overseas without a warrant, then they might have some merit to them.