The material Paul Dirks referred contains this:

"2. The current House legislation requires that every foreign terrorist target be passed through the FISA court because that target may potentially communicate with U.S. Citizens or resident aliens. It thereby, as I reported, obliquely gives foreign terrorists the same procedures as American citizens, if not the same rights.."

Apparently this is his answer to Glenn's statement about his error regarding court approval for foreign to foreign communication. I do not see how f-to-f passed through the US has anything to do with potential communication with a US "person". Any comments?

I think Mr. Klein either completely misunderstands the situation or is intentionally misrepresenting it. It appears that the NSA has access to foreign-to-foreign communication that passes through the US, and subjects it to what is sometimes referred to as "data-mining". It is hard to interpret the results of the contracts from NSA to the telecoms that have been discussed here in the past in any other way. Many of us feel that it is important to protect communication with US participants from this. It appears legally possible, but challenging, to do so, while the f-to-f has no protection at all.

I do not think NSA directly compelled the telecoms to turn over f-to-f communications; it paid them well to do so. (There is the issue of whether those who did not are being punished by other means than just lost government contracts.)

Thanks for the detailed response. I agree that there is an amendment issue there. As you can tell, my knowledge of law in general is limited, and I have some reading to do.

"May" should not be interpreted as "has the physical capability to". Suppose interpretation of the communication of the person under surveillance indicates the possibility of communication with a US person. I think this is what is addressed.

"Easy. Because like me, he can't decipher the ultimate consequences of the legislation in question."

Even if he can't, that has nothing to do with the errors in his original column. You are attempting to defend the indefensible. The strain is showing; you used "we" after a preposition somewhere back there, no your usual style.

"Neither Klein nor Painton bothered to verify whether anything they were told was true. Instead, they mindlessly printed it with an accompanying article smearing Democrats as weak on national security and concerned with Terrorists rights at the expense of protecting Americans."

And that alone is enough to demand some resignations at Time.

Why would there be a "republican" source? Surely the correct editorial policy comes from the management, and there is no need for anyone outside the organization to be involved. Anonymous and non-existent can be the same.

Exactly. Glenn is well aware of the game that RS must play. The printed response must minimize the damage, and although one factor is to sooth the four million strong herd, another is to make Glenn's audience lose interest. Therefore the main job of this audience is to keep up the pressure on RS. It might be useful to highlight a few other "reporting errors" from Time. An unpleasant task, but perhaps someone has access to some data mining software?

Time's money making role is not independent of the interests of its parent organization. It is a propaganda machine. It always has been to some extent, but it is more so now. And it makes money. What a good deal!

And another thing: Glenn does this full time without getting as sarcastic as I do from just popping in here from time to time. I do not know how he does it, but he certainly gets my respect.

"Study this Bill as judiciously as you like, the "reality" is that what it says and means is not only open for debate, but a matter of political perspective."

Its intent is very clear; just read what one of the authors has to say. Klein had all the information he needed if he chose to use it. What he said is not just a matter of political perspective, it is political manipulation.

Yes, and it is the ideal situation since the the product itself can be used to do the driving (in the second sense).

(I apologize for the brief response, no time now.)

Yes, I think it was time to smash the dems for being weak on national security again, and he needed to discuss something current to make it real. He thought he understood the FISA restore bill, but he did not. He had no real "sources"; he just poked around the net like anyone else would and did his usual job. But somebody noticed.

Could be I am wrong, but the Klein article looks so incompetent to me that I think he found the stuff himself in a web search. If he had assistance from a professional it should be better.

Holly, I am curious. What makes you think he is competent?

When I read this from his NR article:

"Nonetheless, as a matter of law, courts have clearly and repeatedly stated that an express court order is not required for such incidental collection even in the more restrictive criminal context."

"even in the more restrictive..."! I am a lot more worried about incidental collection in very broad searches (as data mining must be) than in limited and directed criminal cases. So I think the representative has an incompetent argument. But my legal knowledge is limited, so I would appreciate any comments.

Mr. Timberman I join you in thanking ondelette. I have been resisting his interpretation somewhat, but it is clear that he is right. I agree with you full disclosure must be a part of the cure.