This is really starting to irk me.

Hiatt Editorial:

Administration officials, backed up by their Republican enablers in Congress, argued that they were being dangerously hamstrung in their ability to collect foreign-to-foreign communications by suspected terrorists that happen to transit through the United States.

My infinite gratitude to anyone who can actually identify what part of the current, as-yet unamended definition of "electronic surveillance" in FISA actually applies to these exclusively foreign-to-foreign communications that happen to be routed through the US. Here's that definition, for ease of reference, and again, a FISA court order is not required for eavesdropping that does not fall within this definition, 50 U.S.C. 1801(f):

"Electronic surveillance" means--

-

(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.

I am dying to see anything other than a journalist's assumption that there is such a "gap," or some person describing the recent, secret FISA Court decision as saying there is such a "gap," when we cannot read that decision ourselves.

I am increasingly of the mind that there has been a bait-and-switch, or at least that the actual FISA Court decision was far narrower than people describe it (e.g., instead saying that FISA requires a warrant for foreign communications where a person in the US is also a party to the communication, which has required a FISA order for years, without controversy).

I am truly stumped. News reports far and wide assume this "gap" exists, as do a great many people for whom I have great respect. What's worse, how could we ever know if the FISA Court actually said such a gap exists, when its decisions are secret? The mind reels at how prescient the Founders were in insisting that our courts be public, and no decision of theirs secret.

So far, it seems quite clear that the following has occurred. The FISA Court issued a secret decision requiring the government to get a court order for a certain type of eavesdropping (a requirement that is by no means onerous and difficult to meet, let's not forget). This decision, which we may not ourselves see is alleged by people within the government, whose motives we likely cannot ascertain, to have declared that a FISA order is required to tap communications occurring wholly between people outside the US, simply because the communication is routed physically through the US. Based on this unproven assumption, the Congress is compelled to pass an amendment that does not merely resolve this alleged "gap," but in fact exempts from FISA requirements any surveillance "directed at" a person "reasonably believed" to be outside the US, even if US citizens inside the US are also parties to the communication.

This is absolutely appalling.

While the Democrats in Congress certainly are less than perfect, we should not forget to put their behaviour in context.

Due to the changing demographics of oil production, America cannot long sustain its global economic empire without controlling mid-East oil - we import 13 million barrels of oil every single day. The current government and much of the public will tolerate a significant dimunition of civil liberties to mitigate fear of blow-back from our violent attempts at economic domination.

Democrats, Republicans and MSM rely heavily on corporate support. Is it surprising the corporations vote (with $$$) their interests? This is certaily not a conspiracy - just a predictable result of unregulated capitalism.

Steve

If I had a sea jelly fish sandwich on a sesame seed but, I give it.

I too flustered to write and fear I may misled myself. My blithe memory in this age of the 21st century confuses me. If I wish to hear a calm noise I'll place a sea-Hell, not a bugged-cell, to my ear to soothe my feet. Maybe because it is so foggy and rainy, ducks with web feet fly to Canada with geese and are happy ever after when the squabbles and wars end.

I have become a nuisance to myself more than anyone else on the sweet earth. If life was not such a joke I'd go today to listen to shells. I'd cup them to each ear and pretend they are quiet gold corm muffins. Hence, the "data" that the Sea-IA or the NSA scoops up on me will be too silly to print @ the www.Salon.com that I like because it approximates with what I agree.

The world is goofy.

Why invade Iraq for expensive gas?

The stinks still comes from YKW's un-wiped baby butt cavity?

Pew.

What's happening to me is a feelings like I want to pluege too.

The Dinosaurs days skip my memory and Barbara Mikulski, Feinstein, Sarbanes (retired bank committee) and the Sr, Mr. Honorable Birch Baye never write me. Why? Overmanned.

P.S. I'll carry and donate one token-bottle of a sweet desert wine to give to Cato? the historic Cato loved the seashore. A communion. Seagulls, oysters, clams, and seaweed and splashing waves upon the rocks incited him in Life.

I'll still be looking forward to lunch if Cato allows me to pass the border without an embarrassing search warrant disagreement dispute?

Respectfully,

I am a person tired of 'whanging' away at the blog another day. It's easy to be discouraged. Wear a pair of Leotards and do a dance or recommend Glenn's law course dance-class ballet to all humanity. It can be journal school for beltway pirate journalist.

Then Mona, LWA (Two green peas in a cell-pod), and everybody else who wants to toss each-other in the sky can recommend what are good-reads and where is the best Place to catch a sip of fresh-dew and find worthy home-brew recipes. Elsewhere?

I really am afraid to misinform anyone here.