The bill at issue divides the world of communications that the US could collect into to groups: (1) communications between non-US persons who are not in the US; and (2) communications between non-US persons who are not in the US and persons who are in the US (e.g. you and me). With respect to the first group, no court order of any nature is required. If the government thinks it is collecting foreign to foreign communications, and it inadvertently collects a foreign to domestic communication, certain safeguards to protect the US person exist (but still no court order/intervention is required):

Sec. 105A. (a) Foreign to Foreign Communications-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, A COURT ORDER IS NOT REQUIRED for electronic surveillance directed at the acquisition of the contents of any communication between persons that are not known to be United States persons and are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the United States or the surveillance device is located within the United States.

`(2) TREATMENT OF INADVERTENT INTERCEPTIONS- If electronic surveillance referred to in paragraph (1) inadvertently collects a communication in which at least one party to the communication is located inside the United States or is a United States person, the contents of such communication shall be handled in accordance with minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 7 days unless a court order under section 105 is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

With respect to the second group of communications, those between a non US person in a non US location and a person in the US, the government can either apply for an order from the FISA court to allow collection of the communication or begin collecting the communication on an emergency basis and get an order after the fact. The order allows for wire tapping the target's communications (even if with a US person) for up to a year. Issuance of the order relies primarily on the government's representation that the target possesses foreign intelligence and that procedures exists to insure that the wire tapping is proper. It is a lenient standard, and, if my memory serves, the FISA court almost never denies an application. The bill also allocates additional resources so that the FISA court can act quickly on applications.

It seems to me that all of us who live here in the US should want some protection from the government collecting all of our communications with a foreign person in a foreign country. Many (including Shooter) are seemingly willing to forego any protection from or oversight of the government wire tapping communications between a US person and a foreign person. And for these people, the whole concept of a FISA court is objectionable -- the government should just be able to wire tap whenever and whoever it wants for the greater good of all (and protection from terrorists). For those of us, however, who do believe some oversight should exist to government collection of our communications with non-US foreigners, the bill introduced provides a good balance between the need for information and the need for oversight.

Your comment about Time reminded me of this clip of Bob Dylan from the film "Don't Look Back." I enjoyed watching it again so I thought I'd put it up here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR8YuIGqWi4

I can't hear you. My hands are over my ears. If I hear anything I disagree with my head will explode.

Dear Mr. Stengel:

Last evening, I read Joe Klein's on-line defense of his TIme opinion piece on FISA legislation. His original essay (which I carefully read) claimed that Democratic supporters of the bill cared more about protecting the enemy than protecting national security -- quite a weighty statement in a time of war, in fact, amounting to an accusation of treason. After admitting that his originally published piece contained a number of factual inaccuracies and un-substantionated claims, Mr. Klein then announced his boredom with the whole issue by stating in print: "I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right."

My own view is that this is a monumental cop-out. Mr. Klein publicly accused others of serious failures of national trust. His facts and reasoning were then called into question. He tried, but failed, to provide evidence for his claims. Announcing at this point that the matter is too complex and too yawn-making to pursue further just doesn't cut the mustard.

If Mr. Klein is too lazy or stupid to understand the basic facts about a topic, then he shouldn't write about it in the first place. He certainly shouldn't accuse others of serious wrongdoing when he doesn't know what he's talking about. Mr. Klein owes the Congress and his readers a big apology. Time Magazine owes itself a better grade of commentator -- someone with a modicum of competence and integrity.

At the risk of generalizing, I have the impression that many folks in the news media don't grasp how really frustrated so many Americans are by the low level of professionalism demonstrated repeatedly in journalism since 9/11. There is far too much sloppiness and just plain untruth -- think Judith Miller and the mushroom cloud.

Get it right, or get out of the business.

I sincerely hope you attend to this matter with the seriousness it deserves.

Best,

Stacy Spencer

I did indeed mean to include Tiberius. Thanks for correcting that oversight.

I find it interesting that in a newsgroup (remember those?) long ago in an Internet far away, there was a particularly noisome troll named Publius. I wonder if there is some historical reason for a troll to pick that name, or if it is just a coincidence?