Letters to the Editor
-
@shooter
I'm not a lawyer, but as someone conversant in the English language, I'm confident that the provision you cited (subsection (b)) doesn't support Klein's point (that the bill "would require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target's calls to be approved by the FISA court"). Subsection (b)'s provisions are "notwithstanding any other provision of this Act other than subsection (a)" [emphasis mine]. That means that subsection (b) is superceded by subsection (a).
Let's take a look at subsection (a):
"Sec. 105A. (a) Foreign to Foreign Communications- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a court order is not required for the acquisition of the contents of any communication between persons that are not United States persons and are not located within 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."
Note that subsection (a) is "notwithstanding any other provision of this Act." In other words, its provisions supercede any other language in the bill. Note too that subsection (a) concerns itself with "foreign to foreign communications." In other words, tapping communications between non-citizens outside the United States requires no warrant.
Just read the language carefully, buddy. You can do it! If you don't know the meaning of big words like notwithstanding, here's a helpful link: www.merriam-webster.com. It's free!