Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
The WSJ editorial frames the issue thusly:
The debate concerns an effort to revise the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to bless spying without a court order on terrorist communications that originate overseas but move through U.S. switching networks.
This sounds to me like the familiar scenario "Terrorist 1 in a foreign country calls Terrorist 2 also in a foreign country, but the NSA can't intercept that call without a warrant because the signal is routed through a network in the US, thus requiring FISA review." Is that really what the debate is about?
Because, I don't have a problem with that kind of warrantless surveillance, since neither person is a US citizen or a person in the US. I don't know any rational person who thinks otherwise.
I thought this was about communications between a person abroad and a person in the US. Yeah, that's gotta go through FISA, even if "Osama's calling." Am I missing something here?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
