I tried to keep most post simple by focusing on foreign-to-foreign communications but the actual language in 105B is (my emphasis):

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1927:

----

`Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States if the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General determine, based on the information provided to them, that--...

----

So surveillance is not limited to foreign-to-foreign communications but is applicable to "foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States."

Since I don't think the government is going to leave it up to ISPs and communications providers to decide what is "foreign intelligence information" or even inform them of what "foreign intelligence information" might be, we can make a pretty justified assumption that the government wants and is getting the whole pipe.

Your knowlege is much deeper than mine on this, but so long as congress is being asked to make law based on deceptions, secrecy, closed-cover FISC rulings and speculation such as Lederman's (with respect), it seems to me a hopeless congressional task and an invitation to disaster.

Wainstein's explanation shows why the ODNI had to revise its original blanket statement, since apparently the secret court order only effected communications where it was possible that a US person was part of the communication. Perhaps the FISA court also held that dragnet surveillance on US switches was a violation of the law. It's hard to say, unless the Administration releases the decision.

This acutely illustrates the problem with making policy and changing laws without having all the information. This secret court ruling is the main basis for the "modernization" of FISA, and yet we (and Congress) know very little about it. Worse, yet, the mystery surrounding the decision allows for advocates to adopt deceptive positions on what the court said, which are very hard to disprove.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/03/government-admits-wiretap-issue-not-telephone-calls

"I utterly despise you."

Pass the Ambien! I am certainly going to lose sleep over this development.

You guys must either live in a dream world or you're batshit crazy. If The House started impeachment hearings today, there would not be enough time to even get a quorum in the Judicial Committee, much less pass Articles of Impeachment in the whole House and then persuade 2/3rds of the Senate to convict. We have a hard enough time getting a simple majority to pass easy, non-political, stuff nevermind getting 2/3rds to pass something like impeachment - especially in an election year.

I'd like to see Bush run out of town on a rail as much as you, if not more, but I'm being realistic. If you guys want to pound your dicks on the table and prove how tough you are, then have at it. Why not stick them into the fire while you're at it and really get everyone's attention? In the meantime, why are you wasting our time reading your nonsense about impeachment being the only solution?

I'd much rather waste my time trying to accomplish something that can be acomplished than waste my time blowharding about something that can't.

Thanks, that was a very interesting post. The email situation is truly complicated. Suppose foreigner A sends a message to US citizen and resident B who forwards it it to foreigner C, perhaps adding something to it. What does the telecom send to the government? Nothing, I would say, but I bet NSA would say it must have at least the original part that that is an obvious attempt at foreign to foreign communication. But how is that supposed to happen? The telecom that has the forwarded message on his disk does not necessarily have the the original message from A. (B could have multiple accounts on different providers, forwarding A's message to himself before sending it to C.) So the telecom with the message that C will retrieve has no idea what he even has unless all providers access a common data base that cross references all accounts with the account holders.

So what is a telecom to do? What is a spy to do? The solution: everything goes to NSA and they figure it out. No chance of abuses, right?

"You haven't made a convincing arguement against him committing treason, though."

I haven't tried.

My argument is based upon practicality, not legality.

This is a sad example of advocacy journalism from what should be America's newspaper of record. The article could have been written by the White House Press Office because it tries to sell the administration story about FISA.

That viewpoint is apparent from the first paragraph where writer Eric Lichtblau says that Congress is at an impasse over domestic surveillance. It would be more honest to say that Congress and the President together are at an impasse but Lichtblau ignores the White House unbending demand for a law that gives them unrestrained domestic spying power.

The article depends upon unnamed fear mongering sources who touch all of the Republican talking points but there is no serious examination of contrary views.

Isn't that what was claimed by the telecom whistle-blower? They weren't just splitting some of it--they were copying everything that came through the pipe and splitting it off into "the room".

KLEIN: I knew what they were doing was making a—a complete copy of the data flow And I knew there cannot be any kind of warrant to do that.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/411/transcript.html

so much unchecked EVIL get into a position of power over all of us?

The Bush and bin Laden families are best of buds. We are the pawns and the tools.

The end result seems to be unchecked US aggression against the whole world, with the US citizens as hostages.

Apparently, most people seem to adore this likelihood as I see little protest among Americans. That, or Americans are the IMBECILES I long suspected they were.

Just how long does an evil warring stance last before the society is destroyed violently by opposing forces anyway? Was this what the fathers of our country thought was BEST for the U.S.? Destruction from within by greedy evil ogres?