and, for someone who trusted the US Govt and Dubya, maybe they are convincing (my brother-in-law lawyer says they are not). But, for the majority, people think its crap and see the many loopholes inserted for executive/CIA/private mercenaries' power. People dont want this! If you insist on it, maybe you should go somewhere where this is really legal. Evewn if it is exaxctly as you say--what do we do about the past violations?! What happens to the info. illagelkly gathered? Do we even know what info there is? How they'll use it? Dispose of it? I think people who support this are cowards or dont understand exactly what their civil liberties mean. Enough said.

I'd have international phone and e-mail exchanges to and from America about phony stuff leading on wild goose chases. While the smart, secret guys do the real stuff.

for glenn greenwald thank you. the messenger is always blamed. re: obama there are cracks in his armour and this is disturbing, i have hoped that he wasn't too sold-out, but it's like being a little pregnant-you are or you're not. it's not what a person says but what they do. only those like nader can be trusted. obama, like hillary, seems too tied to the jewish lobby, but better than mccain. i don't like how howard dean is pushed aside either. using patriotism and fear to destroy rights was common with the nazis. a real patriot like tom paine is never welcomed. the current administration also accuses others of doing what they are doing-being fascist, for example. peace somehow, and best wishes, judy orvis hunt.

http://www.jumpstation.ca/recroom/comedy/python/elk.html

or click sig

All interaction w/ it is counterproductive...

"Hedges, who now writes books and currently contributes to The Nation and other publications, recalled receiving a tip about an alleged confrontation between a US Navy warship and an Iranian military vessel in Iranian waters that nearly escalated into an act of war. Hedges said he was given the name of a US Navy source who supposedly had witnessed the event. When he reached out to the official, Hedges was asked to provide assurances that he wasn't being monitored, which he couldn't provide, he said, because of his frequent contact with sources overseas. The source immediately cut off communication, the reporter was never able to confirm the story.

Hedges didn't know for sure that he was being monitored, but he couldn't say for sure that he wasn't. The chilling effect of surveillance he had become so familiar with while reporting in foreign countries had now scuttled his work at home.

"With that gone we take a giant step toward fascism," Hedges said during the call.

What's the difference between the parameters of the just-passed law and the National Security Agency's pre-existing ability to listen to foreigners' phone calls abroad with no oversight (ie, the NSA was always able to listen to calls, say, between Colombia and Venezuela without warrants)? Hedges explained that the new law made it more easy for Americans to get caught up in the NSA's dragnet if they make any calls abroad; for example, he said, his Navy source was based in the US but still could not be assured that their conversations were not being monitored.

"It essentially obliterates what kinds of protections we had working within our own borders," Hedges said"

Link at my signature.

Is say they are monitoring someone's international communications and the guy is operating an illegal gambling ring, or importing cigars from Cuba. Non terrorist stuff. Can they use this information directly or indirectly to bust him for non-terrorist stuff?

If it was indirectly, we'd never know.

Just to be clear -- it's your belief that the Government, under the new FISA law, can only examine the data relating to international calls in which U.S. citizens participate, but can't listen in on those calls without a warrant?
That's actually your understanding of what this new FISA law allows?
You do realize that you don't have the slightest clue what this law does? Please answer the question above. -- GlennGreenwald

Wiretapping is not data-mining. A tap overseas is not equivalent to a tap in the US. Apparently David Kris, one of your own references, agrees with me...

b. One-End-U.S. Communications. The second group is for “one-end-U.S.” communications, where one party, but not both, is located in the United States. This includes, for example, a telephone call from New York to London. Here, FISA has always been a mixed bag. But as I mentioned in prior posts, Congress in 1978 deliberately allowed NSA to conduct warrantless surveillance of international calls as long as it was not targeting individual Americans located in the United States. Vacuum-cleaner surveillance of communications to or from the United States, which didn’t target anyone in particular, was permitted if NSA took certain operational steps – namely, applying the vacuum cleaner either to a radio communication or to a wire or cable located outside the United States. And this was the rule even if that surveillance acquired calls to, from, or about Americans located in the United States. (emphasis mine)

So the answer to your question is that absolutely yes, Americans can be listened to without a warrant IF they are heard overseas. But not if the tap is in the US. But this is old law not related to the podcast about the ACLU's suit.

That said, IANAL and can certainly entertain the idea that I'm wrong about the datamining and everything else. If you can demonstrate in plain English that I'm wrong I'll be happy to look at it. But considering that wiretapping isn't part of the suit, as amazingly well placed interference tries to obscure, I think you're trying to conflate old law with the new and call everything an "evisceration".

I'm one of those Obama supporters who is enthusiastic about his candidacy, but deeply disappointed in his FISA compromise (and don't get me wrong--the compromise wasn't the bill, which was a capitulation. The compromise was of Obama's principles). Evidently, he thought he had to do it to avoid handing his opponents a weapon to use against him in the area he's perceived as weakest--national security. It remains to be seen, of course, whether his compromise will help him or be a net political loss, since he's lost some supporters outright, and others have had their enthusiasm dialed way back.

But I haven't heard anyone comment on the fact that nothing in the bill requires a President Obama to continue the Terrorist Surveillance Program, and nothing prevents him from declassifying and revealing to the world the full extent of the TSP. And, of course, nothing would prevent a President Obama, with a larger majority in Congress, from sending up a better bill.

So let's see what he does in office. That will tell us who he really is.