Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Domestic Spying Program to Get Judicial Oversight

Posted by samzenpus on from the who-watches-the-watchmen dept.

Alchemist253 writes "The U.S. Justice Department has consented to court oversight (albeit via a secret court) of the controversial domestic wiretapping program (the "Terrorist Surveillance Program") previously discussed at length on Slashdot. From the article, "[oversight] authority has been given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and [it] already has approved one request for monitoring the communications of a person believed to be linked to al Qaeda or an associated terror group.""

40 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. So it was 100% legal before ... by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... but with a different Congress ... suddenly it's going back to the court with warrants and everything?

    Makes you kind of wonder how "legal" it was in the first place. And whether this is just an attempt to avoid an investigation.

    1. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It was not legal to begin with. These kinds of warrants specifically require the oversight of the FISA court. All warrants require the oversight of the judiciary (by definition). When a specific set of Federal law statutes tell the Executive branch they can do certain Fourth Amendment searches only under the review of a specific court, the Executive branch damn well better comply. If George Bush does not end up in prison for this clear violation of United States Federal law (and numerous American's rights under the Constitution of the United States) you can officially call the Consitution "just a piece of paper" because it no longer has any meaning. But I think that may have been the intent of this administration to begin with.

    2. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by mrogers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By backing down they don't just avoid an investigation, they avoid testing the legality of the program. That could be useful if they want to reinstate the program under the next Congress. But more importantly, the claims about wartime Presidential powers that were used to justify the wiretapping program are still being used to justify other questionably legal actions (perhaps even including the covert expansion of the Iraq war into Iran and Syria). The administration wants to avoid a direct court battle over those powers, and by backing down over the wiretapping program it's hoping to pacify Congress without establishing any precedents.

    3. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Written constitutions Just Don't Work.

      This has been proven time, and time again - especially in America. More time is spent arguing about the syntax of the document than is spent fighting for and legislating towards the semantic meaning.

      Massive fail all round.

    4. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      The FISA courts have existed since the 70s and have passed judicial review of their constitutionality. It is useful to remember that Congress has the authority to create and destroy any court other than the Supreme Court and that there is nothing in the Constitution that says that public scrutiny of warrants are required. The Constitution only says that a judge appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate must issue the warrants:
      no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
      Nothing here says that the public has to be informed. Personally, I think the FISA courts are a good thing but we have to be extraordinarily careful with them. They still have the checks and balances required by the Constitution but they don't have a people's check (i.e. public opinion determining how they are implemented). FISA courts were designed to operate against foreign enemies of the US (such as spies and terrorists). There is a legitimate need for secrecy here. Since the people's check was returned for trials these FISA courts are legitimate (since they don't have the authority to run trials). Any trial will still be a public proceeding.
    5. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Omestes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the alternative is?

      It seems that the American constitution HAS worked rather well in its 200+ year history, sure there are some small glitches from time to time, like McCarthy, and now. But on the whole it has worked, only one superfluous amendment (added, promptly deleted). The strength of it is that it is a living document, meaning its interpretations are supposed to change with the times, arguing about it is a good things. Imagine if it was fixed, the word has changed much in the last 200 years, including people, their values, and what they judge important.

      The constitution is the only thing America has going for it, and the only real hope it has.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    6. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Massive fail all round.

      Not for Exxon. Or Halliburton. Some folks have done remaarkably well. It turns out that most things don't exist for the reasons we think they do. There's always a "rest of the story" which isn't so pretty as the fairy tale being portrayed as American history.

      --
      What?
    7. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Arcane_Rhino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The strength of it is that it is a living document, meaning its interpretations are supposed to change with the times, arguing about it is a good things. Imagine if it was fixed, the word has changed much in the last 200 years, including people, their values, and what they judge important.

      No. I won't let you get away with that assertion without some comment. The Constitution is a living document because it may be amended by a two-thirds majority of each legislative house. (It can also be amended by a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States; this has never been done.)

      What you are describing is a relatively new judicial philosophy, usually ascribed to by liberals who cannot achieve their will through the legislative process. It is this philosophy that has lead to the incredible divisiveness that currently infects the US.

      Those who fear a totalitarian government would to well to reconsider their approval of this perspective. What the nine giveth, the nine can take away.

    8. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by omeomi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      usually ascribed to by liberals who cannot achieve their will through the legislative process. It is this philosophy that has lead to the incredible divisiveness that currently infects the US.

      So the current mess we're in is the liberals fault?

      Yeah, right. Pull the other one...

      --
      ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
    9. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by dangitman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Written constitutions Just Don't Work.

      That's why I prefer my constitutions on audio cassette. Preferably narrated by James Earl Jones or Sir David Attenborough.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    10. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People who use the word "liberal" OR "conservative" as defined by FOX should be taken out and shot. They're easy to spot by the context they use it in. (sorry about the grammar) It's like pulling the string on a Barbie doll. "I think math is hard" "Let's make some brownies". Pitiful

      --
      What?
    11. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you are describing is a relatively new judicial philosophy, usually ascribed to by liberals who cannot achieve their will through the legislative process.


      It's hardly an exclusively liberal process. Conservative activist judges have got their interpretive licks in as well.

      The US Constitution was innovative for its day, but it has two major flaws. The first is that it is much more vague than a modern constitution would be, failing to define its terms and spell out clearly the extent and limitations of powers. For example Article 1 Section 8 where the copyright and patent power is granted to Congress. It is extremely vague about the actual extent of the power. Instead it tries to give guidance about how they hope the power will be used via useless dicta: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts...". The same problem infects the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." It wouldn't have been difficult to eliminate the dicta and spell out the full range of implications.

      The second problem with the Constitution is that it is too hard to amend. The most important thing a law must do is consistently spell out what one may do with impunity, and what one is restricted from doing. The Constitution is constantly being called upon to limit or empower the government in situations beyond the imaginging of the founders (for example wiretapping, see Justice Brandeis' famous dissent in the 1928 case of Olmstead v. United States, a position that was eventually adopted by the court in Katz v. United States in 1967).

      Unfortunately, the second problem finds a solution which is ready made by the first : the nature of the language in the US Constitution is that it demands judicial interpretation. Judges of every stripe, conservative, liberal, statist and libertarian, are called upon to interpret the Constitutoin creatively for each new generation, because the law demands answers from the Constitution which, strictly speaking, aren't in there.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by crotherm · · Score: 2, Funny

      Those who fear a totalitarian government would to well to reconsider their approval of this perspective. What the nine giveth, the nine can take away.


      Sheesh, they gave us Bush. PLEASE make them take him away!!!!

      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
  2. like the?? by Amouth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "or an associated terror group" so someone like anyone that doesn't like them.. i see

    --
    '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  3. But what about the illegal wiretapping? by guspasho · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who's to say that the administration that has been openly breaking the law for years hasn't just created another hidden illegal program and shifted their illegal activity to that?

    1. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by megaditto · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The President has clearly said he is not breaking the law, and despite what the liberal media is telling you, each and every wiretap still requires an warrant

      Here you go, about half-way down at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420- 2.html

      Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    2. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by Anonymous+McCartneyf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, wiretaps require court orders. Yes, it's good that the gov. is asking for warrants. But it wasn't that long ago when the executive branch claimed it didn't need warrants--check the /. link in the summary.

      --
      There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
    3. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by Wavicle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The President has clearly said he is not breaking the law, and despite what the liberal media is telling you, each and every wiretap still requires an warrant

      I'm lost. Are you being sarcastic? Normally I'd think it obvious that this was tongue in cheek, except your nickname makes a Rush reference.

      Is the United States Department of Justice, a department headed by an appointee of the president, also part of the liberal media? So when they wrote "This constitutional authority includes the authority to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance within the United States"?

      The entire executive branch, and much of the republican congress, has said it/they believe that the president has the authority to authorize warrantless wiretaps and furthermore he has done so.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    4. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by Ardeaem · · Score: 5, Informative

      The President has clearly said he is not breaking the law, and despite what the liberal media is telling you, each and every wiretap still requires an warrant

      Here you go, about half-way down at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420- 2.html

      Bush said this BEFORE he got caught doing wiretaps without warrants. I agree, wiretaps DO require warrants, but Bush has claimed that he doesn't need them (the quote in the parent post not withstanding) and he authorized a program of domestic spying without warrants. If you don't recall this, you are woefully uninformed.

      Since you think the "liberal media" may be lying to you, how about a court decision regarding the program? The first TWO SENTENCES reveal that 1. the program exists and 2. the administration does not dispute that is exists. http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/nytimes/do cs/nsa/aclunsa81706opn.pdf [pdf link]

      People that ignore facts on the basis that they were reported by the "liberal media" confuse me. About 2 seconds of research are all that is required to confirm much of this stuff. If you ignore facts because they came from the "liberal media" you are part of the problem; people in power can sit back and do what they like realizing that you are going to take what they say at face value and not take advantage of the resources at your disposal (the media) to see that they are lying.

      Now, since you quoted Bush directly saying that wiretaps require warrants (in 2004), and I have linked to you a court document which reveals that Bush authorized warrantless wiretaps in 2002, what does this mean, logically? He lied, plain and simple. You don't even need the media, the government's own documents the lie.

  4. About %@!#% time! by Kelson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they'd just gone through court procedures in the first place (it's not like it's difficult to get a FISA warrant), there wouldn't have been such a controversy in the first place.

    Ironically, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that the administration's insistence last year that they didn't need judicial overview contributed to the electoral frustration that cost the Republicans control of Congress.

    1. Re:About %@!#% time! by thule · · Score: 3, Informative

      But they did get a FISA warrant. The FBI would have to get the FISA warrant if the NSA generated a lead on the domestic side of the tapped communication. The domestic side wasn't the TARGET of the tap. Thus the NSA never needs a warrant. This has always been the case.

      You call can be tapped without a warrant if you call some criminal suspect. That is because the TARGET of the tap is not you, the suspect is. This is how the TSP worked. The targets if the NSA taps were outside the US and considered part of the battlefield. If they needed to follow up domestically the FBI would get the information from the NSA and start their own investigation.

      This ruling expands the program and does not require the FBI to further the investigation. The FISA will grant the warrant based purely on NSA intel.

  5. For more information: by the_REAL_sam · · Score: 5, Informative

    This link explained alot for me. Too bad it's a secret court, but it's better than no court, and at least it's a court within the judicial branch of the federal government.

    http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/fisc_bdy! OpenDocument&Click=


    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

    Congress in 1978 established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as a special court and authorized the Chief Justice of the United States to designate seven federal district court judges to review applications for warrants related to national security investigations. Judges serve for staggered, non-renewable terms of no more than seven years, and must be from different judicial circuits. The provisions for the court were part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (92 Stat. 1783), which required the government, before it commenced certain kinds of intelligence gathering operations within the United States, to obtain a judicial warrant similar to that required in criminal investigations. The legislation was a response to a report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (the "Church Committee"), which detailed allegations of executive branch abuses of its authority to conduct domestic electronic surveillance in the interest of national security. Congress also was responding to the Supreme Court's suggestion in a 1972 case that under the Fourth Amendment some kind of judicial warrant might be required to conduct national security related investigations.
    Warrant applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are drafted by attorneys in the General Counsel's Office at the National Security Agency at the request of an officer of one of the federal intelligence agencies. Each application must contain the Attorney General's certification that the target of the proposed surveillance is either a "foreign power" or "the agent of a foreign power" and, in the case of a U.S. citizen or resident alien, that the target may be involved in the commission of a crime.
    The judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court travel to Washington, D.C., to hear warrant applications on a rotating basis. To ensure that the court can convene on short notice, at least one of the judges is required to be a member of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The act of 1978 also established a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, presided over by three district or appeals court judges designated by the Chief Justice, to review, at the government's request, the decisions the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Because of the almost perfect record of the Department of Justice in obtaining the surveillance warrants and other powers it requested from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the review court had no occasion to meet until 2002. The USA Patriot Act of 2001 (115 Stat. 272) expanded the time periods for which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court can authorize surveillance and increased the number of judges serving the court from seven to eleven.

    --
    "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
    1. Re:For more information: by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Did you know that Chief Justice John Roberts has the role of appointing the Judges that sit on the FISA court?

      Did you know that Chief Justice John Roberts also has the role of appointing the Judges that sit on the FISA Review Panel?

      Link

      It makes me wonder if a new judge was appointed to FISA recently.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    2. Re:For more information: by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Informative

      Possible but not likely. However, one term on the FISC (Claude Hilton) is due to expire in 2007. Two more are set for next year, two for 2009, one in 2010, two in 2011, one in 2012, and two in 2013 for the FISC. The Court of Review has vacancies coming in 2008, 2010, and 2012. All terms expire on 18 May of their respective years. All current judges would have been appointed by Rehnquist before he died.

      Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 2006 Membership

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  6. Not good enough by schwaang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. It sounds like they won't be pulling NSA cables out of the AT&T (and other) facilities. They're just claiming to use them under FISA now. This wired blog raises some interesting questions about this.
    2. During Attorney General Gonzales' previous congressional testimony on this topic, he was very careful and lawerly in asserting that his statements only applied to the program under discussion, that is the "Terrorist Surveillance Program". The clear implication is that there are other programs besides TSP which have not seen the light of day.

    In short, don't let this stop the oversight hearings.

    1. Re:Not good enough by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 4, Funny

      2. During Attorney General Gonzales' previous congressional testimony on this topic, he was very careful and lawerly in asserting that his statements only applied to the program under discussion, that is the "Terrorist Surveillance Program". The clear implication is that there are other programs besides TSP which have not seen the light of day.

      Yes, AT&T is still working on their, "Terrorist Friends and Family Surveillance Program." Spy on all the friends and family of a suspected terrorist that you want to for just one, low-cost, secret warrant!

  7. It still won't be traditional warrants by the+Gray+Mouser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Which is a good thing.

    First they need to troll through all the communication looking for patterns. Once they find something, then they can eavesdrop specific targets and go for a warrant.

    But you don't know what you're looking for until you find it.

    It sounds like not much is changing really, except FISA has given the ok to the datamining.

  8. Requests denied? by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 2, Informative

    "[oversight] authority has been given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and [it] already has approved one request for monitoring the communications of a person believed to be linked to al Qaeda or an associated terror group.""

    That's nice. How many requests has this court denied, or is it just a rubber stamp like FISA?

  9. THIS PROGRAM MUST END! by crhylove · · Score: 2, Informative

    FUCK OVERSIGHT! I want this program OVER. Unless I am an actual proven threat in a court of law, there should be nobody listening to anything I'm doing.

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    1. Re:THIS PROGRAM MUST END! by kevin_conaway · · Score: 3, Insightful
      FUCK OVERSIGHT! I want this program OVER. Unless I am an actual proven threat in a court of law, there should be nobody listening to anything I'm doing.

      Thats what they're doing. Agency X goes to the FISA court (a court of law mind you) and with A, B and C pieces of information showing that you are a "threat" and that they would like a warrant on you.

  10. Great! by tacokill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's exactly what should have happened from the very beginning

    It was obvious then and its obvious now.

  11. SECRET Court by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Informative

    To go with warrantless secret spying, secret charges in violation of secret laws on the secret evidence that resuts in secret detentions.

    "Secrecy" and "Oversight" are oxymoronic.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  12. Not so much... by StevenMaurer · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to his letter, Gonzalez hasn't actually subjected the program to judicial oversight. What he's done is gone judge-shopping to find a single judge to declare the entire program authorized.

    The problem is, that's not how warrants work. Warrants have to be specific and time limited - to avoid exactly the behavior that Gonzalez in engaging in: blanket invasion into the privacy of all Americans without any legitimate reason to think they're doing anything wrong.

    Remember: the laws we have on civil liberties aren't there to protect the guilty. They're there to protect the innocent, namely us.

  13. Surveillance Society - the governments aim by Garry+Anderson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    FYI: It is not a "Terrorist Surveillance Program" - it is a "Public Surveillance Program".

    They do not know who the terrorists are - so they have to keep an eye on you "just in case".

    Why do government have no respect for your right to privacy?

    This is a post that I have used many times before :-)

    Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.

    It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?

    Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:

    Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.

    Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!

    Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).

    The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.

    The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.

    INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA

    This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.

    Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"

    This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.

    It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.

    They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.

    This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."

    "Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".

    This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).

    This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.

    So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?

    It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.

    As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.

    Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.

    The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.

    They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying e

  14. this is pre-911 thinking by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 3, Funny

    and it's gonna get us killed, whether you like it or not. We are more vulnerable now that investigators have to wade through the legal system. If you've seen the latest episode of 24, you'll know what I'm talking about, a nuclear attack on an american city. With the appropriate monitoring systems in place, that would have never happened on the show but they were hamstrung like the FBI and NSA is today. Blame the leftists and the god damn liberals for the terror that will befall us :(

  15. Makes sense... by Cheetahfeathers · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This of course also happens after a bunch of federal judges were replaced.

  16. This ruling expands the program! by thule · · Score: 2, Informative

    Check out this link:

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/3 250

    AJStrata's point is that now the FISA will grant a warrant purely based on a NSA wiretap intel and nothing else. Under the TSP the FBI would need to do a follow up based on a lead from the NSA and provide additional reason/information to the FISA judge (see .http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti cle/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html).

    Remember the NSA has no standing in civilian courts and does not need a warrant to do what they do with foreign communications.

  17. Re:Hunh? by thule · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The reason it is not being renewed is because it is not needed anymore. All the FISA court needs is a NSA lead to grant a warrant now. Previously the FISA judges required some sort of additional information from a FBI investigation.

  18. Re:Hunh? by Orange+Crush · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I was hoping that the administration was on the up and up, but this is definitely a signal that what they are and were doing has highly questionable legal merit.

    There's the rub. Even if everything was handled well and no innocent person's privacy was violated without good cause, the lack of oversight makes it wrong. I don't care if they were being nefarious or not, I want the spying investigated and overseen by the judiciary then, now, and forever always. Any organization that says "Trust us, we're working in your best interests!" without accountability is almost certainly not.

  19. Re:BRACE FOR IMPACT!! was: Hunh? by thule · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's not needed anymore because this ruling allows for FISA warrants based purely on NSA leads with no FBI follow up. The NSA will do what it has always done, target foreign communications for tapping. If they happen on interesting communication that terminates in the US, they can pass this information to the FBI and a warrant will be granted. The FBI can now make the US side a target of a tap.

    Nothing has changed except the bar was lowered. Previously the FISA court required *more* information from the FBI beyond a simple lead from the NSA. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html.

    What the court is saying is that not only was the TSP legal, but they now make it easier to make the US side a target of a tap.