[angkor]

This morning's New York Sun contains the first editorial I've seen specifically discussing 50 USC 1802:

"The law provides at least two special exceptions to the requirement of a court order. As FISA has been integrated into Title 50 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802, one such provision is helpfully headed, "Electronic surveillance authorization without court order."

http://www.nysun.com/article/24610

Discuss.

[Wolfie]

Yeah, I remember seeing that in the Constitution.

[Sandy]

I think we can rule out (A)(i) as a legal authority since that subsection is about acquiring the contents of communications, and acquisition of communication content is forbidden when U.S. persons are involved. Of course the minimization procedures may be adequate, but who can tell at this point?

*If* Bush's legal authority is located in 1802 at all, my guess is it's here:

(A)(ii): the electronic surveillance is solely directed at the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power

Acquisition of technical intelligence. Isn't that right up the NSA's alley?

From property under control of a foreign power.

To...where? To anywhere, apparently.

[r9etb]

Nicely done.

[Real Cynic No More]

Doesn't (B) in the wording negate this if at least one party is a U.S. person?

[Willie Green]

one such provision is helpfully headed, "Electronic surveillance authorization without court order."

Article VI
 This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...
...shall be the supreme law of the land....

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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.

"Certainly, all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature [Congress] repugnant to the Constitution is void."

Marbury v Madison, 1803

[Marie Antoinette]

Ping