[angkor]

1. The domestic surveillance appears to have covered United States persons, which the law expressly prohibits,

No, the law has a "substantial likelihood" test.

Work it out on your own.

[Alter Kaker]

No, the law has a "substantial likelihood" test.

Correct, which means that even if the surveillance fails to intercept communications of any US Persons, it can still violate the law, if it was conducted recklessly without regard to status.

So you have a Catch-22: Either the administration failed to confirm immigration status and violated the law, or they did take the time to confirm immigration status, in which case why on earth didn't they get a FISA warrant (which would have been faster anyway)??? I'm thoroughly confused.

[Sacajaweau]

You're absolutely right. The likelihood of you or I being monitored for a call to a terrorist is nil. In other words, they can't monitor all of us and the surveillance is "limited" by the law.