By law, the NSA is largely prohibited from conducting such domestic surveillance, and it is supposed to get permission in each specific case from a secret tribunal of federal judges formed under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Were they international or domestic? Or are they both? And does it make a difference? Inquiring minds want to know.
Why draw the line there? If both ends of a terrorist communication are located inside the US, the limited surveillance would be ineffective.
Were they international or domestic? Or are they both? And does it make a difference? Inquiring minds want to know.
Reports resemble this ...
Since 2002, the agency has been conducting some warrantless eavesdropping on people in the United States who are linked, even if indirectly, to suspected terrorists through the chain of phone numbers and e-mail addresses, according to several officials who know of the operation. Under the special program, the agency monitors their international communications, the officials said. The agency, for example, can target phone calls from someone in New York to someone in Afghanistan.Warrants are still required for eavesdropping on entirely domestic-to-domestic communications, those officials say, meaning that calls from that New Yorker to someone in California could not be monitored without first going to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court.