an int'l call can be tapped outside the united states if need be.
Yes, but I still don't grasp your point - unless my guess in the previous post was right, in which case I got the idea, but not the point.
FISA is phrased in terms of "Foreign intelligence information" (which is a common denominator); "Foreign power" (surveiellance of SOME requires no warrant); "Agent of a foreign power"; and "United States person." It doesn't talk in terms of physical location of the actors.
That is, surveillance of communication of a foreign power, conducted wholly on CONUS facilities, does not require a warrant in order to comply with FISA.
Oh, hang on. (pardon the disjointed nature of this post, LOL), are you trying to get to the point where the present surveillance is all within the boundary of FISA? ANd that Clinton's international surveillance (wo warrant) was also within FISA? Or that international surveillance is outside of FISA in some cases?
Maybe a different angle ....
Clinton did obtain a FISA warrant for some wiretapping, which you think is the domestic communications.
Clinton did not obtain a FISA warrrant for entry to Ames residence, which I say is because that tool was not available - like I can't get the police to arrest you if you reneg on a home sale contract.
And so we get down to the question about what constitutes reasonable under the 4th, where with Ames we have a clear fact pattern to work from; but with Bush and the NSA, we are just working from speculated fact patterns.
Tough issue in the long haul, how much power and trust should the people give one branch. Where and how should personal privacy boundaries be enforced? Some argue that the disussion itself is out of bounds because we are at war - I disagree with that point of view. BUt there is a conundrum embedded in that, because to have a discussion, there need to be some fact patterns! And the beat goes on.