[joseph20]

The analysis of 1801(a)(1) - (3) then moves to a definition of "foreign government or component thereof" (Taliban satisfies this), "a faction of a foreign nation," and/or "an entity openly acknowledged, directed and controlled by a foreign government." Examples would be useful, but unfortunately I have no certain ones. I speculate that perhaps Hamas is so classified, and that Al Qaeda is not so classified. There are also a good number of other terrorist organizations that no foreign government openly acknowledges, directs and controls.

This is the issue that I have been trying to get at. Thanks for putting it so nicely.

If Al Qaeda does not meet the definition of a foreign power as defined in 1801(a)(1) -(3), then we cannot conduct warantless electronic surveillance on them. How absurd!

I can understand why President Bush would want to "go above" FISA, if this is really the case!

[Cboldt]

If Al Qaeda does not meet the definition of a foreign power as defined in 1801(a)(1) -(3), then we cannot conduct warantless electronic surveillance on them. How absurd! I can understand why President Bush would want to "go above" FISA, if this is really the case!

One general point that Sandy & I were trying to make is that if the surveillance is within FISA, then the Senate would have no beef. But the Senate has a beef, and the President has a beef that "the secret program" was disclosed. Therefore the speculation is that the surveillance is outside of FISA.

We don't have details beyond that - we don't know, for example, "how far" outside.