I don't think so. Jabara stands for the proposition that information in the hands of the NSA does not amount to warrantless surveillance (because Jabara never asserted that it did), and passing that information to the FBI without a warrant does not amount to a "search without a warrant."
Here is the Appellate Court summary of the record in regard to the "foreign agent" allegation.
The district court, in its unreported memorandum denying the motion to reconsider (App. at 190), determined that the question whether there was cause to believe Jabara was a foreign agent had been an issue in the case and that it had theretofore determined (75 F.R.D. at 493) that, in the record then before it, there was no evidence that Jabara was connected with or was a foreign agent. ^7 ...Plus, there is no '"agent of a foreign power" exception' for warrantless surveillance under FISA. 1802 provides for warrantless surveillance of a "foreign power" per 1801(a)(1) - (3) (and surprisingly -excludes- 1801(a)(4) "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor"), but does not provide for warrantless surveillance of an "agent of a foreign power."Since, however, we determine herein that Jabara's fourth amendment rights were not violated when the summaries of his overseas telegraphic messages were furnished to the FBI irrespective of whether there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a foreign agent and whether there is a foreign agent exception to the warrant requirement, we need not consider the question whether the district court abused its discretion in not weighing the contents of the in camera French affidavit and whether the affidavit established such reasonable cause.
FN 7 We agree that, as the record stood at the time the district court granted summary judgment to Jabara, it did not support reasonable cause to believe that Jabara was a foreign agent when the FBI requested the summaries from the NSA.
Got any authority where the gov can do it to US persons who are not 'agents of a foreign power'?
We're still waiting for that case. Kieth is the closest, I think, and it calls for a warrant when the target is a US person.
As far as I know, all the cases that permit warrantless surveillance (even those that predate or extend FISA) also hinge on obtaining "foreign intelligence information." And Clinton's FBI bothered to get a warrant to surveil Ames, even though he was an agent of a foreign power (!!!).
Sure there is - it is an explicit exception to the definition of 'US Person.'
It sounds like we probably agree that a warrant is needed to electronically surveil US persons.
Where we probably disagree is that I strongly believe it is ongoing.
Yes there is. Section 1804 (plus the other 72 hour emergency provisions elsewhere in the act, but 1804 is the primary section).
1802 provides for warrantless surveillance of a "foreign power" per 1801(a)(1) - (3)
Actually, 1802 provides for surveillance without a court order. 1804 provides for surveillance with a court order. "Court order", not "warrant". There's a significant difference. Look at FISA again and notice that it provides for nothing but warrantless searches. The word "warrant" isn't in there anywhere, other than in some definitions where it says things like "and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes". FISA court orders are specifically not warrants. They're fishing permits, which is exactly what the 4th Amendment's Warrant Clause forbids.