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.
Sure there is - it is an explicit exception to the definition of 'US Person.'
Show me. Here are the parts that I think you're referring to. The way I parse it, interception of communications of an agent of a foreign power is NOT within the class of entity recited in 1802(a).
50 USC 1801(b) "Agent of a foreign power" means--It sounds like we probably agree that a warrant is needed to electronically surveil US persons.
(1) any person other than a United States person ...
(2) any person [presumably including United States persons] who-- ...
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;50 USC 1801(i) "United States person" means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
50 USC 1801 <- Link to all of 50 USC 1801
50 USC 1802 (a)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at--
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and ...50 USC 1802 <- Link to all of 50 USC 1802
I'd say "it depends," but agree that FISA doesn't give any such blanket authority. Not even if the US person is part of a foreign power of 1801(a)(4), "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor." Amazing. But that is where CONGRESS drew the line.
Where we probably disagree is that I strongly believe it is ongoing.
I'm not sure we agree or disagree, since I'm not sure what you mean by "it" being ongoing. If you mean in general, surveillance outside of Title III and FISA, I agree that such surveillance has always occurred - but we don't how much of that activity is encouraged, demanded, authorized or "winked at" by management. THere are MANY details that play into the calculus of "reasonable," and we lack the details. I doubt we'll ever have the dtails, I fully count on my government to lie to me "for my own protection."