[ndt]

" Obviously, because as I pointed out in #41, your reference to §1802 was an irrelevant digression from the topic under discussion, since that section specifically excludes U.S. persons from surveillance."

We both agree that the president has the authority to conduct eavesdropping without a warrant on "agents of a foreign power". Our main sticking point (in regards to FISA) is does he also have the power to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. Persons without knowledge that they are also acting as an agent of a foreign power.

According to 1802, no he does not, because a certification under oath is required that the target is in fact an agent of a foreign power, which was my point all along.

As far as FISA is concerned, the president does not have that power provided to him by statute to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. Persons that are not also agents of a foreign power.

"I will simply note for the record, your attempt at mis-characterizing my position that the proper standard is one of reasonable suspicion."

It was not a statement, it was a question, as indicated by the standard sentence structure of beginning with "Are you" and ending with a (?).

Your statment was as follows:

"But what makes all your considerations moot and irrelevant, is that by the time any court becomes aware of such surveillance, it will only be because the case has ripened into a full-fledge intelligence or criminal case, that would not be before the court had there NOT been a reasonable cause to proceed in the first place."

You clearly state that only cases that have "ripened into a full-fledge intelligence or criminal case" will be judged by "reasonable cause". This to me sounds like a justification for an administration to proceed with eavesdropping without reasonable cause, since evidence of wrong doing would never come to light.

If I am mistaken just say so, but you may want to clarify because I do not see how that statement has anything to do with saying "proper standard is one of reasonable suspicion".

[Boot Hill]

Your reply neglected to show me where, in your quote of In re: Sealed Case that you posted, that it states, as you claim, that the court "found that the President did have the power because he showed probable cause that the target was an agent of a foreign power".

ndt:   "Our main sticking point (in regards to FISA) is does he also have the power to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. Persons without knowledge that they are also acting as an agent of a foreign power."

Incorrect, we have no "sticking point in regards to FISA", because those specific requirements of FISA are trumped by the constitutional grant of authority to the President.

ndt:   "According to 1802, no he does not..."

Irrelevant digression, §1802 specifically excludes U.S. persons from surveillance, and is therefore not pertinent to the present discussion of surveillance of U.S. persons. I will not let you take me down this side path, it is not on topic.

ndt:   "This to me sounds like a justification for an administration to proceed with eavesdropping without reasonable cause,"

It is no such thing, it a simple statement of a logical truth, that when a case is reviewed after-the-fact, the initial investigation will always be viewed as reasonable simply because if wasn't reasonable, there would be no case for the court to review. Do not continue with this attempt to distort my position into a justification for illegal wiretaps.