[sinkspur]

Again, this applies only to purely domestic communications.

Uh, no it doesn't. Warrantless searches apply to those involving a domestic party and an international party. There is simply no reason to have to go to a FISA judge when a terrorist in the Phillipines is speaking to a contact in the United States, citizen or not.

I would also apply that to a known terrorist suspect in the United States when he is speaking to someone domestically, though I can see the case for eventually getting a FISA warrant.

And, if you'll go up the thread, you'll see plenty of judicial opinions over the last 20 years that give a great deal of leeway to the CIC in wartime to surveil terrorist suspects, even without a warrant.

[Truth-The Anti Spin]

Uh, no it doesn't. Warrantless searches apply to those involving a domestic party and an international party. There is simply no reason to have to go to a FISA judge when a terrorist in the Phillipines is speaking to a contact in the United States, citizen or not.

You appear to be correct, and I appear to misinformed on this issue. The president has or should have greater authority to tap communications where one side is foreign in origin.

I would also apply that to a known terrorist suspect in the United States when he is speaking to someone domestically, though I can see the case for eventually getting a FISA warrant.

Yup. Really, how hard can it be to go to the top-secret FISA court and ask for a warrant, especially considering they can do it after the fact?

And, if you'll go up the thread, you'll see plenty of judicial opinions over the last 20 years that give a great deal of leeway to the CIC in wartime to surveil terrorist suspects, even without a warrant.

You're absolutely right. And if we were at war, he could use his wartime powers. But only congress has the right to declare war, and hasn't done so. It all comes back to seperation of powers.

[golfisnr1]

I think you got it right.

[RustMartialis]

Warrantless searches apply to those involving a domestic party and an international party. There is simply no reason to have to go to a FISA judge when a terrorist in the Phillipines is speaking to a contact in the United States, citizen or not.

You still need a warrant if one party involved is a "United States person", under USC Title 50 Sec. 1802, though. The USAG can't authorize a warrantless search under that section. Is there another law that says different?

A "United States person" is defined as a citizen or a legal permanent resident alien, or corporation (more or less).

--R.