[DoughtyOne]

Thanks Steve. Your post and another have expressed views that were certainly not my understanding of the FISA court. In addition, the FISA court also turns down requests for monitoring. In light of that, how can you say that the NSA can have instant access? If a warrant is turned down, they've already screwed the pooch by your explanation.

[Steve in CO]

The FISA court has turned down less than 1% of all monitoring requests. You can look that up if you like. Even so, if you are afraid that even that is too restrictive; then advocate for congress to change the law, what the NSA is doing, at behest of the executive branch is clearly unconstitutional. How to fix that? Two ways; stop doing it or change the law. It is one of those rare times that it is actually that simple, that black and white. That is why I am so flabbergasted by supposed freedom-loving, law-abiding citizens who are so willing to give one (of the ostensibly co-equal) branches of the government way too much leeway on something so powerful and so susceptable to abuse.

[oceanview]

that's right - suppose the FISA court says "no" - what is the executive supposed to do, order that the recordings made be destroyed, and no further taps be allowed? its lunacy, the idea of a retroactive warrant.