Here is part of the law that is applied so that court can be avoided:
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 (Note; That is the part that causes the initial delay)—
(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;
(Note lets see what "foreign powers means"
1802 As used in this subchapter: (a) “Foreign power” means— (1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States; (2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons; (3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments; (4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor; (5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or (6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.Well isn't that special. Obama would likely be under defined as number 4 above and that means this wiretap exclusion does not apply to him. This seems to mean that Bush needs to go to court to wiretap Osama.
Does the second part of the law provide differently?
lets see.
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;
Nope, Obama is exempt from copying his hard drive without a warrant.
Law source: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html
Please someone tell me I not reading this right?
You're not reading it right. What you're missing is an understanding of the term "electronic surveillance", which has a specific definition spelled out in section 1801. Foreign-foreign communications don't fit the definition and therefore are not subject to FISA at all (meaning no FISA warrant is required).
BTW, once the new FISA law takes effect, certain foreign-foreign communications *will* be subject to FISA, i.e. those in which the target is a U.S. person.