OK, I'm sick of typing U.S. Person, from now on it is USP
NOTE: All quotes below are from the Truong case
Taps on the phones of known international terrorists do not require a warrant, that is not at issue. When those taps intercept a third party, and if that third party turns out to be a USP, yes, a warrant becomes required for that conversation. It can be issued retroactively, and if that U.S. person is calling a known international terrorist, I can think of no reason why the FISA court would turn down that warrant.
The Truong case does not allow the president or his agents to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on USPs without reasonable evidence that they are acting as agents of a foreign power.
" Even if a warrant is not required, the Fourth Amendment requires that the surveillance be "reasonable."
A USPs name being in the phone book of a terrorist may be reasonable evidence of possible wrongdoing, or he might be the pizza guy. What it is not, is proof of being an agent of a foreign power. That would be a case that required a warrant, even for the president.
So, does the president have inherent power to conduct warrantless eavesdropping even when the subject is a USP and is not previously known to be an agent of a foreign power? Lets see what the Truong court had to say.
"Because the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement is a critical constitutional protection of individual privacy, this discussion should conclude by underscoring the limited nature of this foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement which we recognize in the instant case. The exception applies only to foreign powers, their agents, and their collaborators."
Yes, I guess I do agree with them. NO! the president does not have the power to conduct warrantless eavesdropping unless the target is already known to be an agent of a foreign power.
ndt: "Taps on the phones of known international terrorists do not require a warrant, that is not at issue."
Let me make some minor adjustments to that...
"Taps on the phonesintercepts of communications of known or suspected international terrorists do not require a warrant, that is not at issue."
ndt: "When those taps intercept a third party, and if that third party turns out to be a USP, yes, a warrant becomes required for that conversation."
That is incorrect, as the holding in Truong makes abundantly clear. They specifically held that no such warrant was required. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
ndt: "I can think of no reason why the FISA court would turn down that warrant."
FISA courts don't issue warrants. Nor do FISA courts even use the "probable cause" standard required for warrants.
ndt: "The Truong case does not allow the president or his agents to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on USPs without reasonable evidence that they are acting as agents of a foreign power."
The Truong court never held any such a thing. The governments actions were done without any court permission, oversight or approval and were held by the court to be completely constitutional after the fact and after the trial.
ndt quotes Truong: "Even if a warrant is not required, the Fourth Amendment requires that the surveillance be 'reasonable'."
Yes, and then the Truong court ruled on the reasonableness, saying: "As the district court observed, the surveillance was nonetheless reasonable, and we agree." Notice, the court found it reasonable long after the fact and long after the trial and merely gave their stamp of approval to what the government had already done.
ndt: "What it is not, is proof of being an agent of a foreign power."
When it comes to initiating foreign intelligence intercepts, "proof" is not the standard, nor is it "probable cause", all that the President needs is a reasonable suspicion that at least one individual that is party to a communication, is acting as an agent of a foreign power.
ndt: "the president does not have the power to conduct warrantless eavesdropping unless the target is already known to be an agent of a foreign power."
Sorry, all the leading cases and four courts of appeal disagree with you and state emphatically, and without the limitation you dreamt up, that the President has the inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.
If you think you can find a case cite that agrees with your position, post it.