[Boot Hill]

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.

[ndt]

Yours are in italic, the Truong court is in bold italic

" 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."

Have you even read the case?

"First, the government should be relieved of seeking a warrant only when the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agent or collaborators."

Not "suspected" not "probable", known.

" FISA courts don't issue warrants. Nor do FISA courts even use the "probable cause" standard required for warrants."

So which is it, they don't issue warrants or they use a different standard?

Are we even using the same acronym? You can read up on what they do here.

" The Truong court never held any such a thing. "

And I quote Q.U.O.T.E. from the TRUONG COURT

" Even if a warrant is not required, the Fourth Amendment requires that the surveillance be "reasonable.""

"First, the government should be relieved of seeking a warrant only when the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agent or collaborators."

"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."

It was reasonable because Truong had indited himself by working with a CIA informant, his status as a foreign agent was established BEFORE the eavesdropping.

"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."

Is that opinion or are you having trouble finding the quote for that one.

"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."

Dremt up? I was quoting from the Truong case. They state emphatically? You mean like this.

"First, the government should be relieved of seeking a warrant only when the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agent or collaborators."

or like this

"We thus reject the government's assertion that, if surveillance is to any degree directed at gathering foreign intelligence, the executive may ignore the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."

or maybe like this

"..we .. are convinced that the Fourth Amendment will not permit us to grant the executive branch more."

[ndt]

"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."

Actually as for the second warrant for the third party, I will cede that point to you in regard to the Truong case.

[ndt]

"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."

I do want to touch on this as well. That it was approved after the fact is meaningless. Had it been found to not be reasonable, the court would in all likelihood thrown out the convictions.

Also note that this predated FISA. FISA is the current law in this area and imposes limits that were not in existence at the time of the Truong case.