[Boot Hill]

ndt:   "Not "suspected" not "probable", [but] known."

Sorry, you're simply incorrect, neither the Truong court nor any other court to have ruled on the matter has ever once uses the word "known" as a requirement for subjects of surveillance as agents of a foreign power.

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

Both.

ndt:   "Dremt up? I was quoting from the Truong case."

Yes, dreamt up, since none of those quotes you provided show the court requiring the subject be a "known" agent of a foreign power. They use no such word or language in limiting the scope of the President's authority.

Nor would it be logical to expect any court to impose such a standard of "known", since when the government initiates an investigation, by definition, the word "investigation" admits to much being unknown about a case.

[ndt]

"Nor would it be logical to expect any court to impose such a standard of "known", since when the government initiates an investigation, by definition, the word "investigation" admits to much being unknown about a case."

FISA is quite clear in the requirements for warrantless eavesdropping .

"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—"

1. the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
   1. 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; or
   2. 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;
2. there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
3. the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and

Note that it is A, B and C, not either or. If they can't meet this requirement then they need a warrant (or if you prefer, a court order)

The whole point is that they are allowed to do so without a warrant if the targets are known agents of a foreign power, if there is any question, then they need a warrant. The A.G. has to certify under oath that they are in fact agents of a foreign power. There is no room for "might be", "we think they are".

[ndt]

"Yes, dreamt up, since none of those quotes you provided show the court requiring the subject be a "known" agent of a foreign power. They use no such word or language in limiting the scope of the President's authority."

There is good reason why the presidentially applied label of "national security" does not give the President free reign to bypass the fourth amendment and hence probable cause. Well summed up by Supreme Court Justices Douglas and Brennan in Katz vs. United States.

"Neither the President nor the Attorney General is a magistrate. In matters where they believe national security may be involved they are not detached, disinterested, and neutral as a court or magistrate must be. Under the separation of powers created by the Constitution, the Executive Branch is not supposed to be neutral and disinterested. Rather it should vigorously investigate and prevent breaches of national security and prosecute those who violate the pertinent federal laws. The President and Attorney General are properly interested parties, cast in the role of adversary, in national security cases. They may even be the intended victims of subversive action. Since spies and saboteurs are as entitled to the protection of the Fourth Amendment as suspected gamblers like petitioner, I cannot agree that where spies and saboteurs are involved adequate protection of Fourth Amendment rights is assured when the President and Attorney General assume both the position of adversary-and-prosecutor and disinterested, neutral magistrate."