[Truth-The Anti Spin]

Uh, no it doesn't. Warrantless searches apply to those involving a domestic party and an international party. There is simply no reason to have to go to a FISA judge when a terrorist in the Phillipines is speaking to a contact in the United States, citizen or not.

You appear to be correct, and I appear to misinformed on this issue. The president has or should have greater authority to tap communications where one side is foreign in origin.

I would also apply that to a known terrorist suspect in the United States when he is speaking to someone domestically, though I can see the case for eventually getting a FISA warrant.

Yup. Really, how hard can it be to go to the top-secret FISA court and ask for a warrant, especially considering they can do it after the fact?

And, if you'll go up the thread, you'll see plenty of judicial opinions over the last 20 years that give a great deal of leeway to the CIC in wartime to surveil terrorist suspects, even without a warrant.

You're absolutely right. And if we were at war, he could use his wartime powers. But only congress has the right to declare war, and hasn't done so. It all comes back to seperation of powers.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

The Judge seems to say that the power to enact such a program should come from Congress. Where does the Constitution say that?

[P-40]

how hard can it be to go to the top-secret FISA court and ask for a warrant

The are some hilarious sections of the 9/11 Report that cover that very question.