@rochard -- you will never convince me that the FISA court was following the intent of the FISA law when it gave blanket warrants allowing the surveillance of US Citizens domestically.

They (the FISA Court) was put in place to prevent such abuses specifically.

50 USC § 1802 => http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1802
50 USC § 1805 - Issuance of order => http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805

Then NSA did violate the letter of the law and the FISA Court acquiesced to that violation.

In fact, one FISA Court Judge resigned when this whole thing started ... Federal Judges do not just pack their marbles up and leave the playground...

Quote:

Judge Resigns from Surveillance Court Dec 21, 2005 ... U.S. District Judge James Robertson was one of 11 members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as FISA, until he sent his letter of resignation to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts today. The Washington Post reported that the letter gave no reason for the resignation but said it was in protest over the president's secret authorization of the warrantless domestic spying program. ... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1429647

It is lawful in this country (like most) to do all types of surveillance on foreign soil. The State Department has (or should have) some control to limit the excesses of the NSA, CIA or Military Intelligence surveillance of those we consider friends and allies -- most European countries governments fit that category.

Some foreign nationals who are hostile to US security interests may be resident in these "friendly countries'' and whether to request the assistance of those country's intelligence services or act extraterritoriality is a decision of the President as outlined in 50 USC § 1802 cited above.

FISA has become the NSA's "Monkey Court" rubber stamping court orders (warrants). What is worse is that the FISA Court acts ex-parte making secret decisions.

HUH? Local police at the FISA Court?

ACLU v. Clapper
https://www.aclu.org/national-securi...pper-complaint

Oral argument on the ACLU?s motion for a preliminary injunction and the government?s motion to dismiss is scheduled for November 22 in New York.
https://www.aclu.org/national-securi...-call-tracking

So, if the second time is the charm it's all over. If not -- be careful who you talk to the G is listening -- and I don't mean Google.

Nothing is illegal until you get caught -- mass interception of even the meta-data of domestic telephone calls, by persons in the US without a warrant is illegal and unconstitutional.

Quote:

50 USC § 1802, a, A, (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; (B) 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

Quote:

CAUSES OF ACTION 36. The Mass Call Tracking exceeds the authority granted by 50 U.S.C. § 1861*, and thereby violates 5 U.S.C. § 706**. 37. The Mass Call Tracking violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. 38. The Mass Call Tracking violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. *50 U.S.C. § 1861 (2) An investigation conducted under this section shall? (A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and (B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. **5 USC § 706 - Scope of review (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be? (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;

This has been in the federal courts since June 11, 2013 -- still pending

"The ACLU's 2008 lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the FISA Amendments Act, which authorized the so-called ?warrantless wiretapping program,? was dismissed 5?4 by the Supreme Court in February 2013 on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not prove that they had been monitored. The ACLU does not believe the issue of standing to be a problem in ACLU v. Clapper because of the FISC order showing that the NSA is collecting the telephone records of all Verizon Business customers ? including the ACLU."

Snooping on foreign communications is another issue -- diplomacy has its role there.