No. We might quibble a bit on (2), but no.

I understand the operational distinction you've drawn between #2 and #3, but why are my rights restricted more in the former than the latter? If I'm an American citizen, and I'm talking not to Betty in New England but Fred in England, what justifies the different result? If I'm understanding it correctly, the FISA law currently doesn't make that distinction.

1) Your rights don't extend beyond the border. I am sure England would have no trouble tapping that same international call. Any government has a right to inspect anything that goes in or out of the country. If you are sending a signal (that is what communication is) then the US government should be able to check it out if it leaves the country or originates outside of the country. It works with letters, I don't see how other forms of communication should be different. It seems as though the Federal Courts don't agree with me.

2) From my perspective 9-11 didn't change the Constitution. Events can't change the Constitution, only the people can. Unless the US passes a constitutional amendment that includes a clause about martial law in time of emergency, nothing has changed. Domestic surveillance without a warrant on US nationals is just illegal. It seems silly to argue about it. Does anyone disagree with what I just said in this paragraph?

Grazie!
 

Now that you have killed MURDERED my libido, I may get some work done.

Presumably the President, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzales and a bunch of lawyers supporting their arguments.

Dick Cheney also I think, and quite vocally.

It does make that distinction.

FISA implements a higher burden when the object of the surveillance is a US citizen, regardless of their location. FISA has a lower burden for surveillance of non-US citizens in the US. FISA has no limits outside the US, other than regarding US citizens.

No, other than that #3 is laughable and incorrect.

Jamie Gorelick, testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994:

In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed [Clinton] had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime.

Bi-Partisan September 11 Commission, reporting on April 14, 2004:

The 9/11 Commission Report was issued on July 22, 2004. This phrase is not in that final report - I scanned the entire thing, but I guess I could have missed it. Where did you get this quote?

Ah. Yes, I was reading into Spanky's recitation the precept that those communications involved US citizens (which I thought was the point). Upon rereading it, it sounds like Spanky's drawing lines based purely on geography, not by whether a participant is a US citizen.

I am not Raggedy Ann Coulter (though I am probably another of Penske's socks) but the quote is from a report done by the Commission's staff and presented in different contexts - at hearings, testimony and briefings. I believe members of the Commision have reiterated this blurb in a way that shows they support it. Byron York, National Review White House Correspondent reported yesterday that the statement was made by Commission members who were briefing the press on some of their preliminary findings in April 2004. Google some of the text.

I don't know about foreign nationals in the United States. I can see how one could argue that you don't need a warrant for them.

But if a call is placed by one US citizen to another US citizen in the United States there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. In order to tap that call you either need a warrant or exigent circumstances. If the administration is arguing otherwise, which I think they are, they have their collective heads up their asses. Any argument they make is going to be (for lack of a better word) silly.

How can anyone disagree with that?

It may be illegal but I think the point is that the President doesn't trust the timeliness or effectiveness of the warrant process in cases where: (1) there's a belief that a conversation will spill important information; but (2) you don't have enough to seek a warrant yet. In other cases, it's a fishing expedition - the person you are tapping is acquainted with someone who might have information on terrorist acts or training or planning and you listen in for possible leads. Not enough for a warrant so you don't seek one out. But you don't want to haul the eavesdropee into detention for questioning - eavesdropping in that case is less invasive to the guy and a lot more effective since the guy doesn't know he's being tapped.

Is all this stuff illegal? Yes. But if I were a second term president, though, I'd be tapping as I deem best because -- fuck my ratings - the only thing I DON'T want in my legacy as Prez is that blood ran in the streets of the U.S. as part of a plan hatched right over U.S. phone lines by someone on U.S. soil and I didn't do anything to tune into it because my suspicions weren't enough to warrant a warrant. As long as my advisors can come up with some shaky argument that I can say I *thought* this stuff was okay. What do I care. 25 years after Watergate, Nixon's legacy became a lot better than the expected "fuckhead who perpetrated Watergate". So a few Muslims phone calls were tapped without going through the usual channels. The fallout is not going to be that big a deal.