[Assunkkensatt]

From the article as well:

They also said that the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.

It was that part which was the problem. The Dems wouldn't have raised a stink (justifiably, may I add) if it was only foreign-to-foreign surveillance being done without warrants.

[Wvq9InTM]

Yep, you recall incorrectly. The law allows surveillance of any communication that Gonzo "reasonably believes" involves "foreign intelligence." Which is why the kucis of the world should read a paper before whining about people like me.

[Rjvpicux]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Er, how does that contradict, or even add to what I said? Because you said it was about two people on foreign soil that passes through the US. Not so. The real problem was surveillance of communications between one person on foreign soil and a US citizen in the USA without a warrant.

[famosetroie]

here's a hint, Ramo and IS:

i.e. the law was marketed as fixing that problem (which is a problem, and obviously acceptable), but some people claim it does more than that.

Now, I'm not going to read the whole law (I don't care nearly enough), and I don't especially trust either side to tell me what it actually says without major spin, but the article in the OP does support my assertion that the bill was supposed to fix the difficulty of wiretapping entirely foreign conversations that pass through the US.

[SpeavaJap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
here's a hint, Ramo and IS:

i.e. the law was marketed as fixing that problem (which is a problem, and obviously acceptable), but some people claim it does more than that. There is no "some people claim", that's actually what the law does!

[whatisthebluepill]

I have no idea what your original post is supposed to mean then. No one disagreed with updating FISA to accommodate changes in technology wrt foreign communications. There was alternative Dem legislation to that effect that was abandoned due to a veto threat.

[Cgnebksb]

Originally posted by Ramo
I have no idea what your original post is supposed to mean then. No one disagreed with updating FISA. There was alternative Dem legislation to that effect that was abandoned due to a veto threat. He's trying to be uber-ridiculous and say that since the law's main goal was about foreign to foreign communications that pass through US switchboards, we shouldn't complain about the changes that have been created in the warrant approval process for surveillance of any communications that involve a foreign target.