Congress effectively "approved" warrantless surveillance of US citizens: "authorize the president to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign targets even when they are communicating with someone in the United States"

The President's workaround, to bypass the court and warrant requirement, is most likely: Direct a US-based firm or interest to contact "from overseas" a US national. The President can "determine" that signals went "out" of the US -- to a satellite -- and were subject to the exception: Permitting warrantless surveillance of US citizens.

If the US government wants to broaden the illegal surveillance and target American citizens, the government can merely establish a "foreign presence", then communicate with the US person in the United States.

- Who says the "foreign target" is a real target, and not something under the US government control, as a ruse?

- What prevents the US government from playing the role of a "foreign target"? Nothing.

- How many US government-controlled "Foreign targets" need to be individually identified; or can a "foreign target" simultaneously communicate with millions of American citizens, thereby bypassing the warrant requirement? Infinite.

- Could a "foreign target" be something that is a switching box, and all foreign targets "connected with that foreign target" expose all US communications through that box to be subject to monitoring without a warrant? Yes.

- Who is going to monitor potential abuses of these definitions? Without a FISA court warrant, there's no oversight. We're back to where we started in the wake of 2001: Creative twisting of the rules, laws and definitions; no oversight; and an ignoring the FISA requirements.

Despicable.

After voting for both for the Dodd/Feingold amendment to remove retroactive immunity, why would Senators Whitehouse and Baucus vote for the main bill with immunity?

If you live in NY your stupid Senator was too busy applying for her next job to do her current job.

I'm not a lawyer but it occurs to me that we really need to closely examine the wording of any immunity granted. It is my understanding that the specific cause of action threatened against the telcos was civil not criminal. Specifically, was it not a breach of contract that was alleged? This is not a criminal act for which classical immunity would apply. On the contrary... if this is a simple immunity bill then I am thinking that it could actually help the civil case. Consider: if a plaintiff seeks testimony from a telco employee then the telco guy cannot plead the fifth and refuse to answer. Immunity means he is not in any personal jeopardy so his knowledge can be used against his employer to make the civil case.

So... is it really immunity here? Or... is this 'immunity' really some sort of rifle shot that seeks to explicitly enrich the telcos by modifying the contract between the telcos and their customers to explicitly allow the breach. And I know that I am piling supposition upon supposition here but... would not such a 'immunity' be considered ex post facto and contrary to Article I, section 9, clause 3?

You know what is scary? More and more people are starting talk, very quietly mind you, about having a revolution. The results might be of benefit if our Constitution should survive intact, but I think more likely to be disastrous.

To be clear, I am not condoning this idea at this time. There has to be no other choice before I would agree. But I personally know some people who are talking about this as a real potential possibility. And I have encountered numerous anonymous people talking about it or just worrying about it online.