>>What, precisely, is "the FISA problem"?
>
>Pretty much layed out in the article.

"In short, before the government can collect intelligence on someone by breaking into his house or tapping his phones, it had better already have in hand pretty persuasive evidence that the person is probably up to no good. FISA is less about collecting intelligence than confirming intelligence."



And here's his solution.

"So, then, what is to be done? Well, to start, we should have a serious debate about abolishing FISA and restoring the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."



But I was more interested in how you would have described it, because his description of the problem doesn't make it very compelling, or at least compelling enough to abolish it. In my opinion.

I mean, the FISA warrant can be obtained in retrospect, and Bush has said we're only eaves dropping on those with links to Al-Q. That's "probably up to no good" in my book.

There's something missing from this whole debate. Bush's real motivation for bypassing FISA. Because something is not adding up.