>>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.
>
>My understanding of the problem is that it ties government's hands in collecting intelligence on potential threats. Given the nature of this new enemy - one who fights without uniform, without declared allegiance to a known hostile government - it is difficult to determine if a foreign national is a terrorist or working with terrorists against the US, until the damage is done. FISA applies more towards surveillance against suspected foreign agents - the classic "spy" - but even then requires a case to be built against the subject in question.

So are you saying that in today's situation it is perfectly reasonable to listen to conversations with NO CASE against the subject in question?

FISA, apparently, has rejected 5 requests out of tens of thousands since its existence.
FISA has a provision to listen now and ask (for the warrant) later.
FIAS, if I heard correctly, has a provision that the President can have up to 15 days after a declaration of war where no warrant is required at all.

By the way, olden days spies didn't wear a uniform either and rarely communicated directly with their country of "employment".
I think Colin Powell had it right... "just go and get the warrants".