>>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.

Yes, I got that.

But Bush said he has only been eaves dropping on those known to be in communication with Al-Q.

So we apparently have the intelligence we need to determine they are a terrorist or working with them.


Unless Bush has backed away from that position? Is that the case?