[ QUOTE ]
Aren't you like a lawyer? If so, shouldn't you be better at reading cases? Some of the electronic surveillance was not covered because it wasn't authorized by the AG. But the surveillance that took place after the date of the AG's authorization was allowed in under the exception. Read pp.10-11 again: "[O]n April 4, 1997... the Attorney General gave her express authorization for the foreign intelligence collection techniques (including the post-April 4, 1997 electronic surveillance and the August 21, 1997 physical search) that were employed.... For these searches then, the exception to the warrant requirement for foreign intelligence surveillance is applicable and the government was not required to secure a warrant."

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations on getting through an entire post without name calling. Now, I will teach you another lesson:

You are correct, I missed that the Court made a distinction between wiretaps. Thus, the Court's holding, as I originally thought (and should have stuck with) depended on the fact that the searches took place on foreign soil. Note the absence of any excuses about "two minutes of research" or any rationalization seeking to avoid confession of error. Not that I expect you to take the lesson, but, you never know.

I am sure you read with interest Orin Kerr's volokh post analyzing the legality of this scheme. He concludes that the wiretaps may be constitutional (although he allows that his is a strained analysis -- a very significant concession considering the source), but concedes that they are likely illegal.

What say you now?