Mike the Usurper wrote:
How? How is this national security related? Is he planning to invade the US? Is he smuggling state secrets? Is he... what?

He was suspected of blowing up trains in Madrid.

It was not an action by a foreign power, foreign agent or any other such thing, it was a criminal act by a bunch of people that represent no government or other power.

I think the reason its "foreign power" and not "foreign government" is so that it is inclusive of non-state actors and entities that aren't recognized by the United States. Your perspective is not completely meritless but I don't that there is any real controversy in the legal community about whether or not Al'Queda counts as a foreign power in terms of how it is defined by FISA and how the 4th amendment applies to it. Furthermore, its not entirely clear that the 4th amendment would apply to a violent domestic terrorist group as it is currently interpreted. The matter hasn't been litigated AFAIK.

Mind you, I think there is some obsurdity in the notion that we have this text in the Constitution that says "no warrants shall issue unless" but we've decided that when warrants are and are not required is basically up to the judiciary, and we've also decided that we've uncomfortable with what the judiciary has decided, and so we've created extra constitutional warrants (FISA) that apply in a context where the 4th amendment doesn't, and so now we have warrants that issue without meeting the requirements the Constitution specifically says warrants require, and no one in the legal community seems to be troubled by this. Whatever.

RE: Patriot Act provision struck