The 1978 FISA stipulated that the primary purpose of the surveillance must be for gathering foreign intelligence. The Patriot Act changed the word primary to significant. That change means that the government can conduct surveillance for purposes other than gathering foreign intelligence, as long as some foreign intelligence gathering is included.

I don't know how anyone could argue that the sweeping domestic surveillance this allows isn't unethical. But then, I'm not invested in protecting a party.

"The 1978 FISA stipulated that the primary purpose of the surveillance must be for gathering foreign intelligence."

...stop spewing nonsense. No one is disputing that the primary purpose is "gathering foreign intelligence." I mean, it's called the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

As for your other claim, become familiar with the Act.

Title 1---Electronic Surveillance Within the United States for Foreign Intelligence Purposes
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1783.pdf

Was primary. Now only significant. Big legal loophole. But you go right on trying to defend your god when this has nothing to do with personality.

"But you go right on trying to defend your god when this has nothing to do with personality."

...you forgot the point was about FISA and its original intent. Your bias is showing.

Oh, that is RICH.

Aren't you just the sweetest thing.

The change in wording the Patriot Act made to FISA, from the gathering of foreign intelligence being the primary objective of surveillance to it only having to be a significant part, is where the loophole was created and exploited.

Not sure where you think my bias is. Obama didn't create the Patriot Act. I have no doubt the language was loosened by Bush** and the Republicans.

Hannah Arendt's phrase, "the banality of evil".

Laws are deemed Unconstitutional every day.

Screw arguing legality. That's a red herring.

These are illegal laws, providing a fig leaf for illegal acts that stand in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. All other laws that contradict the Constitution are invalid.

Its legal, laws are being followed, where's the abuse of power?

you don't think that Jim Crow laws weren't an abuse of power?

You can't prosecute over something that will be illiegal in the future.

just that

give me an example?

It's LEGAL abuse of power.

If legal, that is. We don't really know because of all the classified interpretations the government is using to justify its abuses.

Edited to say NOT in the title.

otherwise its only an opinion.

if you are saying President Obama is abusing his power.

The president is one piece of it. Congress is complicit as well.

thanks.

because no one knows how they are being applied, they can simultaneously be "legal" (there is a law) and unconstitutional (a bad one).

That is exactly the point in all this, the secrecy.

End of story.

keep trying to spin that the Patriot Act is okay after all. It's legal and all is well in the land of ostriches with their heads in the ground.