I'm not refuting it because it's not new. The FISC court decided that back in 2002. See In Re Sealed case: 310 F.3d 717: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/ap

I'm not refuting it because it's not new. The FISC court decided that back in 2002. See In Re Sealed case: 310 F.3d 717: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/310/717/495663/ http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/310/... " The "wall" emerges from the court's implicit interpretation of FISA. The court apparently believes it can approve applications for electronic surveillance only if the government's objective is not primarily directed toward criminal prosecution of the foreign agents for their foreign intelligence activity. " ... The minimization procedures allow, however, the retention and dissemination of non-foreign intelligence information which is evidence of ordinary crimes for preventative or prosecutorial purposes. See 50 U.S.C. § 1801(h) (3). Therefore, if through interceptions or searches, evidence of "a serious crime totally unrelated to intelligence matters" is incidentally acquired, the evidence is "not ... required to be destroyed." H. REP. at 62 (emphasis added)." (note the house report cite: This is in fact, what congress intended) Again, this came about because the FISA court tried to put a stop to these shenanigans back in 2002 and then the reviewing court reversed them. So now they let it go, as they are required to.