Again, what the executive does is sometimes classified. This includes foreign surveillance by the very definition of national security. The U.S. having a FISC a

Again, what the executive does is sometimes classified. This includes foreign surveillance by the very definition of national security. The U.S. having a FISC at all is unusual compared to the standards of other nations, where foreign surveillance may very well be done completely at the whim of the executive. We should push for improvements to the oversight process, but I can envision no such feasible improvement that would allow the public to see exactly what the government is doing (since then Russia, AQ, etc. would also know by definition) so at some point you're going to have a trust a third-party. The safe and conservative option is to assume that the executive is doing literally anything permitted by the public law without the aid of 'activist judges' (as the GOP would say) on your side of the argument. This is exactly why it is so important to be judicious in crafting legislation, as the judges will operate by what's in the written law not contrary to the Constitution when the law is clear. They only start worrying about "what the legislators meant" when the law is fuzzy. That's also why it is important to quickly get a legal framework around foreign surveillance that includes recognition of the fact that the Internet is global while the Fourth Amendment is domestic. MUSCULAR is a pretty shocking breach of what we all understand the Fourth Amendment to mean, but I guarantee that it's technically legal. It shouldn't be, but the Fourth Amendment has long been known to effectively not apply at all outside of CONUS.