Let me say first and foremost the FISA Court in my opinion, is an American Gestapo / KGB Control Office, they just call it a court.
It's absolutely against the Constitution to even HAVE the damned court. It violates between a third and half of the Bill of Rights, depending on what they do to whom. AND. it's completely and totally un-necessary. Most of the people being checked out for terror reasons, by FISA and Congressional admittance, are NOT citizens.
So, even IF they live here on a Green Card, they don't GET Bill of Rights Protections. If they are here sans card..Pick them up, lock them up, send them HOME. It would be cheaper to buy them plane tickets home, and have them delivered to American Diplomats in Whereverthef**kland, and then turn them loose in the than it is to have them here.
As to 'secretly' looking at Americans under this Court, that shit is ILLEGAL. And evidently, there is SOMEONE in the Congress who has suggested that, because the 'Judges' on the FISA Court are pushing back. But you gotta see their attitude about that, to see just how far down the Rabbit Hole we've fallen.
Speaking for the entire U.S. judiciary, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee saying that appointing an independent advocate to the secret surveillance court is unnecessary and possibly counterproductive, and he slammed other key reforms as adding too heavy a caseload to the secret court's work. In FISA court hearings, judges only hear from the government seeking a spy warrant.
So, he's a Judge, he had to be a lawyer first, so he at least read law books, which, to me, would mean that he's READ parts of the Constitution. Sadly, he seemingly missed the 5th and 6th Amendments. And if he approves TAKING anything from the accused's home or place of business, he missed the 4th Amendment TOO.
Sadder still, I haven't heard ONE word about this in ANY of the MSM. Do the idiots OF the media think they won't be investigated? Or are they SO sure that their Lib buddies will stay in power perpetually, that they're 'safe'?