And there you have it...

This is what happened:

The 227 to 183 House vote capped a high-pressure campaign by the White House to change the nation's wiretap law, in which the administration capitalized on Democrats' fears of being branded weak on terrorism and on a general congressional desire to act on the measure before an August recess.

Here are the details:

The bill would give the National Security Agency the right to collect such communications in the future without a warrant. But it goes further than that: It also would allow the interception and recording of electronic communications involving, at least in part, people "reasonably believed to be outside the United States" without a court's order or oversight.

[snip]

In a sole substantial concession to Democrats, the administration agreed to a provision allowing the legislation to be reconsidered in six months.

[snip]

Under the administration's version of the bill, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general can authorize the surveillance of all communications involving foreign targets. Oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, composed of federal judges whose deliberations are secret, would be limited to examining whether the government's guidelines for targeting overseas suspects are appropriate. The court would not authorize the surveillance.

But, wait, if a significant number of calls from somewhere else are routed through the US, isn't it at least possible that some domestic calls are routed through other countries? If true, can't basically all calls, emails, web-postings, etc. be monitored without a warrant?

Even if this isn't true, we are now entirely dependent on assurances from the executive--and if history shows anything, it shows them to be trustworthy--that the "reasonably believed to be outside the United States" clause will not be abused. But, we don't just have to trust the executive, but two guys in particular: Alberto Gonzales, who can't tell the truth even when he's trying and the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, who, if Democrats are to be believe--a big if, I admit, given their (triumphant?) return to their pre-Iraq blind adherence to "OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF"--just pulled the rug out from under the Senate Democrats who thought they had a deal, which would have at least given the secret FISA court a role more significant than listening to stories from AG and MM.

When the original warrantless surveillance program was revealed, one FISA judge resigned in protest. Hopefully, there will at least be some symbolic protest here.

Just in case it still matters, here's the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.