I know that you're with us in opposing HR 5825, the Electronic Surveillance
Modernization Act.  Though this latest version of the surveillance bill is
being spun as a "compromise," its proposals remain a radical and unwarranted
(in both a literal and a figurative sense) invasion of privacy.  By
paradoxically redefining broad categories of electronic surveillance as not
being "electronic surveillance," this bill would exclude a great deal of
domestic wiretapping from the purview of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act (FISA).  FISA exists for a reason and should not be so lightly
circumvented.

In addition, HR 5825 would authorise broad categories of warrantless domestic
searches in the event of an "armed attack against the territory of the United
States" -- without defining what exactly would constitute an "armed attack."
For example, would an attack against a US embassy count?  What about an
unorganised attack by a single assailant?  This gaping loophole could be
construed to permit an ongoing state of effective suspension of the Fourth
Amendment.

Similarly, HR 5825 would allow the attorney general, without review, to
authorise renewable sixty-day periods of warrantless surveillance if the
president determines and notifies the congressional intelligence committees
that there exists "an imminent threat of attack likely to cause death, serious
injury, or substantial economic damage to the United States."  Rhetoric from
the current president has never ceased to mention such an imminent threat, and
under such a circumstance of allegedly constant "imminent" threat, HR 5825
would permit a constant state of warrantless surveillance.

For all these reasons, HR 5825 is a horrid idea.