In the New York Times today Phillip Bobbit wrote an opinion piece about the new warrantless wiretap law.

Excepted from: The Warrantless Debate Over Wiretapping

By PHILIP BOBBITT

New York Times

August 22, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/opinion/22bobbitt.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

“Furthermore, there is an unstated assumption that warrantless surveillance is lawless surveillance. There is, however, judicial precedent for warrantless searches, even if you can’t tell this from the public debate. The president of the American Bar Association objected to the new statute by sarcastically observing, “The last time I checked, the Fourth Amendment is still in the Bill of Rights,” which he doubtless believed to be a withering salvo.

In fact, there are many instances in which warrantless surveillance has been held to be permissible under the Fourth Amendment. Searches in public schools require neither warrants nor a showing of probable cause. Government offices can be searched for evidence of work-related misconduct without warrants. So can searches conducted at the border, or searches undertaken as a condition of parole. Searches have been upheld in the absence of a warrant where there is no legitimate expectation of privacy. The Clinton administration conducted a warrantless search — lawfully — when it was trying to determine what the spy Aldrich Ames was up to. The day after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt authorized the interception of all communications traffic into and out of the United States.”

This is the legal mumbo jumbo from ‘The PROTECT AMERICA Act”:

“Sec. 105A. Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.”

It basically does away for the need for a warrant when the communication is “directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States”.  Perfectly clear in its implications, no need for debate.  Any call or email made by a U.S. citizen that is directed at (however that is interpreted) a person outside the U.S. can be intercepted by the administration with no court oversight.  The debate is unwarranted according to Mr. Bobbitt.

His argument above is that we have found other instances when we won’t require a warrant: minors on school property, convicted criminals who are just not in jail at the moment, or when there is no expectation of privacy anyway.  So why worry.  We’ll just add to that list any communication that crosses the border.  Minor touch up, go about your business.