TIME.com: A Better Way to Eavesdrop? -- Page 1

TIME.com: A Better Way to Eavesdrop? -- Page 1: "Exactly how should the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the Justice Department to obtain a warrant from a special FISA court before wiretapping anyone in the U.S., be updated to give the NSA more flexibility in spying on suspected terrorists?"

Either they don't get it, or more likely they don't want to and would rather continue working around the edges so that people continue to get the wrong impression. Simply put, though certainly not in its entirety, FISA requires a warrant if either, "'(a) one party to the call is in the United States and the interception takes place here or (b) the party on the U.S. side of the conversation is a "U.S person"--primarily either a citizen or a permanent resident. If both parties are in the United States, no warrant can be issued; interception is prohibited,'" according to Richard Posner's article. Not hugely different than what Time is quoted above saying, yet different nontheless.

The MSM needs to be honest about this so the American people can understand what this is truly all about. To fix various issues that the media misrepresents may fix the misrepresented issue; but then that isn't the true issue that is fixed is it?