So I actually read the "Protect America Act" today

From the text of the signed legislation:

To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence information and for other purposes.

As far as purpose goes, the act makes no mention of domestic spying (I'll get to that later). But why, after almost 30 years, did the US find a sudden need to explicitly provide for the monitoring of foreign-based communications? The explanation has often been condensed into typical partisan accusations ("monger" and "fascist" are quite popular), but the real justification is both reasonable and nonpartisan. Mostly.

FISA was originally put into place so that the government would be accountable while gathering intelligence (see: watergate). Without a court order, intelligence services were allowed to monitor the electronic communications of all foreign persons of interest, so long as a US person was not a party. In early 2007, a FISA court enhanced its own jurisdiction, by declaring that any communications passing through the US became domestic communications, and thus any monitoring of them required a court order. From a Washington Post article on the matter:

The judge, whose name could not be learned, concluded early this year that the government had overstepped its authority in attempting to broadly surveil communications between two locations overseas that are passed through routing stations in the United States.

That's right, after almost 30 years of settled practice, the government was forced to adapt its ways because spying on foreign-foreign communications was now considered domestic wiretapping under FISA, and thus required a court order. This ruling prompted a congressional effort to pass legislation clarifying FISA, and the text of the Protect America Act (PAA) clearly shows this intent.

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.

This all sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it? The main objection to the Act is actually sincere and relevant, but grossly overblown. Put simply, the act provides no safeguard against monitoring of calls to US residents. While no US resident can be the target of investigation, the government can listen in on calls from foreign targets to domestic recipients. This is an obvious problem, as anyone who has skimmed our Bill of Rights could clearly see.

All mongering aside, though, we are less safe without the PAA. We are currently unable to monitor foreign-foreign communications without affording our targets due process of the FISA courts. This is an alarming and dramatic expansion of the jurisdiction of our court system, and a restriction that will hinder our intelligence-gathering capabilities. I don't care what threat color we have, or how many sensationalists attempt to declare us "just as safe without it" or "on the eve of annihilation." Neither is true.

It is not so simple to say that the PAA should be extended, as it is in clear need of amendment. A good court case is needed to challenge some of the constitutional issues, and force congress to revise the bill and protect domestic communications since they aren't willing to do it themselves(the retroactive immunity provisions will hinder this process). I'm personally not all that interested in the partisan compromise that will be necessary. In my eyes, the clarifications of the PAA are absolutely necessary to our national security, but should protect the rights afforded US persons by our Constitution.