Go read the bill, stop letting others think for you.
The person that wrote that article has no clue about the structure of sentences and the fact that the language of the bill speaks for itself.
`(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--
`(i) authorized by the President; and
`(ii) determined to be lawful; or
`(5) the person did not provide the alleged assistance.
AND DETERMINED TO BE LAWFUL - gosh that leaves it up to the courts to determine whether or not it was lawful, it means reviews are to be perfunctory as the certification may be granted by the AG but the court will, on its own or at the request of the plaintiffs, be asked to determine if the action was legal.
If you know that writer tell him to go study some civil liberty lawsuits against governmental agencies and/or employees. He will see how wrong he is if he bothered to do that.
Oh, and to further debunk his take on the legislation, he misses what this legislation does provide - it provides that no information is too sensitive, that no information can be kept from the court to assist it in making a determination if the monitoring and/or targeting is legal. The government cannot hide behind state secrets.
Shame the guy didn't actually read to understand rather than read to criticize.
