By the way, when you say "monitored" you don't define what that means.
If you are making outbound calls to international numbers, and those connections (not content) are captured by the NSA downlink in the U.K., that seems to be fully within its legal scope.
But I also think a FISA warrant would be issued against your telephone calls in very short order thereafter.
I mean that the contents are recorded and transcribed for analysis and possible action, up to and including use of force against me in order to protect the public.
If you are making outbound calls to international numbers, and those connections (not content) are captured by the NSA downlink in the U.K., that seems to be fully within its legal scope.
My understaning is that mechanical capture of the contents is constitutional, and that "issues" arise if I become the target of filtering what has already been captured. The result of filtering is my communications, which can then be analyzed by a human for consideration of further action.
But I also think a FISA warrant would be issued against your telephone calls in very short order thereafter.
I think the nature of the issue is the grounds for issuance of a warrant, or that the time required does not permit the wide, rapid-response monitoring that the government feels is prodent and reasonable to prevent terrorist violence. No doubt, in some cases (fact pattern specific, having other evidence, no clear urgency, etc.) FISA warrants are obtained. But there would be no NSA "issue" if citizens were not subjected to warrantless monitoring.