Via Drudge:

Spy agency can snoop without warrant…

… Keep data collected ‘inadvertently’

Lawyers eye for evidence in murder, divorce cases…

CLAIM: Top judges, generals, politicians wiretapped…

Judge’s one-paragraph order governs mass collection…

REPORT: SKYPE helped gov’t access customer data…

McConnell: Attack on free speech…

Govt to map your ‘every move’…

The Guardian released more documents today on NSA surveilance procedures in the United States.

Fisa court submissions show broad scope of procedures governing NSA’s surveillance of Americans’ communication.

Top secret documents submitted to the court that oversees surveillance by US intelligence agencies show the judges have signed off on broad orders which allow the NSA to make use of information “inadvertently” collected from domestic US communications without a warrant.

TRENDING: Wray Claims "White Supremacists" Make Up the Largest Share of Racially Motivated Terrorists in the US as BLM Burns Businesses to the Ground (VIDEO)

The Guardian is publishing in full two documents submitted to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (known as the Fisa court), signed by Attorney General Eric Holder and stamped 29 July 2009. They detail the procedures the NSA is required to follow to target “non-US persons” under its foreign intelligence powers and what the agency does to minimize data collected on US citizens and residents in the course of that surveillance.

The documents show that even under authorities governing the collection of foreign intelligence from foreign targets, US communications can still be collected, retained and used.

The procedures cover only part of the NSA’s surveillance of domestic US communications. The bulk collection of domestic call records, as first revealed by the Guardian earlier this month, takes place under rolling court orders issued on the basis of a legal interpretation of a different authority, section 215 of the Patriot Act.

The Fisa court’s oversight role has been referenced many times by Barack Obama and senior intelligence officials as they have sought to reassure the public about surveillance, but the procedures approved by the court have never before been publicly disclosed.