Has anyone seen the Fourth Amendment?

In 1791, the US Constitution received some important additions. I'd like to give special thanks to James Madison and then draw attention to Amendment IV.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Umm... How is bill S.1927 for the 110th Congress legal? And who is the shameless whelp that came up with the name 'Protect America Act of 2007'? I see that Mitch McConnell was the chief sponsor. I suppose that should comes as no surprise because he is also the member of Congress I most want to fist fight. I can't really explain the impulse; he just makes me angry. But I digress...

Back to the bill. It happens quickly under the innocuous and, indeed, well-meaning heading 'CLARIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES' Sec. 105A. states:

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.

So that's it? The Fourth Amendment is kinda cool and all, but if the surveillance is "...directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." then we'll just forget about it.

Is anyone else concerned by the fact that directed at is not further defined? Perhaps I'm being paranoid here, but am I being paranoid ENOUGH?

OK, OK, so I'm bitching and moaning here; what exactly DO I want? Well, let me stipulate that I recognize the "surveillance gap" which has emerged due to changing communication technologies, etc... Further, in spite of what various flavors of Republican hysteria on the topic would have you believe, I don't want al-Qaida to attack the US. But I would feel much better which the alternative Democratic bill. More to the point, I think the Fourth Amendment would feel better due to the explicit provisions against domestic surveillance: communications of a U.S. citizen in the United States and communications in which all participants are in the United States would specifically be excluded. I wonder... Why would these be objectionable?

To be fair to the Republicans, the Democrats also came up with a ridiculous name for their bill: "Improving Foreign Intelligence Surveillance to Defend the Nation and Constitution Act of 2007".