9/11 Commission: FISA Court Too Slow

[hist2004]

9/11 Commission: FISA Court Too Slow

Monday, Jan. 30, 2006

Bush administration critics continue to insist that the president could have gotten all the wiretap authority he needed from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to intercept terrorist communications as they plotted the next 9/11 attack.

But it turns out, the 9/11 Commission strongly disagreed.

As noted on yesterday's "Meet the Press" by National Review Online reporter Byron York, 9/11 Commission Report clearly states:

"The FISA application process continues to be long and slow. Requests for approvals are overwhelming the ability of the system to process them and to conduct a surveillance.”

In a passage not noted by Mr. York, the Commission blasts the FISA process even more harshly, complaining:

"The 'wall' between criminal and intelligence investigations apparently caused agents to be less aggressive than they might otherwise have been in pursuing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance powers in counterterrorism investigations.

"Moreover, the FISA approval process involved multiple levels of review, which also discouraged agents from using such surveillance. Many agents also told us that the process for getting FISA packages approved at FBI Headquarters and the Department of Justice was incredibly lengthy and inefficient.

"Several FBI agents added that, prior to 9/11, FISA-derived intelligence information was not fully exploited but was collected primarily to justify continuing the surveillance."

Since the media generally regards the 9/11 Commission as the ultimate authority on such matters, we trust reporters will now stop insisting that the FISA process was wholly adequate to keep America safe from terrorists.

link to article (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/30/90457.shtml?s=icp)

Hist2004

[caridon]

so the correct response to court queues is for police to take the law in their own hands ?


Dont think so, you increase the funding for the court.

This is a red herring or anohter strike against the administration for not making proper funding available to the court.

/C

[HR24]

so the correct response to court queues is for police to take the law in their own hands ?


Dont think so, you increase the funding for the court.

This is a red herring or anohter strike against the administration for not making proper funding available to the court.

/C

I don't think it would be a question of funding, but a restructuring of the operational guidelines of FISA and streamlining the process in order to conform to the demands of ever-changing technology. Throwing money at a something that has procedural problems wouldn't work in my opinion.

[ogukuo72]

From my point of view, it is just insane to substitute the judgements of judges for the professionals. I mean, what does judges know about about security threats? Given the way lawyers and judges are trained to think and reason, they are not ideally based to grasp fast developing situations that carried a substantial amount of uncertainty and unknowns.

[Animosity]

I for one think we are making a mountain out of a mole hill, but I guess that's what the media and liberals like to do...this isn't the first time nor will it be the last time that national security needs come before the law when the law may compromise national security. It was about 145 years ago one of the countries greatest presidents said, "...are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken, if the government should be overthrown, when it was believed that disregarding the single law, would tend to preserve it...It was not believed that any law was violated. The provision of the Constitution that 'The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it,' is equivalent to a provision---is a provision---that such privilege may be suspended when, in cases of rebellion, or invasion, the public safety does require it. It was decided that we have a case of rebellion, and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made." - Abraham Lincoln's Message to Congress in Special Session, July 4, 1861.

I understand that in this case a law was overlooked for national security and it wasn't for a rebellion or invasion (unless you can interpret a US Citizen assisting or corroborating with an enemy of the United States or a foreign national plotting the death of Americans and the ultimate downfall of the USA as a "rebellion" or "invasion"). I seriously think that liberals are again overlooking the fact that this may be a useful tool in fighting a very elusive enemy for the sake of bashing George Bush.

Now this is my first post, and let me say that while being a middle of the road republican I am by no means a huge GW fan. I for one feel that rather than trying to pick something like this apart and find soemthing wrong with it, all Americans regardless of which party you support should be finding a way to make it work better...

[ElHombre]

From my point of view, it is just insane to substitute the judgements of judges for the professionals. I mean, what does judges know about about security threats? Given the way lawyers and judges are trained to think and reason, they are not ideally based to grasp fast developing situations that carried a substantial amount of uncertainty and unknowns.

which is why they set up the FISA court in the first place, these are no common judges but ones specifically picked that have a grasp of these matters.

i do note something interesting about the responses: all of them call for changing the system itself. none of them recommend the administration just ignore the law or ask congress to change it. i consider this a good sign. :)

[MakeWar87]

Honestly it is easier for police to get wire tap warrents on a state level than it is for federal agents on a fedral level. If you simply want to moniter a drug dealers phone calls its easy for a captain to call a court and act immediatly or atleast within a few days. As opposed to having to take it to a fisa where it goes through various levels first its just to slow technology is better than ever and the terrorist usally dont stick around to long. A drug isnt goin nowhere his buisness is with america. To moniter and prevent you have to act on real time. I dont know why there is so much critisiscm its not like the ordinary sally and johnny have to worry. None of this would of been a problem if the dumba** newspapers in dc didnt print stuff like this its complete sabatoge against the u.s on the war on terror. Why should the govt expose everything we do im sure people dont really want to know have the things nsa learns about terrorist.