Posted on 01/21/2006 11:48:37 AM PST by wildbill
BUMP!
FISA is a red light. Red lights are good for one thingL keeping traffic from moving. If you want to keep traffic moving, you need a traffic cop.
I'd bump it to the top if I had the authority and knew how to do it. This is important stuff from a lady who helped write the legislation.
Your numbers are outdated. Do you have a source?
Another FReeper posted the year by year stats. I don't remember who did it or on what thread, but they were the same. Instead I will refer you to the December 19th press conference.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.You will notice that the President:Getting back to the domestic spying issue for a moment, according to FISA's own records, it's received nearly 19,000 requests for wiretaps or search warrants since 1979, rejected just five of them. It also operates in secret, so security shouldn't be a concern. And it can be applied retroactively.
Given such a powerful tool of law enforcement is at your disposal, sir, why did you see fit to sidetrack that process?
BUSH: We used the process to monitor.
But also, this is a different era, different war. It's a war where people are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent.
BUSH: I keep saying that. But this is -- it requires quick action.
And without revealing the operating details of our program, I just want to assure the American people that, one, I've got the authority to do this; two, it is a necessary part of my job to protect you; and three, we're guarding your civil liberties.
And we're guarding the civil liberties by monitoring the program on a regular basis, by having the folks at NASA (sic), the legal team as well as the inspector general, monitor the program, and we're briefing Congress.
This is a part of our effort to protect the American people.
American people expect us to protect them and protect their civil liberties. I'm going to do that. That's my job, and I'm going to continue doing my job.
A. Did not dispute the numbers
B. Did not answer the question
Also note his non-answer here:
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.If you believe that present law needs to be faster, more agile, concerning the surveillance of conversations from someone in the United States to somewhere outside the country, why, in the four years since 9/11, has your administration not sought to get changes in the law instead of bypassing it, as some of your critics have said?
BUSH: I appreciate that.
First, I want to make it clear to the people listening that this program is limited in nature to those that are known Al Qaida ties and/or affiliates.
BUSH: That's important. So it's a program that's limited.
And you brought up something that I want to stress, and that is is that these calls are not intercepted within the country, they are from outside the country to in the country or vice versa. So in other words, if you're calling from Houston to L.A., that call is not monitored. And if there was ever any need to monitor, there would be a process to do that.
I think I've got the authority to move forward. I mean, this is what -- and the attorney general was out briefing this morning about why it's legal to make the decisions I make.
I can fully understand why members of Congress are expressing concerns about civil liberties. I know that. And I share the same concerns.
I want to make sure the American people understand, however, that we have an obligation to protect you, and we're doing that and at the time protecting your civil liberties.
BUSH: Secondly, an open debate about law would say to the enemy, "Here's what we're going to do." And this is an enemy which adjusts.
We monitor this program carefully. We have consulted with members of the Congress over a dozen times. We are constantly reviewing the program. Those of us who review the program have a duty to uphold the laws of the United States. And we take that duty very seriously.
Actually I didn't go through the thread before posting my response to you. Someone posted the numbers upthread and they confirm those I gave.
According to everything I've seen, the reason they are virtually always granted is because the standards for granting a request are so low. It is much lower than getting a warrant for ordinary criminal activity.
JTN, one crucial thing that you have not noted is that the number of rejections by the FISA court commonly quoted in the media do not include those cases which the prosecutors did not have enough evidence to even fill out the paperwork on. In other words, even though the standards for granting a request is low, in a lot of data-mining operations, it may become difficult to meet even that low standard.
For example, you may not know the real name of an operative, or his address, or whereabouts, or phone numbers. So there is nothing available to fill out the standard FISA form. The FISA cannot grant a request to spy on a "non-existent" person. But this is precisely the types of situations encountered in a data mining operation.
Hence, going to FISA, or any other entity which requires any kind of information for a warrant, is useless.
Besides, they don't need a warrant to intercept a foreign call--but what are they supposed to do if they have Osama on the line and he calls a cell in New York?
Hang up and hope they can get a warrant prepared in time to protect the country?
My take on this is that as long as the call is international--and falls within the parameters of probable cause established by the government in consultation with Congress, eavesdropping is OK.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.