What if they glean info which is urgent and necessary to fight terrorists, and then go to the FISA court, who then denies them access to the info. Do they just forget about it?
Just a possible scenario.
Also a question, none of this would be allowed to be used in court if there wasn't a warrant for the info, right?
Just a possible scenario.
Not "Just a possible scenario." You've really gone right to the very deep heart of the whole issue. The answer is that the President can't just forget about it, because the Constitution gives him the responsibility and authority to protect the country. Forcing the President to comply with a FISA ruling in this very situation puts FISA in charge of the defense of the country. Your example is the nightmare scenario for a President operating under FISA rules instead of the Constitution, a nightmare that might shortly thereafter be shared by the American people.
* added by poster
Actually, FISA almost always approves the requests. Since 1979 there have been 19,000 FISA requests for warrants or wiretaps, and in that time only 5 have been denied. It's a rubber stamp.
Well the point that I've heard people try to make is that they can act as long as they go to the court afterwards. I would think that there however needs to be some blanket provision otherwise there would be hundreds or thousands of these wireless calls coming into the US that paperwork would have to be filed. The old FISA law should be re-examined.
Correct...superficially. Inasmuch as the evidence is more likely to be used to target an assassination or a foreign capture than in court.
But, should it come to that, the evidence would be allowed in court. The 4th amendment does not protect an American citizen (or resident) who is complicit in an act of treason. In that case, their rights of citizenship (and, thus, 4th amendment protection) are forfeit.
But, if the charge was a garden variety felony (drug-dealing, e.g.), the evidence would be disallowed.