What if the administration wanted to leave the impression that the laws were such that terrorists could call US citizens without fear of tapping.
What if the Bush wanted terrorists to keep their guard down?
Such a policy disclosure would amount to disclosing methods.
FISA says international calls are fair game, or more narrowly, where one end of the call is "Abdul, out of the USA."
What if the Bush wanted terrorists to keep their guard down?
I'm sure that's the case.
Such a policy disclosure would amount to disclosing methods.
Then the FISA statute itself amounts to disclosing methods, because it sets forth policy boundaries.
At some point, I think it is useful to have some rhetoric available to distinguish the range of acceptable uses (policy) from the way those uses would be accomplished (technology) and any specific intelligence obtained thereby. I inserted the word "policy" in order to facilitate that sort of differentiation. The policy under FISA is to limit warrantless surveillance targeting "United States persons" in a specific way. I hold that saying "there is surveillance outside of the FISA bondary" does not amount to disclosing a method.
If saying "there is surveillance outside of FISA boundaries" amount to a violation of law, color me guilty.