Replies

First, times and perspectives change - while the wheels of justice tend to turn slow and fine, they may have become more relaxed and swift in light of the stakes of terrorism. Second, the interpretation of the law was changed radically by the FISA review Court in 2002. Third, investigators tend to perceive any type of requirement for justification to be an unnecessary burden - it's perfectly natural for them to have that point of view.

From listening to the caller, it was my impression that he knew that the "process" for getting a warrant is still riddled with red tape. I'd like to know how much of that red tape has been removed in order to get the actual request moved through the bureaucracy. The guy's main complaint was that he was expected to "make the entire case" BEFORE a request could be moved through the process. He was frustrated that linking suspicions based on intelligence wasn't good enough.

From the article: After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never before.

This is what bothers me and perfectly explains why Bush decided to sidestep a process that has obviously become politicized by a secret court.

The guy's main complaint was that he was expected to "make the entire case" BEFORE a request could be moved through the process.

Understood. The 4th amendment is a substantial barrier to unfettered investigation. He doesn't have to make the case, but he does have to convince a judge of soemthing that resembles probable cause.

He was frustrated that linking suspicions based on intelligence wasn't good enough.

Also understood. But I think it's NECESSARY to have the specific fact pattern that the "linking suspicions based on intelligence" phrase actually represents, before one can engage in reasoned arguments about whether or not his objection is reasonable.

My jaundiced eye is pretty evenly cast - I think the DEMs are lying, and I also think the administration is (probably reasonably, but I don't know) hiding the scope of surveillance.

The reports indicate a small number of denials - unless one is to take a modification as a denial.

This is what bothers me and perfectly explains why Bush decided to sidestep a process that has obviously become politicized by a secret court.

I noted above (previous post, days ago) that red tape and manpower necessary to feed it is a possible justification for sidestepping.

Your assertion that the FISA Court has politicized the process is a common allegation. I don't share it because there is no evidence to support it. The Court may be mired in bureacracy, or it may be looking out to uphold the Constitution as it pertains to the 4th amendment, as the court sees it. I noticed in one case that the FISA Court expanded the scope of surveillance beyond what the investigator requested, which makes me think they aren't as one-sided as the investigators would hold.

From listening to the caller, it was my impression that he knew that the "process" for getting a warrant is still riddled with red tape.

One more thought, based on my reading of source materials. THe "red tape" you talk of may be outside of the FISA Court. It may be that the administration hamstrung itself, as Clinton's did with the Gorelick Wall. To the investigator, red tape is red tape - and nobody blames their own guys for putting it in place.

And I too would like to know how much of that red tape is in place, where it is (that is, which department erected it), and the reasoning behind it.