[Cboldt]

I generally would prefer the use of the FISA court...but I see some problems that I don't think have been fully addressed just yet.

It's jurisdiction is limited to issuing of warrants according to a rigid formula. I am quite sure there is an area of executive action that is easily within the constitution, and outside of FISA, and in particular point to the 1802 as not including 1801(a)(4) actors in its scope.

if I take my investigation of a suspected terrorist to the court, and that court determines that my evidence does not meet with their approval...the suspect gets notified.

I checked that, and agree that it represents a risk. I don't now how big the risk is in practice. Note too, the notification takes place ONLY if surveillance has taken place - so the risk is an impediment to getting warrants in that 72 hour after the fact window. It isn't a blanket impediment.

I'll have to take a look at your FISA court postings.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1578052/posts?page=37#37 <- FISA Genesis

[P-40]

It's jurisdiction is limited to issuing of warrants according to a rigid formula.

The "Inherent Powers" area seems to be the biggest headache as well as the various "War Powers" issues. I listened to all of the talk on 50 USC 413b, and of course 413aa and 413bb, and then *I* got a headache.

the notification takes place ONLY if surveillance has taken place

That issue seems to get muddy when you have a possible criminal investigation that you have done some surveillance for and you want to go to the FISA court for an intelligence investigation and the worry is that the court will turn down the intelligence angle but notify based on the criminal angle. Where is the aspirin...