Judy, thanks for the Gonzales remarks. He does make the FISA process sound prolonged and complicated. I wonder how long it really takes?
Notice he omitted giving any kind of concrete example, such as, "The FISA process may take a week, but the intelligence we're seeking may only be available for a few hours over the next 24." I wonder if he omitted metrics because he's a poor communicator, or he's obfuscating. I'm thinking both reasons apply. The other element of his rationale is, they may not have good-enough evidence to get a FISA warrant. What do they do in Britain? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <jpgillam@> > wrote: > > > > --- authfriend wrote: > > > > > > --- Gillam wrote: > > > > > > > > What do the Bushies have against getting a court > > > > order under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance > > > > Act? In all the kerfuffle, I've yet to hear why they > > > > don't want to follow the process already set up > > > > for such stuff. > > > > > > They claim it takes too long, but that's a crock; > > > they're explicitly allowed to wiretap without a > > > warrant for 48 hours (or is it 72?) exactly so > > > that getting a warrant won't impede an urgent > > > investigation. > > > > Does anybody here listen to Rush Limbaugh, watch > > Fox news or indulge in other conservative media? > > MDixon? Shemp? Do those news sources give a reason > > why the Bush administration doesn't want to follow > > the established system for wiretap warrants? > > Patrick, here it is from the horse's mouth, Attorney > General Alberto Gonzales, in a speech at Georgetown > University on January 24, 2006: > > ...I keep hearing, "Why not FISA? Why didn't the President get orders > from the FISA court approving these N.S.A. intercepts of al-Qaeda > communications?" We have to remember that we're talking about a > wartime foreign intelligence program. It is an early warning system > with only one purpose: to detect and prevent the next attack on the > United States from foreign agents hiding in our midst. It is > imperative for national security reasons that we can detect reliably, > immediately, and without delay whenever communications associated > with al-Qaeda enter or leave the United States. > > Now, some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so- > called emergency authorizations of surveillance for 72 hours without > a court order. I think that there is a serious misconception about > these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not > approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive > court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires me, the Attorney > General, to determine in advance that a FISA application for that > particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by > the court before an emergency authorization may be granted. And that > review process itself can take precious time. > > To initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is > not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers > alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the signoff of > lawyers at the N.S.A. that all provisions of FISA have been > satisfied. Then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be > similarly satisfied. And finally, as Attorney General, I would have > to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. And > then we would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA > application within the 72 hours. > > We all agree that there should be appropriate checks and balances on > our branches of government. The FISA process makes perfect sense in > almost all cases of foreign intelligence monitoring in the United > States. Although technology has changed dramatically since FISA was > enacted, FISA remains a vital tool in the war on terror and one that > we are using to its fullest and will continue to use against al-Qaeda > and other foreign threats. But as the President has explained, the > terrorist surveillance program operated by the N.S.A. requires a > maximum in speed and agility, since even a very short delay may make > the difference between success and failure in preventing the next > attack, and we cannot afford to fail. > > http://mwcnews.net/content/view/4071/26/ > > In other words: They don't want to have to worry > about whether there is sufficient justification > to initiate a wiretap. > > > > > > > I really need to get back to reading the Wall Street > > Journal. I felt the journalism was quite objective, > > perhaps a bit liberal, but the editorial page was a > > bracing dose of conservative Kool-Aid. > > > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
