Spooks are spooky...
Feb. 5th, 2006 10:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nowalmartFrom http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/05/nsa.gonzales/:
Meanwhile, Deputy Director of National Intelligence Gen. Michael Hayden defended the program.
..snip..
Under the law, if the NSA seeks a warrant from the FISA court, it can begin monitoring communications and has 72 hours to seek that warrant. But, Hayden said, it would actually take longer to begin surveillance because the NSA must still wait for the attorney general's review.
"The AG [Attorney General] has to feel as if he's got the evidence in front of him, that if he handed it to the court at that moment, he would get a yes ... and it does take time. The emergency FISA process isn't that the folks at NSA can just go do what they want and have a 72-hour hall pass. It's not that way at all."
So if the AG does not see enough evidence to go before the FISA court, who is making the decision that we have any evidence at all to start surveillance? I mean, is there any oversight at all going on here? Realize that the FISA court is one that has rejected about 4 requests for secret surveillance warrants in about 30 years. Out of something like 19,000 requests.
mode="sarcasm"
There is obviously a high burden of proof going on here to play legally!
/sarcasm
Meanwhile, Deputy Director of National Intelligence Gen. Michael Hayden defended the program.
..snip..
Under the law, if the NSA seeks a warrant from the FISA court, it can begin monitoring communications and has 72 hours to seek that warrant. But, Hayden said, it would actually take longer to begin surveillance because the NSA must still wait for the attorney general's review.
"The AG [Attorney General] has to feel as if he's got the evidence in front of him, that if he handed it to the court at that moment, he would get a yes ... and it does take time. The emergency FISA process isn't that the folks at NSA can just go do what they want and have a 72-hour hall pass. It's not that way at all."
So if the AG does not see enough evidence to go before the FISA court, who is making the decision that we have any evidence at all to start surveillance? I mean, is there any oversight at all going on here? Realize that the FISA court is one that has rejected about 4 requests for secret surveillance warrants in about 30 years. Out of something like 19,000 requests.
mode="sarcasm"
There is obviously a high burden of proof going on here to play legally!
/sarcasm
