CIA chief says warrants ill-suited for al Qaeda hunt

[Ron Burgundy]

CIA chief says warrants ill-suited for al Qaeda hunt (Reuters)

Reuters - CIA Director Michael Hayden told senators on Wednesday that the requirement of court orders to carry out electronic surveillance inside the United States was ill-suited for tracking al Qaeda and other militant groups.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
CIA Director Michael Hayden told senators on Wednesday that the requirement of court orders to carry out electronic surveillance inside the United States was ill-suited for tracking al Qaeda and other militant groups.
ADVERTISEMENT

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the intelligence official who crafted
President George W. Bush's domestic spying program also said international phone calls targeted by warrantless surveillance are the most valuable to protecting national security.

"Why should our laws make it more difficult to target al Qaeda communications that are most important to us -- those entering or leaving this country," said Hayden, an Air Force general who set up the administration's eavesdropping program in 2001 as director of the National Security Agency.

Congress is debating how to accommodate the legally questionable NSA eavesdropping program by changing the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.

FISA requires individual court warrants for all intelligence-related eavesdropping in the United States.

But the NSA program, which began shortly after the September 11 attacks and was disclosed in December by The New York Times, allows the government to eavesdrop on the international phone calls and emails of U.S. citizens without first obtaining a warrant, if in pursuit of al Qaeda.

The CIA director backed compromise legislation between the White House and Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania that would allow a secret FISA court to review the NSA program to determine its legality.

Critics say the proposal would allow FISA judges to move away from individual warrants, a keystone of U.S. civil liberties protections, by granting blanket approval to entire eavesdropping programs.

Hayden said the compromise proposal would provide effective new criteria for government surveillance efforts.

"The FISA regime from 1978 onward focused on specific court orders, against individual targets ... that was well suited to stable, foreign entities," Hayden said.

"It is not as well suited to detect and prevent attacks against the homeland," he added.

He also urged lawmakers to provide protection for private sector telecommunications companies that participate in government eavesdropping.

Specter and other lawmakers have questioned the legality of the eavesdropping program, saying it appears to violate FISA and may overstep Bush's constitutional authorities as commander in chief.

Bush has defended the program, saying he had the power in war time to protect the nation.

Last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Specter's committee that Bush blocked a Justice Department investigation of the NSA program.

Gonzales said the president refused to give the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility access to the classified program. The office announced in May it was unable to conduct an investigation into the role department lawyers had in developing the eavesdropping program.

[ballz2wallz]

well that was obvious

[Scrum]

[Donkey®]

I guess we should change it so he's happy!?!?!?

[Scrum]

And having to put people on trial for their crimes is a real pain.

We should just eliminate that as well and just toss them in jail.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I guess we should change it so he's happy!?!?!?

laws change all the time, what's the difference?

[thomez]

wow, what a shame

those damn laws really get in the way

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by thomez

wow, what a shame

those damn laws really get in the way

It's too bad there isn't some process to get laws changed.

[motivez]

What we have here is a false choice presented by the Administration.

Of course we don't want it to be "harder to go after Al Qaeda", what we want is to ensure that Americans are protected in the ways they are guarenteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If they know for a fact that they are going after Al Qaeda operatives, it should be no problem to present clear evidence in a secret court for judicial review. They can do it retroactively, so they are most definitely NOT in a situation where it's "tap this phone now without a warrant or we lose him"..

Requiring warrants protects Americans, and insulates the Government / telecom companies from lawsuits if they accidently go after an innocent American.

[ballz2wallz]

http://libertylounge.net/forums/showthread.php?t=382

[motivez]

As long as they require warrants, I'm all for it. I don't think anyone really has an issue with them using surveillence to go after suspected Al Qaeda members, however they need to do so legally.. which they have not been.

I'm still in for impeachment once the Democrats take back Congress.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

As long as they require warrants, I'm all for it.

sometimes the reason for making laws decades ago may not be relevant now

[motivez]

Then change the laws. Unfortunately we are a nation of laws, and they apply to the President on down. He isn't allowed to break the law, or decide which parts he wants to ignore. He's not a King. He executes the laws, he doesn't write or interpret them. We have other branches for that.

Simply because a law is outdated doesn't mean it is no longer valid. If changes are needed, the way to go about it is to get the change needed to keep it relevant and then use current technological tools to the fullest extent of the law.

And the Bush Administration knows this full well, because, and perhaps people are unaware, they Administration requested (and recieved) changes to FISA from Congress several times.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Then change the laws. Unfortunately we are a nation of laws, and they apply to the President on down. He isn't allowed to break the law, or decide which parts he wants to ignore. He's not a King. He executes the laws, he doesn't write or interpret them. We have other branches for that.

Simply because a law is outdated doesn't mean it is no longer valid. If changes are needed, the way to go about it is to get the change needed to keep it relevant and then use current technological tools to the fullest extent of the law.

And the Bush Administration knows this full well, because, and perhaps people are unaware, they Administration requested (and recieved) changes to FISA from Congress several times.

and they ARE changing them.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

and they ARE changing them.

I sure as hell don't see a constitutional amendment in this thread?

[motivez]

Yeah, how many years have they been breaking the law until now though?

They still need to be held accountable for breaking the law. Impeachment is the solution to that.

I find it hilarious, sad, and pathetic all at the same time that the party that proclaims itself the patriotic one isn't willing to fufill it's obligations when it comes to things like this.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, how many years have they been breaking the law until now though?

They still need to be held accountable for breaking the law. Impeachment is the solution to that.

I find it hilarious, sad, and pathetic all at the same time that the party that proclaims itself the patriotic one isn't willing to fufill it's obligations when it comes to things like this.

I find it infuriating and disappointing that the party that I grew up respecting and assuming that they cared about the Constitution is the one pissing on it.

Not to say both sides don't do this - Democrats just do it with guns - but @ them anyway

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I sure as hell don't see a constitutional amendment in this thread?

present tense

[WickedLou9]

according to the laws of FISA, they can already get retro-active warrants. That means that they can wire tap as soon as they need to. right away.. provided that they go afterwards and lay out thier case and get the approval.


So I guess instantly isn't fast enough huh?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, how many years have they been breaking the law until now though?

They still need to be held accountable for breaking the law. Impeachment is the solution to that.

I find it hilarious, sad, and pathetic all at the same time that the party that proclaims itself the patriotic one isn't willing to fufill it's obligations when it comes to things like this.

i guess when the judge, and not motivez, says they've broken the law, then due diligence will be given.