Comment Re:Less than originally expected (Score 1) 418
I think you may be overlooking the real reason why this is important.
I have no problem with the government screening American's phone calls, e-mail, or other communications to a foreign country. But every president since the FISA Act was passed in 1978 was required to submit information as to who was being tracked and a polite bit of evidence as to why. This president ignored that act.
By ignoring the FISA Act the president removed the minor bit of oversight that existed; the only legal body that could verify that the president was doing what he said he was doing, and that it was within the law. The secret FISA court very rarely rejected any request previous administrations have submitted, so ignoring this court seems strange and leads to the following two conclusions:
1. The administration is preforming data mining on a massive scale, and it is infeasible to submit requests for each communication individually.
2. The administration is doing something legally questionable, which it didn't want the court to see.
While congress has been "briefed" on the program, it has not been "informed". Briefings have a tendency to gloss over details and use generalizations. My gut reaction is that the administration is mainly data mining, and from their reluctance to just say that it implies that there are more Americans being data mined than they are letting on. (If more Americans weren't being tracked, this administration would have just lumped this new tool into the Patriot Act.)
I'd like to believe what the administration is saying, but their track record for trust is highly tarnished and we need some oversight on this one.
I have no problem with the government screening American's phone calls, e-mail, or other communications to a foreign country. But every president since the FISA Act was passed in 1978 was required to submit information as to who was being tracked and a polite bit of evidence as to why. This president ignored that act.
By ignoring the FISA Act the president removed the minor bit of oversight that existed; the only legal body that could verify that the president was doing what he said he was doing, and that it was within the law. The secret FISA court very rarely rejected any request previous administrations have submitted, so ignoring this court seems strange and leads to the following two conclusions:
1. The administration is preforming data mining on a massive scale, and it is infeasible to submit requests for each communication individually.
2. The administration is doing something legally questionable, which it didn't want the court to see.
While congress has been "briefed" on the program, it has not been "informed". Briefings have a tendency to gloss over details and use generalizations. My gut reaction is that the administration is mainly data mining, and from their reluctance to just say that it implies that there are more Americans being data mined than they are letting on. (If more Americans weren't being tracked, this administration would have just lumped this new tool into the Patriot Act.)
I'd like to believe what the administration is saying, but their track record for trust is highly tarnished and we need some oversight on this one.
