> But what it wasn't was a power grab by the surveillance state.
Hmm. To me it looks like the supporters of a surveillance state did something clearly illegal for a few years, and once it started to come out they got the laws changed to legalize it, grant retroactive immunity, and prevent any meaningful oversight -- doing their best to prevent any real debate on it.
As part of changing the laws, intelligence officials have repeatedly failed to disclose key information, inflated the successes of these programs, and on at least some occasions lied to Congress. The chairs of the House and Senate Intelligence committees are strong supporters of the surveillance regimen, and have worked closely with the administrations throughout the years.
Would the 2008 FAA debate (which was pretty close -- 40+ votes for the Bingaman amendment) have come down differently if people knew the breadth of the phone and internet metadata tracking and definition of "relevant"?
I understand this point approximately well enough to determine that it's not relevant to any of my points. The FISA process operates under legislative authorization. The congressional motivation to create this dumb process is less relevant to me than what the process actually is. You say FISA is a power grab by NSA; I say FISA is an abrogation of congressional authority to regulate foreign surveillance. Both conclusions lead to the same place, so why bother arguing about it?
well the distinction is on one hand, if it were truly a power grab, one could hope that FISA would get overturned by congress at some point...
if congress just handed over jurisdiction and just washed there hands of the whole thing, then you can be pretty certain this will never be overturned until congress has a major shakeup...
I personally am in the camp that believes congress washed their hands of this matter long ago
> To me it looks like the supporters of a surveillance state did something clearly illegal for a few years, and once it started to come out they got the laws changed to legalize it,
True. And the PSP starting in 2001 was an explicit end run around FISC. Starting in 2004 FISC got involved but there were continued concerns about the legal basis ... so the FISA Amendments Act made it legal.
Hmm. To me it looks like the supporters of a surveillance state did something clearly illegal for a few years, and once it started to come out they got the laws changed to legalize it, grant retroactive immunity, and prevent any meaningful oversight -- doing their best to prevent any real debate on it.
As part of changing the laws, intelligence officials have repeatedly failed to disclose key information, inflated the successes of these programs, and on at least some occasions lied to Congress. The chairs of the House and Senate Intelligence committees are strong supporters of the surveillance regimen, and have worked closely with the administrations throughout the years.
Would the 2008 FAA debate (which was pretty close -- 40+ votes for the Bingaman amendment) have come down differently if people knew the breadth of the phone and internet metadata tracking and definition of "relevant"?
So it looks like a power grab to me ...