“This is hot pursuit of communications entering or leaving America involving someone we believe is associated with al Qaeda”
After the Sept. 11 attacks, no communications were more important to track for the safety of Americans than those involving al Qaeda and a participant in the United States, [Michael] Hayden, [deputy director of national intelligence], said. He said the FISA system was not agile enough to deal with such communications in an era of proliferating new technology.
“The president’s authorization allows us to track this kind of call more comprehensively and more efficiently,” Hayden said. “The trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant, but the intrusion into privacy is also limited: only international calls and only those we have a reasonable basis to believe involve al Qaeda or one of its affiliates.”
[…]
He said, “The purpose of all of this is not to collect reams of intelligence, but to detect and prevent attacks. The intelligence community has neither the time, the resources nor the legal authority to read communications that aren’t likely to protect us. And NSA has no interest in doing so.”
Hayden stressed that the program “is not a drift net over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont, grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about. This is targeted and focused.”
So why not just get a FISA warrant, Mr. Haden? Answer:
“Under the FISA statute, NSA cannot put someone on coverage and go ahead and play for 72 hours while it gets a note saying it was okay,” he said. “The attorney general is the one who approves emergency FISA coverage. And the attorney general’s standard for approving FISA coverage is a body of evidence equal to that which he would present to the court.”
FISA does not give the NSA the same “operational effect” that the presidential authorization does, Hayden said. The latter is “much more effective” in achieving the main goal — to “detect and prevent” terrorist plots, he said.
So why didn’t you just ask Congress to change FISA, Mr. Haden? Answer:
[Before the program was leaked, a public discussion of changing the law] could “betray to the enemy the tactics, techniques and procedures that we are now using to detect them.”
Hayden insisted that “public discussion of how we determine al Qaeda intentions” cannot help but “harm the security of the nation.” He dismissed the idea that the terrorists already know their communications can be recorded.
“Well, you know, they don’t always act like they know they’re being monitored,” he said. “But if you want to shove it in their face constantly, it’s bound to have an effect.”
Meanwhile, the Democrats just insist on digging themselves deeper:
Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement that “Americans of all backgrounds and political parties are concerned about the NSA’s domestic spying program.” He called on the administration to “level with the American people and participate fully and openly in upcoming Congressional hearings.”
Yes, senator, we certainly know how helpful congressional hearings have been lately to the Democrats. By all means, hold some more.
I’m glad that you have such broad trust for the executive’s exercise of power in this area. One certainly wonders though what objectively deistinguishes the executive unilaterally setting aside checks and balances whenever the concern is serious enough, at the executive’s sole discretion.
No one is seriously contending that it isn’t easier to do away with checks and balances, the question is whether it is constitutional, or good for the country’s long term interests.