Domestic Spying Program Defended
The nation’s deputy national intelligence chief today defended a controversial domestic spying program as “targeted” and “focused” on the al Qaeda terrorist network, denying that it casts a “drift net” over Americans’ telephone and e-mail communications.In a speech and question-and-answer session at the National Press Club in Washington, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the deputy director of national intelligence and former head of the National Security Agency, said the “limited” program allows more comprehensive and efficient tracking of communications involving terrorists than a system dating from 1978 that requires a warrant from a special court.
Hayden said that if the program had been in place before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, “it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States and we would have identified them as such.”
…
Hayden, who served as NSA director from 1999 until he became deputy national intelligence director last year, said Bush’s directive for the domestic spying program was not only vetted by Justice Department and White House lawyers and approved by the attorney general, but was thoroughly reviewed separately by three top NSA career lawyers who are experts on privacy laws.
The lawyers, who he said “don’t let the agency take many close pitches,” reported back to him “that they supported the lawfulness of the program,” Hayden said, stressing “supported, not acquiesced.”
My prefered outcome of all of this is that the spying be done, and that it be ruled legal as is currently stands. I think further legislation would make domestic spying easier and more common, rather than harder and less common. From what I can tell, the scope of the program is reasonable and it has a clear and important function.
I’ll tell you what I’m waiting to hear, for which no one has offerred an explanation:
“Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the deputy director of national intelligence and former head of the National Security Agency, said the “limited” program allows more comprehensive and efficient tracking of communications involving terrorists than a system dating from 1978 that requires a warrant from a special court.”
My question…why? What is it about the 72-hour after the fact time allowance that hampers these efforts? Some one tell me why this is unreasonable. And if it was unreasonable, why didnt anyone seek to change it? I feel as though while I’m trying my best to give the WH the benefit of the doubt, they refuse to explain what it is that the current FISA law stops them from doing. I guess I’ll continue waiting.