Paul’s amendment would still allow the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to order surveillance of non-Americans and enemies abroad, but would require the government to obtain a warrant from a traditional federal court – as opposed to the secret FISC – to surveil an American.
No brainer.
The amendment would also prohibit the federal government from introducing into evidence any information gained from warrantless surveillance on an American, and would guarantee an American’s ability to use that evidence in their defense.
Again, that is a no brainer.
Or, we can just count on electing good men to office, and consistently hiring good men in our ever growing bureaucracy...because that is easy to do.
....and to avoid tipping off the enemy to the investigation.
A better idea would be a second round, if necessary. A second pair of (secret) eyes on it.
But since this is all political horseshit - there is no reason to believe that he FISA system failed - then who knows what we’ll get.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Right now, these lawyers go before the FISA court, knowing its a rubber stamp...the get cover, for free.
How can you criticize them?...after all, the FISA court said it was ok. It provides them cover.
It would be a different matter if the FBI spied on a political campaign, and had to directly defend their decisions to do so...and put their law licenses on the line for authorizing surveillance. Right now, they can hide behind the FISA court...a court which trusts them anyway, and provides no secondary review at all--rubber stamp court. Remove the rubber stamp protection...don't give two rubber stamp shields to them.
Spying on foreigners shouldn't require a warrant anyway. But Americans shouldn't be less protected.
The FISA court didn't fail us only if you think their job was to provide cover. If you think their job was to be a court, and to protect individual rights, then they totally failed us.
(no message)