Spying Motives

Forgetting, for now, the legality of executive surveillance of American citizens without oversight, I’m intrigued by the motives for circumventing the FISA law. Rather than choosing any of these alternatives, he chose secrecy. Why? Assuming domestic eavesdropping is necessary—and I believe that to some degree it is—the only legitimate reason I can think of is that the NSA program’s needs didn’t fulfill the FISA requirements. Specifically, it’s reasonable to think that he could not meet the following criteria: 1) limiting eavesdropping to those with known terrorist ties, 2) eavesdropping on those showing probable cause. Both thoughts are scary, especially since the secrecy inherently involves lack of oversight. Who is he spying on and why?—is the central question here in regards to his motives for evading the secret court. Some say that the NSA methods of eavesdropping involve vast sweeps of networks, which means spying on several non-terrorists is inevitable—a method that the FISA court may have opposed. And Atty. Gen. Gonzales has said that they want to use a ‘reasonable basis’ for spying rather than probable cause. Reasonable basis a much easier standard of proof. As I’m writing this and looking up the definition for ‘reasonable basis to insert here, I’ve come across this interesting article:

Excerpt:
…In briefing reporters Monday, Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales said that President Bush's 2002 order allowed for surveillance in cases in which officials had "a reasonable basis" to conclude that one of the parties to the communication had terrorist links. Those judgments were made not by a court, as the law provides, but by shift supervisors at the National Security Agency.

Some experts said that easier-to-satisfy "reasonable basis" standard probably was a key reason for the administration's decision. "It is certainly different than probable cause," said Michael J. Woods, a Washington lawyer and former head of the national security law unit at the FBI. "That, in my mind, is a much more likely reason why they maintained this" surveillance program.

So, it brings us to the next question: why not seek an alteration of the FISA court standards? Could it be because Congress would have rejected the proposal? Could it be because it would have required knowledge of the program prior to the Presidential election?