Well, that only stands to reason since the Administration is primarily involved and the FISC acts secretly. However, it doesn't follow logically that the folks who are experienced with FISA are hacks or that everything they say is a priori incredible.
Nor am I arguing such. On this point, I have two arguments. The first is that, to the degree we have public information about the process, it's people, close to the center of the action, objecting. Either FISA judges resigning or DOG appointees objecting. So some folk "experienced with FISA" don't like the Bush policy.
Second, I don't think the folk you have in mind are hacks, necessarily. Some clearly are. Just check the wonderful list of "hacks" appointed by Bush's administration: Brown at FEMA, Deutsch at NASA, a long list from Larry Diamond's book on Iraq, etc. But some are not. I have no reason to think Gonzales is a hack. But Gonzales, because of his position as Attorney General and because of his long term closeness to GWB, is simply not a credible source.
They are going, if they care at all, to have to find more credible sources if they wish to convince the general public.
I think a new bill is necessary in order to streamline the procedures. And since national security is involved, I wouldn't worry about the political fallout.
I don't object to "streamlining" the procedures. The problem is if that involves the granting of a well-nigh permanent right of warrantless surveillance.
The Patriot Act affect on libraries is bad enough. Now here's another one. |
