Remember that I focused on the difficulties with FISA's effectiveness, not on justifying the Administration's actions, though I have preliminarily concluded that it knew that the legalities of the surveillance were quite dodgy, yet that it acted in good faith. Why else would a politically sophisticated administration inform Democratic congressmen of what it was doing unless it was? As a result, I believe that it is highly unlikely that any abuses resulted from the program.
There is some dispute as to what "inform Democratic congressmen/women" consisted of. We don't know precisely how much of the program they were told about. We do know they were unable to do anything that would constitute due diligence, such as bring aids with them (ones, for instance, who could ask the right questions about the technicalities). So I think "inform" is likely a stretch.
We do know that both Rockefeller and Pelosi wrote contemporaneous letters of protest. I think it's fair to ask whether they should not have done more. But what they did suggests a great many questions.
As for abuses having occurred in the past, the concern is, equally, if not more so, with a structure which permits much future abuse.
While I continue to think the Toensing op ed piece gets us nowhere, there is an interesting argument in favor of what the WH did which I thought you would bring up in your reply. That's the argument that it's not the FISA court per se that is the problem. Rather it's the speed with which the administration prepares the paperwork for the FISA court. That may well be an area in which there is a great deal of room for improvement. In house, so to speak. |
