It's still a warrant, though, reviewed by eleven (?) judges, who are appointed for non-repeating terms.
I definitely agree with Wyden's proposal -- that there be more transparency in this process, even if it's heavily redacted. Even he and his colleagues recognized and respected the need for keeping at least some amount of secrecy with cases like these, where they can't be brought to a regular (read: public) court. I found his suggestions to be sane and level-headed, and I think that if it hadn't been left to the last minute they'd have had a much better chance.
What I do not find sane is articles like this that declare that there aren't warrants involved, that there isn't probable cause. I think that that's misleading and sensationalist.
I agree, without secret courts or indefinite detention the stazi wouldn't have been able to eliminate threats to national security. When it comes to national security almost anyone could be a threat, and the police should be able to surveil them with out having to jump through the bureaucratic hoops. You really can't run a modern society on quaint ideals about 'rights' and 'liberties' foisted upon us by 18th century 'activists'.
Who is this comment responding to? Surely it's on the wrong thread, since FISA does not give the "police" the ability to surveil "almost anybody" withot "bureaucratic hoops".
I definitely agree with Wyden's proposal -- that there be more transparency in this process, even if it's heavily redacted. Even he and his colleagues recognized and respected the need for keeping at least some amount of secrecy with cases like these, where they can't be brought to a regular (read: public) court. I found his suggestions to be sane and level-headed, and I think that if it hadn't been left to the last minute they'd have had a much better chance.
What I do not find sane is articles like this that declare that there aren't warrants involved, that there isn't probable cause. I think that that's misleading and sensationalist.