« Hmmm. No connection to terrorism? | Main | Michael Yon's latest is up. »

FISA good enough? Maybe not...

Over at Power Line: 72 Hours: Who Could Ask For More? they give an overview of the requirements and steps for approval of survelliance under FISA.

Now, I'm not much of sa stranger to governmental paperwork, having spent 13 years doing that work in the Reserves. THIS stuff, however, makes the military stuff I was doing look like a 2nd grade homework sheet. And that didn't make much sense to me, until I hit the following line.

"It takes days, sometimes weeks, to get the application for FISA together," says one source. "It's not so much that the court doesn't grant them quickly, it's that it takes a long time to get to the court. Even after the Patriot Act, it's still a very cumbersome process. It is not built for speed, it is not built to be efficient. It is built with an eye to keeping [investigators] in check."
Oh. Well. That makes it all clear then.

During my time in doing paperwork, the emphaisis was on getting everything perfect. Punctuation, phrasing, paperwork, everything had to be just so. Why so? Well, let's be honest - in a peacetime military the problem is finding enough stuff to keep the troops occupied, no matter what their specialty is/was. Not much to do? Make the emphasis on doing it to perfection. And in administrative fields, that perfection means it's gonna take a long time. Two spaces after each bullet point sort of perfection, and if you miss, the form must be done over. The point is to keep the skill set fresh, but keep you busy.

But what do you do in times of conflict? You get the job done. You odn't worry that every I is crossed and every T is dotted, and that the form is filled out in 12 pt. Times New Roman at 1.5 line spacing. You concentrate on the important stuff, like funding cites and correct nomenclature and you don't worry about the small shit. It's supposed to be typed? If it's hand-written and legible, that's good enough.

Unfortunately, legal systems and procedures are massively dependent on the small shit. Thus you have an 11 step process with numerous substeps, all requiring a LOT of coordination. And if one step gets missed or delayed...

Poof. You've missed the deadline. Care to guess what happens?

At that point, there is a forfeiture: the surveillance is to be terminated immediately, and information gained from the surveillance during that key 72 hour period cannot be used for any purpose--not even communicated to federal anti-terror employees--without a certification that it "indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person."
Nice setup. It appears to work, and can even be made to work if everything works right and eveyone can be found in the time they're needed. I Imagine there's no problems getting stuff started up until Wednesday and getting it done. But Thursday-Sunday? Holidays? Heh. Good f'ning luck.

As a paperwork system, that doesn't cut it. Unless, of course, the idea is to NOT authorize surveillance - in which case it seems to be very well designed.

J.

Comments (4)

rawb:

again, before bush (admittedly peace time) they only rejected 4. During bush's tenure, they've rejected and fucked with many. And I sincerely doubt it was because of extra spaces.

JLawson:

Again, Rawb, you've got little to no idea just how petty a bureacratic mindset can get. The system was designed to be difficult to get stuff through, not to rapidly scan the submitted info for correctness and authorize action.

A friend of mine's a lawyer. Legal documents ahve to be written just so, in a certain format, using certain phrasings. The very premise of legal paperwork is to make sure that it's as comprehensive and conclusive and loophole-free as possible.

And the detailed FISA process, as I said, is designed to impede the process, not facilitate it.

J.

The main point Rawb makes is still valid. Other administrations have been able to work within the law. The fact that Bush won't may be because he is far more enlightened than previous administrations. Or, it's because he has no respect for the law. Guess which it looks like to us?

JLawson:

Other administrations didn't have cell phones and the internet to contend with. Institutional inertia's a hard thing to change with even essentially meaningless things taking incredibly long times. (For instance, it took nearly 5 years for the AF Dress blue uniform changes to settle out.)

And again, I don't see what he's doing is breaking the law. I haven't seen compentent legal authority rule on it - and there's plenty of incentive to put out inaccurate information. I'm going to wait and let the courts decide - not the NYTimes.

J.

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on January 8, 2006 8:38 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Hmmm. No connection to terrorism?.

The next post in this blog is Michael Yon's latest is up..

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.36