Review and Analysis of FISA

FISA Summary

In light of 9/11 and the aftermath, from both a victim standpoint and a reaction standpoint, there were a lot of things going on and this includes at the government level. One of those reactions was the use (or misuse) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the granting of immunity to telecommunication companies that shared information without a warrant when it came to the sharing of information. This report shall reveal what the main and important points of FISA happened to be and what the overall viewpoint could or should be when it comes to what was granted to the telecommunication companies in light of what they did. While trying to help law enforcement is one thing, granting private consumer information with no warrant is a slippery slope and should generally not be happening.

Analysis

Even with the warrantless nature of some of the searches that occurred in the wake of 9/11, the use of Presidential power to do warrantless searches is not really anything new. Indeed, there have been many Presidents that have invoked the words of the Constitution and asserted that they are just trying to do their job and that the warrantless searches are sometimes needed. Indeed, many advocates of the approach would point to Article II where it says that the President is supposed to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" (FLETC, 2016). This is a large part of what led to FISA coming to be in the first place. Signed in 1978, FISA has a certain pattern and flow to it. In short, there was an allowance for some discretion on the part of the federal government. However, the act was fairly narrow in that it only pertained to foreign sources of information rather that people in a purely domestic situation. Specifically, surveillance under FISA is allowed for under an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts or an order can be garnered after the fact if there is an emergency situation and the Attorney General, who reports and is appointed by the President, approved the action. However, an emergency application to the court is necessary within twenty-four hours even when such a happenstance occurs. There are also exceptions granted for foreign powers and their agents operating in the United States (FLETC, 2016).

As for what the genesis and nexus of the immunity order was, it was surely a bone to throw at the telecommunication companies as they were surely as panicked and startled as the rest of the United States. Indeed, 9/11 was and still is the most dangerous terrorist attack that has ever occurred on United States soil. The author of this report personally remembers that George W. Bush's approval rating was like eighty percent in the wake of 9/11 and that is something that is rarely if ever seen for candidates from either party. Given all that, the telecommunication companies probably wanted to help as much as they could and/or they did not want to be seen as aiding and abetting the enemy in the aftermath of the attack. As such, they probably shared a lot of information they normally would not have because doing so would (and should) require a warrant. As such, the government granting immunity to them was probably the right thing to do because a lot of the people that would point fingers to them would probably be saying something different on the 12th of September. Generally, though, those companies should require a warrant and then acquiesce when one is presented (FLETC, 2016).