Explain the following intel forum responses

Explain the following intel forum responses

Intel Forum Responses:
Replies must contain the following: each advances the learning by including at least two of the following components:
Validates post with additional evidence from the literature.
Poses a thoughtful question.
Provides an alternative point-of-view
Offers additional insight into how the concept might be understood.
Responses contain no spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors.

Reply Response # 1: Joseph Bertalan
On the January 19 th , 2018, President Trump approved the legislation that extends the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) section 702 for another six years. It should be
understood that the recently signed surveillance law specifically authorized section 702 of the
FISA Amendments Act (FAA) to be extended (Bennett and Matishak 2018). Other previous
sections from FAA under Title VII such as 703 and 704 involved judicial procedures regarding
surveillance on U.S. persons had expired and were not renewed in the current law. Section 702
of the FAA authorizes especially important tools that are essential for modern intelligence
collection due to the technology that modern adversaries are using. Section 702 allows for the
targeting of non-U.S. persons utilizing electronic surveillance if the target is reasonably located
outside the U.S.. Prior to section 702 being authorized, FISA only allowed for the targeting of
individuals located inside the U.S. and only if the individual was an agent of a foreign power or
if the target was a foreign power. The updated policy of the FAA is so essential because a vast
amount of our modern adversaries including terrorists do not easily fall within the traditional
FISA policy written back in 1978 and the intelligence system badly needed upgrading in order to
keep America safe (Federation 2017). A perfect example illustrating just why Section 702 is so
important was the thwarting of the 2009 New York Subway terror plot. Section 702 of FISA
allowed the U.S. government to monitor the communications of an al-Qa’ida (AQ) terrorist
located overseas. The AQ member was communicating with U.S. based terrorist known as
Najibullah Zazi, who was preparing explosives for an upcoming attack (U.S. House n.d., 3). If
lawmakers had allowed the FAA Section 702 law to expire prior to 2009, the New York Subway
plot might not have been foiled and might have put many American lives at risk without the aid
of modern intelligence collection.
Reply Response # 2: Justin Sirmon
This week’s readings are all about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA and
recently we have heard a lot about FISA and its warrants.  Those current events aside, it is
important to define what FISA is and what it has been intended for.  FISA was passed in 1978 to
put better restrictions and use congressional oversight for the intelligence community.  It was
meant to be a proactive solution to help the legislative branch and the intelligence community
work together.   Serious intelligence failures, such as Watergate and events during the Vietnam
War, fostered distrust from the public and the government in the intelligence community and
regulations had to be made.  Since FISA became implemented, changes and reauthorizations
have also had to be made to account for and adjust to the changes in way intelligence is gathered
and threats are handled.  The advances in technology are one of the biggest reasons the
intelligence community has had to change and adapt, and this is the same with FISA. One
reauthorization that we have discussed in previous weeks is the Patriot Act and the Executive
order 12333, in which the attorney general in accordance with FISA, can use any technique to
gather intelligence on a person in the Untied States if there is probably cause.  This does
contradict the Fourth Amendment, which is also mentioned in the reauthorization of FISA.  This
and the other reauthorizations, such as not targeting non-US persons abroad without
individualized court orders, are all in response to the War on Terror.  Like Vietnam, the War on
Terror is sometimes unpopular and the reauthorizations of FISA are a way to be proactive with
the intelligence community.  If there had been such legislation in place during the 1960s, when a
lot of the problems that caused the creation of FISA, there may have been better handling of
situations like Watergate or other intelligence failures may not have even happened.  This is
speculation, but it doesn’t hurt to be proactive.

Reply Response # 3: Ross Patti
Congress must revisit The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 for
reauthorization as different provisions expire. FISA is a framework of intelligence collection
procedures. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 directly coincides with FISA and other legislation
to provide our current boundaries for government collection on U.S. and foreign citizens. As
FISA evolves with the changes in technology and public demand, the provisions amended often
provide a context for rules and guidelines that may not be clearly defined with the changes in
surveillance collection.
FISA from its origin is a self-checking system with a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(FISC) to determine the legality of appropriate communication targets. It is now known, that
there are little rules forcing the courts or eventually the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)
from revealing the findings in these self-checking systems. Recent changes for the DNI and
FISC as they are now mandated to reveal the nature of deleted communications retrieved from
seizures and other metadata associated with denied for search.
While the mandated 'transparency' is a textual improvement for openness; the changes of an
Amicus Curiae  "friend of the court" are fundamentally more drastic. An Amicus Curiae is a
body of five representatives of the people in the eyes of the court. Previously, FISC appointed an
amici to help debate against the FISA application. An amici can still have the task of appointing
the Amicus Curiae. Essentially, when presenting findings of potential evidence to the FISC for
warrants or applications, intelligence agencies proclaim their evidence and are often approved
without debate. An Amicus Curiae is speaks on behalf of legalities and potential ethical
While all the provisions enforce more oversight and transparency, the overall authorizations
provide explicit responsibilities of the FISC and the court of reviews (FISCR). The recent
amendments also expand whistleblower protections to federal employees such as FBI agents.
Agencies like the FBI and NSA to have civil liberties officers. These representatives of the
civilian sector within the agencies, likely acting as an intermediary to the FISC to provide quality
assurance for all FISA applications.


Answer preview:

Intel Forum Responses Week 4