{"id":1200,"date":"2010-05-30T12:11:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-30T16:11:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.harvardnsj.com\/?p=1200"},"modified":"2015-01-06T13:33:12","modified_gmt":"2015-01-06T18:33:12","slug":"glick","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/2010\/05\/glick\/","title":{"rendered":"FISA\u2019s Significant Purpose Requirement and the Government\u2019s Ability to Protect National Security"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Scott J. Glick*<\/a> –<\/strong><\/p>\n

Click here for the published PDF version<\/a><\/h5>\n

In 2006, Congress enacted two potentially significant restrictions on the government\u2019s ability to collect foreign intelligence information pursuant to FISA.\u00a0 Against the backdrop of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (Court of Review) decision that arguably reached an erroneous conclusion about the meaning and scope of FISA\u2019s significant purpose requirement, Congress let stand two restrictions that the Court of Review had placed on the government\u2019s use of FISA.\u00a0 First, the Court of Review held that if the government\u2019s primary purpose was to prosecute, then the government could use FISA only if it intended to prosecute an alleged terrorist or spy for what the court called a \u201cforeign intelligence crime.\u201d\u00a0 The Court of Review also held that the government could not use FISA, even when it intended to prosecute for a foreign intelligence crime, if that crime occurred in the \u201cpast.\u201d\u00a0 This Article examines the Court of Review\u2019s decision and argues that the court reached an erroneous conclusion in regard to the scope of the government\u2019s power.\u00a0 The Article also takes a comprehensive and fresh look at the legislative history of FISA\u2019s purpose requirement, both before and after the Court of Review\u2019s decision.\u00a0 The Article demonstrates that Congress was keenly aware of the restrictions placed on the government by the Court of Review, and rather than explicitly expressing its will in a Final Conference Report with respect to that decision, it simply voted to repeal the amendment\u2019s sunset provision.\u00a0 The Article concludes by proposing legislation that would remove both of the restrictions placed on the government by the Court of Review.<\/p>\n

Image courtesy of the Huffington Post<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

<\/a>* Deputy Chief, Counterterrorism Section, National Security Division, U.S. Department of Justice; former Deputy Counsel for Criminal Matters, Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, U.S. Department of Justice.\u00a0 This article has been reviewed for publication by the Justice Department in accordance with 28 C.F.R. \u00a7 17.18.\u00a0 The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Justice Department.\u00a0 The author wishes to thank Lisa Farabee, Daniel Marcus, David Rosenberg, and Richard Seamon for their review and comments on an earlier draft of this Article.\u00a0 The author also wishes to thank Dena Roth, J.D. Georgetown 2010, for her research assistance and comments.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Scott J. Glick* – Click here for the published PDF version In 2006, Congress enacted two potentially significant restrictions on the government\u2019s ability to collect foreign intelligence information pursuant to FISA.\u00a0 Against the backdrop of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (Court of Review) decision that arguably reached an erroneous conclusion about the meaning and scope of FISA\u2019s significant purpose requirement, Congress let stand two restrictions that the Court of Review had placed on the government\u2019s use of FISA.\u00a0 First, the Court of Review held that if the government\u2019s primary purpose was to prosecute, then the government could […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_members_access_role":[],"_members_access_error":""},"categories":[242],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1200","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-main"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/seZtUX-glick","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1200","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1200"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1200\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1200"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1200"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1200"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}