Intelligence community warned Congress on FISA 702 deadlines, but some Democrats have doubts

Trump administration intelligence officials are pressing Congress to renew the nation’s warrantless spy powers before Thanksgiving, warning they could run out of time to get a needed annual recertification for the program from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) operates under dual authorities from Congress and the court, but the judicial backing for the spy tool that allows the government to spy on foreigners located abroad is set to expire in March.

Congress this year has repeatedly failed to renew FISA’s Section 702, and the spy program lapsed June 12, entering uncharted territory by operating only under its court authorization.

In a meeting as Congress returned from summer break, staff from the office of the director of National Intelligence (ODNI) told lawmakers to pick up the pace, saying intelligence staff would need a few months to make their case for the program before the FISC.

But that’s sparked skepticism from some Democrats who want to see the law reformed, including by requiring a warrant to review any information inadvertently collected on Americans as the government conducts surveillance of its targets.

“They obviously just want to get it done because they know they’re going to lose the elections because they have fallen out of favor with the American people for good reason, and because they know they’re not going to be in control, they feel this is their chance to push FISA through without the privacy protections that America wants,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told The Hill.

“So that’s a false deadline. March is the real deadline, and we need to get something done before that,” the congressman added.

The intelligence community is still able to conduct surveillance, in part because communications providers of cellphone and email services are cooperating with the requests and have not sued to question the legality of the........

© The Hill