I believe the "new" FISA was not much different from the way it was prior to Bush, and fixed some of the problems that the Bush admin said they had with it, like a significantly faster turn around time fro approval of wire taps on actionable intell. And that was a good thing.

The differences may be small, but they were significant in terms of oversight and protection of Americans oversees from warrantless wiretaps.

In fact, the Bush administration, through Gonzales testimony at an oversight hearing, specifically said they did NOT need FISA reform...sadly at the same time they were already exceeding FISA authority with warrantless wiretaps of Americans.

Wiretaps of Americans under FISA is still approved. I agree they should include the FISA courts. Esp since they have a history of not turning down any requests. They greater controversy was not about warrantless wire taps, it was wire taps of Americans, that had not been included before. Now it is approved, as it should be.

with more Congressional oversight...as it should be.

With no Congressional oversight. Only oversight by FISA courts. Congress should not be involved.

I want checks and balances on any court and any president's use of FISA...and it can certainly be accomplished in closed Intel Committee hearings to protect national security, if necessary.

Congress leaks like a sieve.

A leaking sieve is a far better protection against potential Constitutional abuses than no sieve at all.

This is one where most liberals and libertarians agree.

I am not talking about protection against abuses, that is what the FISA court is for. I am talking about protection of sensitive intell, something Congress has a hard time doing, under the best of circumstances.

IMO, the FISA court should be accountable like any federal court...but with reasonable protection of national security information.

Cite please.

You'll be amazed at how much you believe is bullshit, if you just look for cites. I know I was, when I first tried to confirm what I knew.

It wasn't "Bush" using it, it was the NSA. This means a lot of people are involved, and the more people, the more likely information about how it's used or misused is to leak out. In fact the very existence of the program was revealed to the NY Times by such a leaker.

Also, this is a logical riddle meant to win arguments, which is something less than a proof. "We believe the program was widely abused." "How do you know?" "Because Bush was secretive! We didn't hear anything, that means something was going on!" Ehh, I'll need a little more than that, personally.

It was the NSA acting under an order by Bush through what most Constitutional scholars have said was an illegal interpretation of an AUMF.

IMO, the "leaker" who gave no details that threatened national security, should be applauded.

(pardon the echo chamber)

I disagree and it was not what most constitutional scholars stated, it was only those that agree with that notion. Never the less it was a leak for a political agenda. That person should be punished.

Fair enough, I should have said...constitutional scholars from both the left and right....

I would also suggest it was a leak in the most general terms possible by a government employee who had serious and justifiable concerns that laws were potentially being broken and Constitutional rights potentially being violated. There is nothing to suggest that it compromised national security.

One could also suggest that the leak was due to a pissed off employee with perhaps, a political axe to grind. What makes one scenario more believable than the other?
Both are mere speculation.