>>6507833
I was looking for the Baker hearing where Durham was first known to be investigating the events. Found this:
james baker was a witness relative to the Patriot Act – his testimony here
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju20875.000/hju20875_0.HTM
2005
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT: SECTIONS OF THE ACT THAT ADDRESS THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT (FISA)
HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
APRIL 26 AND APRIL 28, 2005
TESTIMONY OF JAMES A. BAKER, COUNSEL FOR INTELLIGENCE POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. BAKER.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Government's use——
Mr. COBLE.
Mr. Baker, if you will suspend just a minute. We have been joined by the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot.
Go ahead, Mr. Baker. I won't penalize you for those 10 seconds, Mr. Baker.
Mr. BAKER.
Thank you, sir.
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Government's use of the authorities granted to it by Congress under FISA, including the amendments to FISA under the USA PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. Those provisions have made a critical contribution to our ability to protect the national security of the United States consistent with the need to protect the privacy of Americans.
They affect nearly every FISA application that we file, and we ask you to renew them. As the Chairman mentioned, I am the Counsel for Intelligence Policy and the head of Office of Intelligence Policy and Review at the Department of Justice.
OIPR, as we are known, conducts oversight of the intelligence and counterintelligence activities of the executive branch agencies, including the FBI, and my office prepares and presents to the FISA court all FISA applications, and we represent the United States before the FISA court.
I report directly to the Deputy Attorney General. I am a career member of the Senior Executive Service and not a political appointee.
Rather than reading my written statement into the record today, I would just like to make a few observations about FISA that I think will be helpful to our discussion generally today. First, I would just like to mention the overall purpose of FISA. As the Chairman discussed, FISA was enacted in 1978 to provide legislative authorization for and regulation of all electronic surveillance conducted in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes. FISA was not intended to prohibit the collection of important foreign intelligence information, but rather to subject such collection to statutory procedures.
Over the years, Congress has expanded the scope of FISA. In 1994 it was expanded to cover physical searches, in 1998 to provide for separate authorization for pen registers and access to certain business records. In 2001, of course, we have the PATRIOT Act that we are all familiar with and why we are here today.
In addition to that purpose of FISA, I would like to make clear, to describe that FISA established clear standards for who could be a target under FISA. Since 1978, the only authorized targets of full content FISA collection have been foreign powers and agents of foreign powers. Those terms are defined terms under the act. The PATRIOT Act did not change the definition of those terms.
As you know, section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform Act did change one of the definitions of an agent of foreign power to include a non-U.S. Person who engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor. This is the so-called Lone Wolf provision that we will discuss today.
Similarly, FISA only permits the use of other collection activities, such as pen registers, when there is a sufficient nexus between the information that will be collected and a legitimate intelligence investigation. And when the investigation involves a U.S. Person, it cannot be based solely on first amendment activities.
In addition, FISA includes various provisions to ensure accountability for the authorizations that are approved under FISA. It includes mechanisms, several mechanisms to ensure written accountability within the executive branch for the decision to engage in foreign intelligence collection. This serves as a check on executive branch arbitrariness. For example, each full content FISA application must have a certification from a high ranking official and must be signed by the—personally signed by the Attorney General or his Deputy. And FISA's other provisions also include mechanisms to ensure accountability.
see part 2