"So there is a foreign intelligence purpose for every one of our FISA warrants"
About this Quote
Mueller frames surveillance not as a fishing expedition but as a tool bounded by a specific national security aim. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a warrant is not the same as a traditional criminal warrant. It is issued by a specialized court, the FISC, when there is probable cause to believe the target is a foreign power or an agent of one, and the collection has a foreign intelligence purpose. After 9/11, Congress lowered the wall between intelligence and law enforcement by changing the statutory requirement from a primary purpose to a significant purpose, but the anchor remained foreign intelligence.
As FBI director from 2001 to 2013, Mueller presided over an era when the Bureau shifted its center of gravity toward prevention of terrorism and counterintelligence threats. His statement reassures skeptics that the FBI’s use of FISA is not aimed at domestic political opponents or ordinary crime control, but at understanding and disrupting foreign adversaries: terrorists plotting against the homeland, spies stealing secrets, nation-states probing networks. It also signals conformity with the law’s guardrails, including minimization and querying rules designed to protect the privacy of Americans whose communications might be incidentally collected.
The line serves a second purpose: it draws a bright line around intent in a domain where secrecy breeds suspicion. FISA proceedings are classified, subjects often never learn they were surveilled, and the public must trust that standards are upheld. By stressing foreign intelligence purpose, Mueller points to the layers of oversight that are supposed to enforce that boundary: internal FBI procedures, review by the Justice Department’s National Security Division, and approval and renewals by the FISA court.
Subsequent controversies and inspector general findings have shown how errors can erode that trust. Even so, the core thrust remains: the legitimacy of FISA power hinges on tying each warrant to a defensible foreign intelligence objective, rather than allowing it to drift into general domestic surveillance or ordinary prosecution goals.
As FBI director from 2001 to 2013, Mueller presided over an era when the Bureau shifted its center of gravity toward prevention of terrorism and counterintelligence threats. His statement reassures skeptics that the FBI’s use of FISA is not aimed at domestic political opponents or ordinary crime control, but at understanding and disrupting foreign adversaries: terrorists plotting against the homeland, spies stealing secrets, nation-states probing networks. It also signals conformity with the law’s guardrails, including minimization and querying rules designed to protect the privacy of Americans whose communications might be incidentally collected.
The line serves a second purpose: it draws a bright line around intent in a domain where secrecy breeds suspicion. FISA proceedings are classified, subjects often never learn they were surveilled, and the public must trust that standards are upheld. By stressing foreign intelligence purpose, Mueller points to the layers of oversight that are supposed to enforce that boundary: internal FBI procedures, review by the Justice Department’s National Security Division, and approval and renewals by the FISA court.
Subsequent controversies and inspector general findings have shown how errors can erode that trust. Even so, the core thrust remains: the legitimacy of FISA power hinges on tying each warrant to a defensible foreign intelligence objective, rather than allowing it to drift into general domestic surveillance or ordinary prosecution goals.
Quote Details
| Topic | Privacy & Cybersecurity |
|---|
More Quotes by Robert
Add to List
