Andy Biggs: “To hear the administration tell it, having to get a warrant is the end of the world. Well, guess what? In literally any…”

“To hear the administration tell it, having to get a warrant is the end of the world. Well, guess what? In literally any other context in which law enforcement or intelligence agencies want to read an American's communications, they have to get a warrant. That has been the rule for over 200 years, and for 46 years the government has had to get a FISA title I order to read Americans' communications in a foreign intelligence investigation. These are investigations in which Americans are suspected of terrorism, espionage, cybercrimes--you name it. Somehow, a warrant or title I requirement is completely consistent with national security in those high-stakes cases, yet the administration and those who are opposed to this amendment allege it will plunge us into a dystopian nightmare if we apply this same basic longstanding protection to section 702 queries where the American often isn't even suspected of any wrongdoing at the time of the query. I don't buy it, and neither should you. Over a decade ago, as my friend Mr. Nadler said just a moment ago, a group of intelligence experts unanimously recommended requiring a warrant for U.S. person queries of section 702 data. That group included Michael Morell, former Acting Director of the CIA, and Richard A. Clarke, former Chief Counterterrorism Adviser to President George W. Bush--bipartisan--recommended the same thing that we have today. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”