A battle appeared to be emerging in the U.S. Senate over extending terrorism surveillance methods versus bolstering privacy protections.

The Obama administration wants to extend three key surveillance techniques adopted in the Patriot Act law after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to track terrorism suspects.

They are roving wiretaps to track multiple communications devices an individual may use; access business records; and what’s known as the “lone wolf” provision to watch an individual who may be hatching terror plots but isn’t part of a bigger group. Those three expire Dec. 31.

However, some Senate Judiciary Committee members, including chairman Patrick Leahy, want to add more privacy provisions. Any changes also have to go through the Senate Intelligence Committee which could raise more hurdles.

“It was my thinking simply to extend those three provisions until the Patriot Act is up for reauthorization, which is three years hence,”  Dianne Feinstein, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said during a hearing with FBI Director Robert Mueller. “I believe Senator Leahy will submit a bill that does some other things as well.”

Mueller offered a staunch defense for the techniques, noting that the roving wiretaps were essential since individuals can have several cell phones at once and switch quickly. He also said that while the “lone wolf” tracking had not yet been used, it was important to have that capability available.

Senators Richard Durbin and Russ Feingold said in their own statement on Tuesday that they hoped to add stronger privacy protections in any extension of the three provisions. They also want to address so-called National Security Letters which are essentially subpoenas for personal records and have been used in larger numbers but have been harshly criticized for being overused.

For more Reuters political news, click here.

- Photo credit: Reuters/Yuri Gripas (Mueller testifies before Congress)

In the alphabet soup of government national security agencies, the letters CIA seem to be sinking.

The latest blow to the spy agency was the attorney general launching an investigation into interrogation abuses and President Barack Obama has decided that the interrogation of terrorism suspects will be taken out of the hands of the CIA and put into the control of a newly-created group that will be housed at the FBI and report to the White House.

Some intelligence experts say the CIA didn’t want to do the high-value detainee interrogations anyway.

Since the 9-11 attacks eight years ago, the United States is still trying to figure out what  balance of power it wants in intelligence.

The CIA is supposed to dig out secrets to save the United States from national security disasters. In years past it was criticized for being too risk-averse and critics of the investigation into interrogation abuses say it will make the spy agency too risk-averse again.

The DNI (Director of National Intelligence), created after the Sept. 11 attacks, took over the job of overseeing all the intelligence agencies from the CIA director.

This year there was a bureaucratic skirmish between the DNI and the CIA director after the DNI put in writing that there could be times when the DNI’s representative in foreign countries would be someone other than the CIA station chief.

That dispute went to the White House for mediation.

ABCNews reported this week speculation that CIA Director Leon Panetta had threatened to quit, which the agency vigorously denied.  “The ABC story is wrong, inaccurate, bogus, and false,” CIA spokesman George Little says.

Some CIA watchers are betting on a Panetta exit early next year. But then President Barack Obama would have to convince someone to take a job that seems to end up being a political punching bag.

Should the CIA have more oversight, more control over its operations, or is the balance just right?

Photo credit: Reuters/Jason Reed (Obama and Panetta walking out of CIA headquarters)

WASHINGTON - It’s not a secret: the top two U.S. spies are offering to stay on for at least a while under president-elect Barack Obama.
 
What remains a mystery, however, is whether the offer by Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell and CIA Director Michael Hayden, will be accepted, given their identification with controversial Bush administration policies on electronic spying and treatment of terrorism suspects.
 
The Washington Post reported this week that McConnell and Hayden expected to be replaced early in the Obama administration.
 
McConnell — who gave Obama his first full intelligence briefing last week — told an awards ceremony in Washington on Wednesday that U.S. spy agencies would be in good hands under “the new guys.”
 
“Universally, very-well informed people, very smart, very strategic,” is how he described Obama’s team. “All the signs, at the moment, are positive,” he said.
 
Then came the pitch: “The message that both General Hayden and I have delivered to the incoming administration is, we view ourselves as professionals — as apolitical professionals — and we are available to serve at the pleasure of the president,” McConnell said.
 
“If they ask us to stay for some reason, for a period of time, we would stay and assist them in the transition,” he said.
 
“If they choose others, that’s fine, we’re happy with that; we have other things to do,” he said.
 
McConnell’s position as the U.S. spy chief is new, created under a post-Sept. 11 intelligence reorganization, and like other political jobs has no fixed term. There is, however, some precedent for CIA directors to serve overlapping administrations. George Tenet, a Bill Clinton appointee, remained in office under President George W. Bush until 2004.
 
Hayden has said little about his plans, but also noted in a letter to employees last week that he serves at the pleasure of the president.
 
The Post said influential congressional Democrats opposed McConnell and Hayden’s staying on because they publicly backed Bush policies on interrogation and electronic surveillance.
 
It said, however, other Democrats and many intelligence experts gave high marks to the intelligence leaders for restoring stability and professionalism, and that the Obama camp had given no signs of its plans.
 
McConnell said the Post article had an “alarming headline” but delivered a “reasonable message.”

For more Reuters political stories, click here.

Photo credit: Reuters/Larry Downing (McConnell, left, and Hayden at a Senate panel hearing Feb. 5)