A. Recently, I've spent a lot of time discussing FISA modernization – that is, amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 designed to update and change the statute. FISA modernization has been underway in one form or another since shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks; it seemed to have come to rest when Congress passed and the President signed the FISA Amendments Act in July 2008. In the next edition of the book, we will have a chapter on FISA modernization that explains all this.

A. The debate about liberty and security never stops. As Judge Royce Lamberth, the former presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, wrote in the preface to the book:

Like many competing American values, liberty and security converge in law. We strike the balance between them not only in the many particular statutes, orders, and policies of the government, but also in the ongoing process of Legislative, Executive, and Judicial action – and reaction – within the framework prescribed by the Constitution. Our national security is therefore cast, and continually recast, in the crucible of our legal system.

In devising and assessing standards that govern our intelligence community, we have to understand and learn from the past, but we can't be prisoners to the judgments of the past. Expectations of privacy, the nature of the threat we face, and technology have evolved since 1978. For example, the recent FISA Amendments Act gives the intelligence community more flexibility in many areas, but actually strengthens protections for U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens located outside the United States. This may reflect different expectations resulting from increased international travel by Americans.

A. One of my concerns about the current state of the law is its complexity. I am afraid that the FISA Amendments Act, while in some ways an excellent compromise solution to some very difficult problems, has made FISA even more complex than it once was. Government personnel have to apply this statute day in and day out, often under substantial time pressures. If the law is too complex, there is a risk of both over-collection (a threat to privacy and liberty) and under-collection (a threat to security). My sense is that the next round of legal reform in this area will need to pay greater attention to the benefits of simplicity.

A. National Security Investigations & Prosecutions is a traditional legal treatise, devoted to the law governing national security investigations (NSIs). As a legal treatise, NSIP will be of interest, first and foremost, to lawyers, judges, and others who practice in this field, and of course to members of Congress and Congressional staff who help with oversight or legislation in this area. It is meant to be analytically precise and rigorous. However, while it's not exactly beach reading, we tried to write it so that interested non-lawyers could read it too, and experience seems to have validated that effort. This is a book not only for national security professionals and policy experts, but also for anyone who wants to understand these important issues. As for helping you do your job, that depends on your job. If you work on national security matters, either in government or elsewhere, then you'll get a lot of use from this book. But lawyers who work for companies can benefit from the book as well – for example, if your company gets served with a National Security Letter, what do you do? The book can help you with that.

A. I have testified both as a government lawyer and as a private citizen, and it's always a privilege. I got my start as an appellate lawyer, so I tend by default to approach testimony like an oral argument, except that instead of arguing before three judges, you are appearing before as many as 20 members of Congress, and they can ask tough questions on almost any topic, so you have to be ready to address a wide range of issues. I like to contribute to the public policy debates, and testimony is often a good way to do that.

A. I don't know. The process leading to the FISA Amendments Act was fairly arduous, and I don't know whether President Obama or President McCain would want to re-open the issue early in a new administration.

A. No, I don't think it ever will, or ever should, go away. Each generation has the responsibility to strike the balance between liberty and security anew, especially in light of changed circumstances. This is a very dynamic field, and I expect it to remain that way for some time to come.

A. I learned how to read, think, and write like a lawyer at DOJ, having been trained there by some of the best. Later in my career at DOJ, I learned how to manage and work in a bureaucracy. I found those skills readily transferable to the private sector.