No it doesn't. The FISA court is a civilian body, the DNI is a civilian position, and the DNI serves at the pleasure of the civilian President. Not only that, but the FISA process isn't emergent from Article III of the Constitution, but is rather an instrument of Congress which can be reformed entirely by civilian legislative acts by representatives directly elected by the population. There is no truth to the idea that NSA lacks civilian oversight.
The point you want to be making is about transparency, and about general citizen oversight. The distinction is extremely important; for instance, random citizens of the US have no direct oversight over military operations, never have, and never will. If you make the argument about civilian oversight, you've already lost, because the intelligence system does in fact have civilian oversight; it's just not the oversight you want.
Mostly conservative republicans, appointed by a conservative supreme Justice. But civilians, sure.
>the DNI is a civilian position,
Every DNI there has ever been has either been a spook or a former high-ranking military officer; except Negroponte, who was, weak sauce.
>There is no truth to the idea that NSA lacks civilian oversight.
There is no truth to the fact that the NSA lacks civilian oversight.
As to the idea that the NSA/FISC lacks civilian oversight? There's no reason to believe that any meaningful oversight exists at all. For one example, consider these recent comments by U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner
"As a former Article III judge, I can tell you that your faith in the FISA Court is dramatically misplaced."
I have no faith in the FISA court, but I have a different diagnosis than you do about why the process isn't trustworthy, and my prescription for solving the problem doesn't have anything to do with strengthening the FISC.
Yes, avoiding my point by picking at the word choice when the context made it clear that I was talking about oversight by the population, not indirect ones is a totally valid reply.
Similarly, if word never filters back, they can't exercise indirect oversight through elected officials, because they're incapable of even knowing that they should be electing officials based on how they will resolve those issues.
Huh? You don't feel like you know enough to vote against your representatives today, or to discern whether you should vote for their opponents? Do they support PATRIOT? Do they support FISA as it stands? If yes to either, vote no.
Again the problem isn't oversight, but rather (in this instance) that you realize that most of the population doesn't agree with you, and won't vote a representative out of office solely because of their position on FISA.
The point you want to be making is about transparency, and about general citizen oversight. The distinction is extremely important; for instance, random citizens of the US have no direct oversight over military operations, never have, and never will. If you make the argument about civilian oversight, you've already lost, because the intelligence system does in fact have civilian oversight; it's just not the oversight you want.