>As discussed above, FBI terrorism investigations could be opened either as an intelligence investigation in which information was collected for the protection of national security, or as a criminal investigation to prevent a criminal act from occurring or to determine who was responsible for a completed criminal act. In the course of an intelligence investigation, information might be developed from searches or electronic surveillance obtained under FISA. That intelligence information also could be relevant to a potential or completed criminal act. However, concerns were raised that if intelligence investigators consulted with prosecutors about the intelligence information or provided the information to criminal investigators, this interaction could affect the prosecution by allowing defense counsel to argue that the government had misused the FISA statute and it also could affect the intelligence investigation’s ability to obtain or continue FISA searches or surveillances. As a
>result, procedural restrictions – a wall – were created to separate intelligence and criminal investigations. Although information could be “passed over the wall” – i.e., shared with criminal investigators – this occurred only subject to defined procedures. "
>
>As a cop, I would hate to think I couldn't talk to a prosecutor while working a case. This is ludicrous.

I'm happy that there is a seperation between spying and policing. Completely different set of ground rules. You are advocating the use of spying or using spy intelligence for policing. This is clearly something that an open democracy shouldn't do. Perhaps the FBI intel or anti-terrorism should be spun off into homeland version of the CIA. At least this would draw a clear line.