Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

giftedgirl77

(4,713 posts)
30. Response to Greenwalds Piece
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:37 PM
Jun 2013

I am going to start at the beginning of the article & work my way down:

Greenwald states in the 3d paragraph below the Title No Individual Warrants Are Required Under 2008 FISA, "Under the FAA, which was just renewed last December for another five years, no warrants are needed for the NSA to eavesdrop on a wide array of calls, emails and online chats involving US citizens. Individualized warrants are required only when the target of the surveillance is a US person or the call is entirely domestic. But even under the law, no individualized warrant is needed to listen in on the calls or read the emails of Americans when they communicate with a foreign national whom the NSA has targeted for surveillance."

As I stated in my initial post, this is just a flat out distortion of what FISA states particularly subsection 702(b) which states specifically that an acquisition may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States; may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States; may not intentionally target a U.S. person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and must be conducted in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

A few key points of the excerpt of 702(b) above is this is the same thing I have been saying, there are very strict laws covering the Intel gathering techniques used when they are involving US persons whether they are here or abroad. All of that is covered above. Now as I stated in the original post it was decided by the Supreme Court in 1979 that obtaining just an individuals phone numbers is not considered a violation of the 4th Am due to no reasonable expectation of privacy. So gathering the phone records goes out the window. It may be crappy but until it is challenged with some relevancy it's the law, no different that many other laws we have on the books. The FISC as well as the AG/DNI are only authorized to to approve the court orders or target individuals listed above and specifically cannot target point to point individuals within the US.

Listed in the 2d paragraph following Warrantless interceptions of American's communications, Greenwald states that "communications of or concerning United States persons that may be related to the authorized purpose of the acquisition may be forwarded to analytic personnel responsible for producing intelligence information from the collected data." It also states that "such communications or information" - those from US citizens - "may be retained and disseminated" if it meets the guidelines set forth in the NSA's procedures.

This is alluding to the documents that were approved for procurement as noted in subection 702(b), so essentially what is occurring is once approval has been granted to obtain the documents have been obtained they are forwarded to an analyst for interpretation and/or dissemination. FISA spells out exactly how long these documents can be maintained & the warrant is only good for 1 year, it can not be a blanket warrant.

Finally, the entire tale going around about the FISC being one judge that just rubber stamps these orders is also inaccurate. Under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(a), what actually occurs is the Chief Justice of the US appoints 11 judges, from no fewer than 7 of the US districts, 3 of whom must live within 30 miles of DC. When a warrant comes up it goes to one of the 11 judges for review, if the request is denied, then the judge must write a memo stating why it was denied to include in the file. The denial cannot then be forwarded to another judge. However, there is a FISC Of Review, that apparently has gone completely unnoticed in all of this maylay. There are also 3 judges appointed to that court. If the Gov petitions the COR then the denial is sent to them under seal, if they still deny it then it can go to the SCOTUS.

This article has a whole lot of speculation & hearsay without much facts, yes, I stopped halfway through because I could make this a very long write up & I think I saw something yesterday saying there were rules against that.

If you genuinely have a question or want to have a real discussion about this I will be happy to do so.

I am not a cheer squad for anyone & this program needs a whole lot of work but, there is a lot more information out there than everyone is making it seem.

The link below is actually to a lot of information regarding FISA and the courts.

https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/

FISA & EPCA the facts & nothing more [View all] giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 OP
Thank Gawd they never break laws RobertEarl Jun 2013 #1
I am talking about experience giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #3
experience is welcome, could you comment on greenwalds detailed take on FISA? Monkie Jun 2013 #5
When I get home tonight giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #18
ok sorry, i got a little angry at you Monkie Jun 2013 #21
I didn't realize you were attacking me, giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #22
Response to Greenwalds Piece giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #30
I think that emails older than 180 days only require a subpoena Jarla Jun 2013 #31
Nope, certain things apply to US Persons & Non US Persons everyone within the US is considered a US giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #32
From the FBI's Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide Jarla Jun 2013 #35
as the other poster has shown, claiming something is misinformation does not make it so Monkie Jun 2013 #36
so the reality is you are appealing to authority and preaching blind trust Monkie Jun 2013 #37
I didn't preach to blind trust, nor is anything I said opinon based giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #41
im sorry, you did exactly that, blind trust, and you now offer no argument Monkie Jun 2013 #42
Whatever giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #43
i see you have nothing factual to say about my arguments Monkie Jun 2013 #44
I said back it up giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #45
i did not realise i had to back up commonly accepted facts but sure. Monkie Jun 2013 #46
a good example of ambiguity in the law, is the word Fair use Monkie Jun 2013 #47
You are attempting to try & muddy giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #48
you still address none of my points, the fact is there is no case law for FISA Monkie Jun 2013 #49
Bullshit giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #50
i put up, miss anonymous expert, and all you did was cry and cry "the law the law" Monkie Jun 2013 #51
This message was self-deleted by its author Monkie Jun 2013 #52
Um, does anyone break a law and then tell you about it? randome Jun 2013 #4
Is there a real question from you? RobertEarl Jun 2013 #7
You said "Thank Gawd they never break laws". randome Jun 2013 #8
Easy RobertEarl Jun 2013 #9
So no government secrets ever? randome Jun 2013 #10
OK, I answered your question. Here's one for you. RobertEarl Jun 2013 #13
Private contractors, no. randome Jun 2013 #14
Secrecy RobertEarl Jun 2013 #15
So facts just kick your ass don't they? giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #17
so why wont you answer the real question, the lawyers questions?straw men and "facts" Monkie Jun 2013 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #23
again, if i had seen you had also responded to me after attacking the other person Monkie Jun 2013 #24
It's ok, we can feel foolish together giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #25
Awww RobertEarl Jun 2013 #26
Nooo giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #28
it is funny that someone that approves this data retention deletes their post Monkie Jun 2013 #38
Seriously, It was because I had called you a dick giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #40
"you went on about your ass, kangaroos and laser beams." datasuspect Jun 2013 #29
People don't get prosecuted for fucking torture Fumesucker Jun 2013 #2
Yeah, where were all of you complainers back in 1979? I didn't see you make a PEEP back then! MNBrewer Jun 2013 #6
Where were they in 2012? 2011? At what point did this drop off the radar? randome Jun 2013 #11
I know, so it' can't POSSIBLY be an issue NOW!!! MNBrewer Jun 2013 #12
Thanks giftedgirl. We need more info and less hype around here. From the posts i've read you okaawhatever Jun 2013 #16
Completely agree. n/t FSogol Jun 2013 #19
Thank you giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #33
Actual information on DU? How quaint. MineralMan Jun 2013 #27
The Gov Facts, often turn out to be LIES usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #34
Thanks for posting some facts. HappyMe Jun 2013 #39
i call debunked, anonymous "expert" vs the top ACLU lawyer, and 2 constitutional lawyers Monkie Jun 2013 #53
Debate is fine but you don't seem willing to engage in it. randome Jun 2013 #54
i'm sorry, i really tried debate, but there was none to be had, sadly Monkie Jun 2013 #55
Wasted time railsback Jun 2013 #56
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»FISA & EPCA the facts & n...»Reply #30