General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGreenwald: Fisa court oversight: a look inside a secret and empty process
Obama and other NSA defenders insist there are robust limitations on surveillance but the documents show otherwiseThis has become the most common theme for those defending NSA surveillance. But these claim are highly misleading, and in some cases outright false.
Top secret documents obtained by the Guardian illustrate what the Fisa court actually does – and does not do – when purporting to engage in "oversight" over the NSA's domestic spying. That process lacks many of the safeguards that Obama, the House GOP, and various media defenders of the NSA are trying to lead the public to believe exist.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Top secret documents obtained by the Guardian illustrate what the Fisa court actually does – and does not do – when purporting to engage in "oversight" over the NSA's domestic spying.
... which are nowhere to be found in the body of the article.
That's some top-notch journalism for you.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)driving around the stadium yelling "TOUCHDOWN"!
chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)Only lying has been from the media.
questionseverything
(9,656 posts)"On its face, the 2008 law gives the government authority to engage in surveillance directed at people outside the United States. In the course of conducting that surveillance, though, the government inevitably sweeps up the communications of many Americans. The government often says that this surveillance of Americans' communications is 'incidental', which makes it sound like the NSA's surveillance of Americans' phone calls and emails is inadvertent and, even from the government's perspective, regrettable.
"But when Bush administration officials asked Congress for this new surveillance power, they said quite explicitly that Americans' communications were the communications of most interest to them. See, for example, Fisa for the 21st Century, Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2006) (statement of Michael Hayden) (stating, in debate preceding passage of FAA's predecessor statute, that certain communications 'with one end in the United States" are the ones "that are most important to us').
The principal purpose of the 2008 law was to make it possible for the government to collect Americans' international communications - and to collect those communications without reference to whether any party to those communications was doing anything illegal. And a lot of the government's advocacy is meant to obscure this fact, but it's a crucial one: The government doesn't need to 'target' Americans in order to collect huge volumes of their communications."
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)edit:
Thought I'd add a bit more. Incidental targets is part of any kind of surveillance. I mean, these guys aren't criminals 24/7. They have lives. So procedures are put into place on how to handle the communication when a non-target is on the other end.
questionseverything
(9,656 posts)criminals like our soldiers calling home?
it is ANY call not criminals calls
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)Provisions in the Amendment were put there to address those kinds of abuses.
Now, if new evidence appears of people doing this kind of illegal wiretapping surfaces, they should be investiagated an prosecuted.
tblue
(16,350 posts)and they're not necessarily the same. That's why some of us don't want a system that is all set up to be used on a whim for nefarious purposes. And that FISA court? It's a joke. What exactly are you defending?
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)a government program.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)A pretty big number of countries are discussing the subject. It has legs. I will wait and see where we end up.
Peace, Mojo
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)And much more.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)This is getting hilarious. Poor baby didn't actually have access to shit. Training materials, cute little flow charts and his own batshit crazy imagination.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Tonight, due to other conflicting plans, the part of the defenders of the faith will be played by SavannahMann. While your programs may say otherwise, please note this change, and we hope you will enjoy the program.
1) President Obama is working to protect the nation, and has put safeguards in place, no matter what Greenwald says.
2) Besides, I have nothing to hide, and if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
3) This is all a plot by the President's main allies in this mess, the Republicans, to somehow destroy his Presidency through the many scandals.
4) It isn't that bad, and lets be honest. There are more gun deaths than violations of your privacy every year, the NSA said they only searched the database 300 times in 2012, the actual number may vary. So you see, there are way more important things to worry about. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/18/nsa-surveillance-limited-focused-hearing
5) What is wrong with you, do you want the Terrorists to win?
6) What is wrong with you, do you want the Republicans to win?
7) If anything happened, and President Obama had shut the program down, and a Terrorist attack had happened, you all would be blaming him for it.
8) Only Racist Trolls would oppose Obama. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023042330
Did I miss any?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Monkie
(1,301 posts)so you dont have to read the article!
please dont read the article he really did say obama is a saint!
no, you must not actually read the article!
please please dont read the article and comment and discuss the article and the merits of the claims!
GREENWALD IS A REPUBLICAN LIBERTARIAN MENTALLY ILL GAY MAN WHOS MEDICAL RECORDS I NEED TO SEE!!
AND SNOWDEN POSTED ON THE INTERNET WHEN HE WAS 17 THAT HE WAS A CHINESE SPY WHILE MALE MODELING!!!!!!
sigh, i hate it that those worshipers of that narcissistic egomaniac snowden will not discuss the issues although its difficult when all he talks about is himself.
i think you did miss a few yes.
kentuck
(111,102 posts)He does give the history of the NSA and the FISA courts relationship. It seems to me to be a mess from the top to the bottom. It is scandalous.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)sorry, its happened to me to so i get it, its not your fault for missing my sarcasm
my frustration at the way in which some people were portraying things got the better of me and imitated the worst i had seen in the last week condensed into a single post.
sorry for confusing you, and i totally agree with every word you say, i have seen no backtracking at all.
kentuck
(111,102 posts)There are so many posts that believe exactly as you said without the sarcasm thingie....it's difficult to tell who is serious and who is not anymore.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)How challenging will that be?
maxrandb
(15,334 posts)Although I'm sure you didn't intend it.
#1 is accurate. President Obama did put safeguards in place. He's not Cheney, Bush or any other knuckdragging Republican. That kind of explains why we elected him.
#2 is just a silly Strawman. I've never heard President Obama, of any of the "SANE" DUer's who are skeptical of a story provided by a 29 year old High School dropout and "journalist" with an agenda, have ever said, or used the "if you have nothing to hide" argument. The most prevalent argument I've seen is that there is oversight in place, there is no listening to phone calls, or accessing of electronic communications, or warrantless wiretapping of Americans.
#3 There are enough idiotic Republicans trying to destroy this presidency, they really don't need the help provided by paranoid, delusional, non-factual rants from "Democrats".
#4 I would say a terrorist vaporizing a city block would be somewhat an invasion of privacy, but again, the facts of the NSA story don't support your premise. The NSA is following a law passed by our elected representatives and signed into law. Don't like it, then fight to get the law changed, but don't confuse your opposition to a valid law, with lawlessness. This countries history is respite with idiotic laws that have been struck down, revoked, or changed. BTW - Helping the T-Baggers to a super-majority WILL NOT result in getting the laws you want passed!
#5 and #6 don't really deserve an answer, as they are about as silly an argument as you'd get from a couple of toddlers explaining why they shaved the dog. In any event, I think most of us on DU want America to win, and believe that to do that, we need to defeat crazy ass republicans.
#7 Fortunately, we haven't had to worry about that, as this President has kept his commitment to go after and bring the man who attacked us to justice, and by all accounts, his team has prevented numerous attacks against innocent Americans. Actually, as a Democrat, it's been refreshing to see the Repukes flail all over the place to try to get back the UNDESERVED reputation as being "strong on defense". We all knew their 40 year claim was bullshit, and this President proved it, while still balancing our civil liberties.
#8 You don't have to be a racist troll to use bullshit and "chicken-little" sky is falling, "we are just like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia" arguments with no facts to back it up. No, you don't have to be a racist to use those arguments to oppose President Obama....you just have to be willing to put all your faith in a 29 year old High School dropout and a journalist with an agenda
Oh, and the latest weak ass story from The Guardian on the FISA court??? You'd have to believe that career judges from varied political backgrounds and philosophies, who swore an oath to the Constitution, would go along with lawlessness.
questionseverything
(9,656 posts)BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?
CLEMENTE: No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.
BURNETT: So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.
CLEMENTE: No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)They capture the data and store it in a database, which lets them defend themselves by saying they aren't "targeting Americans" because they're not focusing on one individual, they're recording everyone.
Then, later, when an agent wants to find evidence he can simply log into the database and pull whatever records are there WITHOUT HAVING TO OBTAIN A WARRANT, because he's searching a government database and not a private user's system.
See? One blanket warrant covers everyone in America!
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)the weasel words are flying fast and furious!
forestpath
(3,102 posts)
Skittles
(153,169 posts)
bobduca
(1,763 posts)10. Obama "welcomes" the debate triggered by this ILLEGAL LEAKER.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Or has he gamed it all out and Greenwald has everything he needs.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)vet the info and verify it. They also have to make decisions about what to withhold.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Snowden has 4 computers with him. I wonder what Greenwald walked out with.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)#2) Greenwald has said from the beginning that the Guardian has thousands of documents and 12-20 topics that they feel is newsworthy. If and as long as Snowden feels "safe" in communicating with Guardian reporters (and other reporters have written articles on these documents, not just Greenwald), he is probably providing background.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)this is no dump, some of the slides are redacted and that is no accident.
but i have to agree that it does look like there is some calculated decision making going on regarding when to release what.
i credit snowden with the intelligence to know that the only real way he can expose how bad it is if he can keep showing various members of the government and those meant to be providing oversight are lying.
i dont really think news of spying itself will end the severe "over reach", it will be when lie after lie is exposed.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)Here's my take on it. This entire article is about surveillance under the new FISA (or FISA Amendment Acts of 2008), and thus communications where at least one end is outside the U.S. It does not concern the use of phone metadata, which is collected under the Patriot Act, and which includes purely domestic calls.
Greenwald takes issue with the claim that the NSA needs a warrant to look at the contents of phone calls or electronic communications of Americans. This, he says, is false, because the NSA does not need a warrant to tap the communications of people it "reasonably believes" are foreigners, and this would include communications with Americans. All the NSA needs to do is annually get approval from the FISA court that its procedures are okay; after that only the NSA monitors that it follows its procedures. This apparently differs from the original FISA, which required probable cause that the foreign person being monitored was a "foreign power or agent of a foreign power." Further, once the communications with Americans are collected, the NSA is allowed to keep and disseminate the data.
As far as I understand, those are the factual claims made in the article. Now here, for what it's worth, is my opinion.
First, it seems to me that the government could legitimately collect the calls of Americans with foreign persons if they had a valid reason to be tracking the foreign person. (For example, if the police were tapping the phone of a suspected domestic criminal, they'd also get random calls with whoever this person talks to. There's nothing wrong with that.) The NSA cannot target only the foreign communications of a U.S. person-- the person they're interested in has to be the foreign person.
So the issue, if there is one, is whether they have a valid reason and process to be tracking a foreigner, namely-- what privacy rights do foreigners have when communicating with someone inside the U.S.? From the article, it sounds like the answer is none-- if the NSA thinks you're not a U.S. person, then you're open to being monitored, whether they have reason to think you're suspicious. It could also be (my speculation) that the NSA can basically collect and examine everything between the U.S. and the rest of the world, and examine all of that, without really having any reason to suspect anyone.
What does everyone else think?
dkf
(37,305 posts)The FISA court doesn't get enough feedback to make sure their guidelines are being followed. Not even an audit?
questionseverything
(9,656 posts)i think one big point you are missing is that before 2008 law an individual warrant was needed and now blanket warrants are issued on a regular basis,which we used to call "fishing trips"
and if the gov't had a legit reason for tracking foriegn calls then yes they could also listen to citizens the foreigner was communicating with but then why no individual warrant as the 4th demands?
since you seem reasonable please read this
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1305/01/ebo.01.html
BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?
CLEMENTE: No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.
BURNETT: So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.
CLEMENTE: No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)As many others in this thread have noticed, the manner in which the information is being leaked is also interesting, and this can be used to draw some more conclusions.
Snowden/Greenwald seem to be sincerely trying to educate the public. In the propaganda age, this is a very challenging proposition.
As Monkie noted in post #34 above, Snowden/Greenwald seem to be very focused on exposing the lies of others. This is a very good method of teaching in this instance, using the falsification principle, because it is less susceptible to propaganda.
Even brain-dead sycophants can't turn a lie into the truth, and this is important to the success of this undertaking. No one believes that James "least untruthful answer" Clapper didn't commit a crime when he lied to Congress about "collecting data" on Americans. So this becomes a teaching moment, as the saying goes.
I believe the next big lesson for the public will be to push back about the claims of oversight. That's where the Congressional hearings and the Administration's comments are heading. "-- We know this stuff is sensitive so we have many layers of oversight to ensure the public is properly protected from abuses. -- " This looks like a place the conversation might coalesce around.
If this is the case, then the next leak of classified material might be more information on how these analysts can look at anything in their database (which includes recordings of all our conversations and emails) with little or no oversight. I think it works something like this:
Yes, they do need a separate warrant in order to access content of individual phone calls/emails.
Yes, the analyst has legal authority to access content of individual phone calls/emails of anyone, on his own, without first getting a separate warrant.
These are consistent statements. The FISA law allows 72 hours after the fact to seek the warrant.
The truth is, the analyst has access, on his own, once he has been verbally authorized by either the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence. I think they only need fill out a form in order to take a peek.
At least this is my understanding of the law and the policy. These analysts, once verbally approved, might might be compared to the robosigners we found in the banking fraud.
There is one important difference; unlike the illegal robosigners for the banks, Congress, the Adminstration, and the Courts all seem to have made this perfectly legal.
From there the conversation may move to whether or not this stuff is really all that important anyways, it's just sensitive material, there's nothing actually dangerous going on here. And so on and so on...
forestpath
(3,102 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)I smelled something rotten this morning when this story popped up: [link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023038994|
Senate Intel Committee Blocks Former Staffer From Talking To Press About Oversight Process]
I don't think this is a coincidence. There seems to be something they don't want on record even though that information is unclassified. The whistelblowers have all said the oversight is a joke, that the NSA is processing stuff for the FBI. Thomas Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe said they went to the Congressional Intelligence Committee about these problems and got no help. And yesterday Snowden specifically fingered them too, not about oversight but in general. He called them the Gang of Eight.
"seeing a continuing litany of lies from senior officials to Congress - and therefore the American people - and the realization that that Congress, specifically the Gang of Eight, wholly supported the lies that compelled me to act."
This is truly terrible. I don't know who's advising the President but if I were his PR person, I'd suggest a totally different tactic.
From your article, which we already knew from the other whistleblowers:
So due process rights went out to window too. I still remember people's reaction when we learned that NSA was listening to the phone sex of US soldiers overseas who were calling their partners back home. The whistleblowers explain how you could bring up those calls the same way you choose the songs on your I-pod. There's a video of the ABC News segement at the link.
And that was then, before the analysts were given even more leeway in choosing their targets.
None of this is good at all.
They need to put an immediate stop to all activities violating the 4th Amendment.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)if he had wanted, this could of been used as a powerful weapon, if i had wanted to use these revelations to affect changes to laws i was unhappy with, but felt powerless to change due to the "republican problem" i would of seized the moment snowden first spoke out, claimed the moral high ground, claimed that i had no idea of this overreach, invited snowden "home" to assist in getting to the bottom of this, and the republicans would of been powerless to protest. the natural base of the president would of accepted his word and rallied behind him, many natural republicans and libertarians would of been disgusted if the right "message" had been crafted to explain why this is wrong. i dont think im saying anything radical when i say that republican politicians are not know for their heroism, put them in the spotlight and frame this as big government gone wrong and they would deflate like the hot air balloons they are. im convinced that this was a missed opportunity to repeal FISA/PATRIOT and now that the president has chosen the route he has by defending it has no choice but to stay the course and "out-republican" the republicans. with the real risk that the republicans can always chose to reverse position if things get to hot under their feet and just blame the evil democrats and their love of big government, there is a considerable base that the republicans have that will buy into anything they say, even if they were the ones that invented PATRIOT.
questionseverything
(9,656 posts)hastings wrote a scathing article and now he is dead
http://ktla.com/2013/06/18/driver-killed-in-fiery-car-crash-in-hollywood/#ixzz2WcDXWNjW
witness reports a sound like a bomb and the motor flies 50 yards from wreckage?
and thank you for your post,i am an old woman but my dad always warned this day would come,how do we keep the dream of a free people alive?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)questionseverything
(9,656 posts)..
questionseverything
(9,656 posts)but it was a news story and they interviewed a woman who lived in the neighborhood(she was the one that said ,sounded like a bomb) and a man in the neighborhood who said"i could not of come up with this for a script,the motor blew 50 or 60 yards from the wreck" and they showed the motor far away from the rest of car
tblue
(16,350 posts)When did the right to privacy become controversial here?
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)President Obama has been transformational, he has transformed a bunch of folks into Reaganites morphing Cheneyish at somewhere approaching the speed of light.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)kentuck
(111,102 posts)After reading the link by Greenwald, it is pretty obvious that he is in possession of a lot of information. And I would assume he got the information from Edward Snowden.
And if the NSA has not been following the guidelines set by law, then they should be held accountable. It appears that the laws may have been broken and they need to be fixed from the damage done by the Congress, rushing through legislation at the end of the year before it expires. To do something like that, with something as important as rights guaranteed by our Constitution, is unforgivable.
It seems to me that our entire government, from the top to the bottom have been delinquent in their duties? Even the President has been lax in seeing that the laws are being executed in a lawful way.
The Attorney-General gave his approval to the NSA to do more or less whatever they wanted. And they followed few guidelines. They did whatever they wanted. Make no mistake. This is lawlessness on a grand scale. This is the scandal some folks have been looking for.
But Congress cannot be forgiven for their incompetence. The Attorney-General should resign. The NSA Chief, Keith Alexander, needs to step down also. Obama needs to clean house with these people. The American people cannot and will not accept such lawlessness from any government officials. The DNI position should be done away with and go back to the way it was when it worked. The intelligence is too diluted.
Finally, the Senate Intelligence Committee needs to be changed. We need some fresh thinkers with intelligence watching out for us. Those presently on that committee have lost the faith of the American people. They can keep their Senate seats if the voters want them, but they should no longer be sitting on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
It is a mess from the top to the bottom and only one person can fix it. That would be Barack Obama. He is the only President we have at this time. This would be his true legacy if he could fix it. But he's going to have to fire some people and replace them with qualified people that see reality in the scope of history. But, he's no Jack Kennedy.