General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMy own NSA hypothetical created from whole cloth I got from my closet
The United States "authorities" sure seem bent outta shape about Snowden, like there's more info they don't want out
Would it not be delicious if Snowdens info included proofs of 9-11 conspiracies originated in the GWB White House?
Or proof they knew the justification for invading Iraq was bullshit. (Even though they mostly self incriminated themselves with their public comments at the time, anyway. I will never forget Wolfowitz quote; "We chose WMD's because it was the only thing we could agree on."
I know it's a naive hypothetical, but an aging liberal can dream, can't he?
-90% Jimmy
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)What if there is evidence available of the theft of selection 2000, the coup that installed W.?
That could explain Obama meeting George in Africa.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)that it would turn over to the FBI and US Attorneys, resulting in investigations and prosecutions which would occur during close elections.
It's a crazy hypothetical, but it's crazy enough that it just might work.
On March 6, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum regarding new procedures to apply to foreign intelligence (FI) and foreign counterintelligence (FCI) investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It proposed significant changes to FISA and allowed overlapping between intelligence officers and law enforcement officers:
Prior to the USA Patriot Act, FISA could be used only for the "primary purpose" of obtaining "foreign intelligence information." The term "foreign intelligence information" was and is defined to include information that is necessary, or relevant, to the ability of the United States to protect against foreign threats to national security, such as attack, sabotage, terrorism, or clandestine intelligence activities. See 50 U.S.C. § 1801(e)(1). Under the primary purpose standard, the government could have a significant law enforcement purpose for using FISA, but only if it was subordinate to a primary foreign intelligence purpose. The USA Patriot Act allows FISA to be used for "a significant purpose," rather than the primary purpose, of obtaining foreign intelligence information. Thus, it allows FISA to be used primarily for a law enforcement purpose, as long as a significant foreign intelligence purpose remains. See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804(a)(7)(B), 1823(a)(7)(B).
The Act also expressly authorizes intelligence officers who are using FISA to "consult" with federal law enforcement officers to "coordinate efforts to investigate or protect against" foreign threats to national security. Under this authority, intelligence and law enforcement officers may exchange a full range of information and advice concerning such efforts in FI or FCI investigations, including information and advice designed to preserve or enhance the possibility of a criminal prosecution. The USA Patriot Act provides that such consultation between intelligence and law enforcement officers "shall not" preclude the government's certification of a significant foreign intelligence purpose or the issuance of a FISA warrant. See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(k), 1825(k).
These procedures were changed or rejected by the FISA court and its opinion was publicly released in August 2002.
The insertion of this new clause into the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act went unnoticed. Senators were at a loss to explain how the clause made its way into the bill. It was later determined that the Justice Department had requested Brett Tolman to insert the clause into the bill (Kiel, 2007). At the time the clause was inserted Mr. Tolman was a counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which is Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is a member. Sen. Specter responded to inquiries about his involvement with the clause by saying, I do not slip things in (Kiel, 2007, p. 1). According to Sen. Specter, the principal reason for the change was to resolve separation of power issues (Kiel, 2007, p. 2). The Senate voted to repeal the clause in February 2007 (P.L. 110-34, 2007). At the time of this writing, Mr. Tolman is a U.S. Attorney for the state of Utah.
A report from Professors Emeritus Donald C. Shields and John F. Cragan of the University of Missouri and Illinois State University respectively, shows that of 375 elected officials investigated and/or indicted, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops (Shields & Cragan, 2007, p. 1).