Who's watching over who's watching over you?

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: daveschroeder
Tice's claims, under the current law and the August 2008 FISC ruling, represent activities that are explicitly legal.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, allows for foreign intelligence collection on non-US Persons without a warrant, no matter where the collection occurs. The longstanding Smith v. Maryland, 442 US 735 (1979), allows for the collection and examination of communications metadata, i.e., "to" and "from" information, without a warrant. The FISC ruling explicitly finds legal such collection under the now-sunset Protect America Act and, thus, the current FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

In order to determine which traffic content may be collected for foreign intelligence purposes, the traffic metadata must be examined. Even when a target in question is a specific non-US Person of foreign intelligence interest, traffic metadata must first be examined in order to target that person! Because examining traffic metadata was found explicitly legal and Constitutional three decades ago by the United States Supreme Court, doing so in order to target legitimate foreign intelligence collection is allowable under the law.

The major issues for foreign SIGINT were twofold:

- A lot of traffic is now digital versus analog, and cannot be targeted by aiming a directional antenna at a particular geographic locale. It is now traveling largely via things like fiber optic cables, intermixed with all manner of other communications. In order to target the collection, it is no longer a case of sitting on a Navy vessel offshore from some area of interest between individuals talking on two-way radios; it's finding that traffic in a sea of global digital communications.

- Foreign communications of non-US Persons physically outside of the US was increasingly traveling through the US. Previously fair game for foreign intelligence collection throughout the history of such collection in the United States, it suddenly became off-limits without a warrant because it was incidentally routed through locations in the United States. Foreign intelligence collection on non-US Persons outside of the US does not require a warrant, and fundamentally still shouldn't simply because their traffic happens to enter the US.

This was a case of changing technology necessitating an update to a law. A supermajority of both houses of Congress agreed.

Unfortunately, this discussion is so mired in politics, personal grinding of axes, confusion about early NSA programs (like the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, or TSP, which was not renewed after January 2007), and isolated examples of legitimate abuse or misconduct, that not many seem interested in having any real discussion about how foreign intelligence can be reasonably conducted in the digital age. Instead it is a sea of frantic arm-waving and breathless blogging about how the Constitution is being shredded, when the mechanisms of law and judicial oversight have explicitly established the activities as legal.

Ironically, Tice's interview is spot-on. He says, "What was done was sort of an ability to look at the metadata ... and ferret that information to determine what communications would ultimately be collected," and adds, "we looked at organizations, just supposedly so that we would not target them."

"Supposedly?"

That's the whole point. So here's an example of someone explaining more or less what is happening, namely, that traffic metadata is examined to determine whether or not it constitutes a foreign intelligence target, and that measures were undertaken to not intercept the content of communications of entities which are not legitimate targets, even before the legal situation was clarified. None of the news coverage or associated debate seems able to make the connection that this activity is exactly what is described is explicitly legal under:

- The temporary Protect America Act of 2007, which was in force from August 5, 2007 to February 17, 2008,
- The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which became Public Law 110-261 on July 10, 2008, and is in force at present,
- The FISC ruling

The cornerstone of the current law and the FISC decision is the protection of the privacy and rights of United States persons. The current law is even more stringent with respect to US Persons than previous law: an individualized warrant from FISC is required to target a US Person anywhere on the globe; before, US Persons did not enjoy the same explicit protections under the law outside of the US.

What monitors this? The same oversight and processes that we trust, by proxy, to monitor the activities of the Intelligence Community. Namely,

- The intelligence oversight committees of both houses of Congress
- Legal counsel for all Intelligence Community components
- The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
- The Department of Justice
- The Executive Branch

In fact, FISA Modernization is listed as the number one major milestone of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under the tenure of Mike McConnell.

In sum:

1. A warrant is not required to collect intelligence when the target is not a US Person, regardless of where the collection occurs, including within the US.

2. A warrant is always required to collect intelligence when the target is a US Person, whether inside or outside of the US (more strict than previous law).

3. This requires determining which traffic content can be lawfully collected without a warrant, sometimes with the assistance of telecom operators in the US. In order to determine which traffic can be lawfully collected without a warrant, basic information about the traffic, such as its source and destination, must also be examined. Such examination of traffic ? a "pen register" ? also does not require a warrant.

The job of our foreign intelligence services is to collect information on the activities and plans of US adversaries. This activity has never required a warrant, because non-US Persons outside of the US are not protected by the Constitution of the United States.

The path traffic takes shouldn't prevent us from doing this job.

I wonder if anyone in the media is interested in having this discussion, or if it's all going to be accusations from whistleblowers, with no consideration of the associated challenges for foreign SIGINT in a digital world?

I also wonder what it's called when you "blow the whistle" on legal activity...?

Welcome to P&N. Great 1st post.

 

[daveschroeder]

Welcome to P&N. Great 1st post.

Thanks. I hope some folks are interested in an honest discussion about this topic.

It's too bad that this is such a political issue for many people, when the reality is that we fund our intelligence agencies billions of dollars a year to know what our adversaries are doing, but not many individuals appear capable of addressing the very real issues raised with respect to foreign intelligence collection in a digital world.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: daveschroeder
Tice's claims, under the current law and the August 2008 FISC ruling, represent activities that are explicitly legal. ~~~~

I also wonder what it's called when you "blow the whistle" on legal activity...?

No.

If you would care to pay attention the allegation is that specific US news organizations and citizens were targeted and that entire data streams were 'drift-netted'.

And since you claim activities of the Bush Admin as legal perhaps we can drop Telco immunity dating to 2001 ??? ...

 

[daveschroeder]

If you would care to pay attention the allegation is that specific US news organizations and citizens were targeted and that entire data streams were 'drift-netted'.

And since you claim activities of the Bush Admin as legal perhaps we can drop Telco immunity dating to 2001 ??? ...

I am paying attention, thanks.

You're doing exactly what I said was an issue in my post, which is confusing multiple issues.

1. The so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, which was not reauthorized after January 16, 2007. The content of fewer than 100 US Persons were monitored without a warrant under TSP, under the auspices of the President's authority under Article II of the Constitution in conjunction with the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). NSA had a legal opinion about the legality of the activity ? there is always a legal opinion. Holder agrees that the President has inherent, intrinsic authority under Article II that cannot be impinged upon by any statue; whether the above activity is explicitly one of those authorities is a legal question that may never be answered, because the program ceased.

2. Monitoring the metadata of communication by a government entity ? any and all communication ? is allowable without a warrant under Smith v Maryland and subsequent legal understanding and case law, and has been for 30 years. As applied to the Intelligence Community, this means that monitoring traffic under the current legal environment to determine which traffic's content can be collected is allowable without a warrant.

3. Misuse of the word "target" with respect to US Persons. If the content of an individual's communication is not monitored and a warrant is not obtained to do so, that person/entity is not a "target".

4. Legal gray areas that existed from 2001 to 2007. The Intelligence Community struggled to modernize foreign SIGINT under an outdated legal framework. This was recognized, and the stopgap Protect America Act and the current FISA Amendments Act of 2008 fixed these issues.

The only real issue is the questionable legal landscape that existed from 2001 to 2007 and briefly again in 2008 after the expiration of the Protect America Act. Tice's activities at NSA were all 2005 and earlier, and he makes no distinction about what programs he may or may not have been involved in. Since the activities he describes are all explicitly legal at present, and were also affirmed by the FISC decision with respect to PAA and the current law, is it productive to go back and prosecute individuals who were acting in good faith in a changing legal landscape?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: daveschroeder

Welcome to P&N. Great 1st post.

Thanks. I hope some folks are interested in an honest discussion about this topic.

It's too bad that this is such a political issue for many people, when the reality is that we fund our intelligence agencies billions of dollars a year to know what our adversaries are doing, but not many individuals appear capable of addressing the very real issues raised with respect to foreign intelligence collection in a digital world.

Welcome and add my congrats on an excellent first post.

You will find little rational discourse here unfortunately. Most will confuse multiple issues, provide accusations with no follow-up, confuse opinions with facts and generally fail in normal civil discourse.

So when you post something accurate, be prepared not to expect a rational discussion. 🙂

Nevertheless, your post shows exactly what has occured, what is true and not, and if I may add select Congressional leaders all had to be briefed, by law, on these activities and sign off on them (from both parties). It can sometimes be after the fact, but Congress always knows. Something some of our posters "forget".

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Originally posted by: RichardE
This man is a traitor going public with NSA secrets. If you want to end it, do it closed door, there is dirty laundry the world does not need to see. But to compromise the ability of the NSA to monitor communications outside of the USA because you had a moral awakening is inexcusable.

Glad to see he grows a pair after Bush leaves.

The public have the right to know what its employees doing behind its back. Behind closed doors has gotten the US into invading Iraq and death to 100 of thousands foreigner and American, and it is also a main contribution to the economic quagmire that the US is in at the moment.

Why not just print every possible military move made in the papers so the public knows?
What you know the enemy knows, sad how many people forget this, there is a reason for state secrets, it isn't to just dominate the populace but they are needed to protect the populace.

You are such an irrational person. Revealing criminality by the government = revealing every legitimate secret the government has. That doesn't even deserve "straw man".

The people who expose wrongdoing are heroes, and we need them in this day and age where the power and technology structure creates great risk for violating rights.

It's somewhat analgous to another American hero, Daniel Ellsberg and his co-leaker.

As for your comment about when he blew the whistle not being until Bush left office:

The same day The New York Times broke the story of the NSA eavesdropping without warrants, Tice surfaced as a whistleblower in the agency. He told ABC News that he was a source for the Times' reporters.

Why don't you grow a pair and stand up for our civil rights instead of being a coward trading liberties for alleged security and deserving neither (a la Ben Franklin)?

It reminds me of when the NYT broke the "Government is watching banks overseas with cooperation of Countries helped" before the government was able to freeze assets.

As I said, just because you can speak state secrets does not mean you should. Why don't you grow a pair and realise that some things are best kept a secret? Especially things that are already in the open. (Being discusses as the internal wiretapping was)

The guy is doing it for a book deal, the internal monitoring is stopped or will be with OBama, so it is not an issue yet he speaks openly about what capabilities the NSA has for monitoring outside the US. Bush isn't going to get in shit for any of this, if he wanted to make a *difference* he would have spoke much earlier in the administration. This guy is a traitor.


Edit: To clarify, if he had just stayed on topic regarding internal monitoring that would have been fine as that issue has legal problems, he expanded to monitoring outside of the US, which involves disclosing state secrets in a war time of a surveillance program that is being used *legally* outside the US. As I said, he is a traitor looking for a book.

 

[ElFenix]

edit: nm

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RichardE

This man is a traitor going public with NSA secrets. If you want to end it, do it closed door, there is dirty laundry the world does not need to see. But to compromise the ability of the NSA to monitor communications outside of the USA because you had a moral awakening is inexcusable.

Glad to see he grows a pair after Bush leaves.

This man is a hero going public with NSA violations of the Constitutional rights of every American citizen... or don't you support the Constitution?

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Looks like a lot of smoke and no fire. "Could." "More than likely." Meh. Sounds like he's making wild guesses instead of bringing anything concrete to the table. But he'll likely get his 15 minutes of fame and adoration from the usual unhinged suspects as if this is some sort of 'WOW!' revelation.

Your post sounds like your typical clouded view from between your gluteal cheeks. Did you watch Olbermann's interview for the added info? Will you watch the continuation, tonight?

YOU have a Constitutionl right to disagree. If you want to keep those rights, you may want to base your opinion on facts.

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

So this is what we are going to get for the next 4 years? Obama can fix all of this. Start holding him responsible. And stop quoting your song.. it makes you look silly.

No, this is what we ACTUALLY GOT for the last eight years. Obama isn't the one who can fix it. That job falls to the new Attorney General and the Department of Justice. Obama can help by allowing his new Attorney General to prosecute the Bushwhackos for the acts he already testified are crimes.

Beyond Obama, the United Nations can prosecute Bush and his gang for torture and other crimes against humanity independent of any American prosecution.

And you can stop bitching about my song. I already saidI don't give a rat's ass if you like it. I wrote it long before all of this became public, and unfortunately, it happens to be true. You can bitch about it when you can refute the facts. Until then, the only ones who looks "silly" are sycophantic Bushwhacko apologists like you who lied to themselves and others in denying the crimes of their Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal.

Maybe because they weren't listening to the phone calls of average citizens like everyone claims?

And maybe they were. Obviously, you didn't watch the Olbermann interview, or you'd know that was one of Tice's major points.

Obviously you have more interest in demonizing Bush than actually having Obama fix things.

Obviously, you have less interest in the truth about the crimes committed by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang than you do in actually preserving our Constitutional rights. You're welcome to forfeit your own, but you can't take mine without a fight.

Why do you hate the Constitution of the United States of America? :Q

 

[JS80]

1) he should watch 24
2) shoot him in the head in public for treason

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: daveschroeder

If you would care to pay attention the allegation is that specific US news organizations and citizens were targeted and that entire data streams were 'drift-netted'.

And since you claim activities of the Bush Admin as legal perhaps we can drop Telco immunity dating to 2001 ??? ...

I am paying attention, thanks.

You're doing exactly what I said was an issue in my post, which is confusing multiple issues. ~~~~

4. Legal gray areas that existed from 2001 to 2007. The Intelligence Community struggled to modernize foreign SIGINT under an outdated legal framework. This was recognized, and the stopgap Protect America Act and the current FISA Amendments Act of 2008 fixed these issues.

The only real issue is the questionable legal landscape that existed from 2001 to 2007 and briefly again in 2008 after the expiration of the Protect America Act. Tice's activities at NSA were all 2005 and earlier, and he makes no distinction about what programs he may or may not have been involved in. Since the activities he describes are all explicitly legal at present, and were also affirmed by the FISC decision with respect to PAA and the current law, is it productive to go back and prosecute individuals who were acting in good faith in a changing legal landscape?

You are the one confusing multiple issues with a smokescreen and logical fallacy

There is no 'legal gray area'. Was a FISA warrant obtained?

The specific allegation is that news organizations and US citizens were targeted and that entire data streams were 'drift-netted'.

Your argument is a non sequitur. You have not addressed:

1) The allegation that US news organizations were targeted;
2) The allegation that US citizens were targeted;
3) Entire data streams were "drift-netted";
4) Were FISA warrants obtained under applicable statue?; and
5) Telco Immunity.


Your excuse that legislation providing retroactive immunity thereby 'constitutionalizing' prior illegal activity is at best, lame

 

[BoberFett]

Bush isn't president anymore.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: RichardE

This man is a traitor going public with NSA secrets. If you want to end it, do it closed door, there is dirty laundry the world does not need to see. But to compromise the ability of the NSA to monitor communications outside of the USA because you had a moral awakening is inexcusable.

Glad to see he grows a pair after Bush leaves.

This man is a hero going public with NSA violations of the Constitutional rights of every American citizen... or don't you support the Constitution?

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Looks like a lot of smoke and no fire. "Could." "More than likely." Meh. Sounds like he's making wild guesses instead of bringing anything concrete to the table. But he'll likely get his 15 minutes of fame and adoration from the usual unhinged suspects as if this is some sort of 'WOW!' revelation.

Your post sounds like your typical clouded view from between your gluteal cheeks. Did you watch Olbermann's interview for the added info? Will you watch the continuation, tonight?

YOU have a Constitutionl right to disagree. If you want to keep those rights, you may want to base your opinion on facts.

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

So this is what we are going to get for the next 4 years? Obama can fix all of this. Start holding him responsible. And stop quoting your song.. it makes you look silly.

No, this is what we ACTUALLY GOT for the last eight years. Obama isn't the one who can fix it. That job falls to the new Attorney General and the Department of Justice. Obama can help by allowing his new Attorney General to prosecute the Bushwhackos for the acts he already testified are crimes.

Beyond Obama, the United Nations can prosecute Bush and his gang for torture and other crimes against humanity independent of any American prosecution.

And you can stop bitching about my song. I already saidI don't give a rat's ass if you like it. I wrote it long before all of this became public, and unfortunately, it happens to be true. You can bitch about it when you can refute the facts. Until then, the only ones who looks "silly" are sycophantic Bushwhacko apologists like you who lied to themselves and others in denying the crimes of their Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal.

Maybe because they weren't listening to the phone calls of average citizens like everyone claims?

And maybe they were. Obviously, you didn't watch the Olbermann interview, or you'd know that was one of Tice's major points.

Obviously you have more interest in demonizing Bush than actually having Obama fix things.

Obviously, you have less interest in the truth about the crimes committed by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang than you do in actually preserving our Constitutional rights. You're welcome to forfeit your own, but you can't take mine without a fight.

Why do you hate the Constitution of the United States of America? :Q

Nothing in the constitution against surveying people overseas, which he discusses, therefore he is a traitor. Unless you think the safety of American Soldiers lives is more worthwhile than his book deal (since the process for dealing with these crimes has been well under way)

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: daveschroeder
Tice's claims, under the current law and the August 2008 FISC ruling, represent activities that are explicitly legal.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, allows for foreign intelligence collection on non-US Persons without a warrant, no matter where the collection occurs. The longstanding Smith v. Maryland, 442 US 735 (1979), allows for the collection and examination of communications metadata, i.e., "to" and "from" information, without a warrant. The FISC ruling explicitly finds legal such collection under the now-sunset Protect America Act and, thus, the current FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

In order to determine which traffic content may be collected for foreign intelligence purposes, the traffic metadata must be examined. Even when a target in question is a specific non-US Person of foreign intelligence interest, traffic metadata must first be examined in order to target that person! Because examining traffic metadata was found explicitly legal and Constitutional three decades ago by the United States Supreme Court, doing so in order to target legitimate foreign intelligence collection is allowable under the law.

The major issues for foreign SIGINT were twofold:

- A lot of traffic is now digital versus analog, and cannot be targeted by aiming a directional antenna at a particular geographic locale. It is now traveling largely via things like fiber optic cables, intermixed with all manner of other communications. In order to target the collection, it is no longer a case of sitting on a Navy vessel offshore from some area of interest between individuals talking on two-way radios; it's finding that traffic in a sea of global digital communications.

- Foreign communications of non-US Persons physically outside of the US was increasingly traveling through the US. Previously fair game for foreign intelligence collection throughout the history of such collection in the United States, it suddenly became off-limits without a warrant because it was incidentally routed through locations in the United States. Foreign intelligence collection on non-US Persons outside of the US does not require a warrant, and fundamentally still shouldn't simply because their traffic happens to enter the US.

This was a case of changing technology necessitating an update to a law. A supermajority of both houses of Congress agreed.

Unfortunately, this discussion is so mired in politics, personal grinding of axes, confusion about early NSA programs (like the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, or TSP, which was not renewed after January 2007), and isolated examples of legitimate abuse or misconduct, that not many seem interested in having any real discussion about how foreign intelligence can be reasonably conducted in the digital age. Instead it is a sea of frantic arm-waving and breathless blogging about how the Constitution is being shredded, when the mechanisms of law and judicial oversight have explicitly established the activities as legal.

Ironically, Tice's interview is spot-on. He says, "What was done was sort of an ability to look at the metadata ... and ferret that information to determine what communications would ultimately be collected," and adds, "we looked at organizations, just supposedly so that we would not target them."

"Supposedly?"

That's the whole point. So here's an example of someone explaining more or less what is happening, namely, that traffic metadata is examined to determine whether or not it constitutes a foreign intelligence target, and that measures were undertaken to not intercept the content of communications of entities which are not legitimate targets, even before the legal situation was clarified. None of the news coverage or associated debate seems able to make the connection that this activity is exactly what is described is explicitly legal under:

- The temporary Protect America Act of 2007, which was in force from August 5, 2007 to February 17, 2008,
- The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which became Public Law 110-261 on July 10, 2008, and is in force at present,
- The FISC ruling

The cornerstone of the current law and the FISC decision is the protection of the privacy and rights of United States persons. The current law is even more stringent with respect to US Persons than previous law: an individualized warrant from FISC is required to target a US Person anywhere on the globe; before, US Persons did not enjoy the same explicit protections under the law outside of the US.

What monitors this? The same oversight and processes that we trust, by proxy, to monitor the activities of the Intelligence Community. Namely,

- The intelligence oversight committees of both houses of Congress
- Legal counsel for all Intelligence Community components
- The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
- The Department of Justice
- The Executive Branch

In fact, FISA Modernization is listed as the number one major milestone of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under the tenure of Mike McConnell.

In sum:

1. A warrant is not required to collect intelligence when the target is not a US Person, regardless of where the collection occurs, including within the US.

2. A warrant is always required to collect intelligence when the target is a US Person, whether inside or outside of the US (more strict than previous law).

3. This requires determining which traffic content can be lawfully collected without a warrant, sometimes with the assistance of telecom operators in the US. In order to determine which traffic can be lawfully collected without a warrant, basic information about the traffic, such as its source and destination, must also be examined. Such examination of traffic ? a "pen register" ? also does not require a warrant.

The job of our foreign intelligence services is to collect information on the activities and plans of US adversaries. This activity has never required a warrant, because non-US Persons outside of the US are not protected by the Constitution of the United States.

The path traffic takes shouldn't prevent us from doing this job.

I wonder if anyone in the media is interested in having this discussion, or if it's all going to be accusations from whistleblowers, with no consideration of the associated challenges for foreign SIGINT in a digital world?

I also wonder what it's called when you "blow the whistle" on legal activity...?

Marked with a big WWYBYWB?

 

[daveschroeder]

You are the one confusing multiple issues with a smokescreen and logical fallacy

Sorry, but I am not.

There is no 'legal gray area'. Was a FISA warrant obtained?

If the content monitoring activity between 2001 and 2007 did not fall under the President's Article II authority, then a FISA warrant would have been required. Unfortunately, there is no authoritative answer to that question, and may never be.

The specific allegation is that news organizations and US citizens were targeted and that entire data streams were 'drift-netted'.

As long as the content of the communication is not viewed or stored in a way to enable viewing of the content, this is not a violation of the law.

Your argument is a non sequitur.

Stating that does not make it so.

You have not addressed:

On the contrary; I have addressed each one of these. You just don't want to hear it.

1) The allegation that US news organizations were targeted;
2) The allegation that US citizens were targeted;
3) Entire data streams were "drift-netted";
4) Were FISA warrants obtained under applicable statue?; and
5) Telco Immunity.

1. Metadata monitoring is legal under Smith v Maryland. You are, again, misusing the word "target".

2. Fewer than 100 US citizens were collected on under TSP, and that has already been ACKNOWLEDGED by the DNI. Whether this was allowable under Article II will likely never be answered.

3. The technical mechanism that enables the actual implementation of lawful intelligence collection is utterly irrelevant.

4. No, because the legal opinion was that they were not necessary. In order for that opinion to be invalid, it must go through a process of judicial review finding it invalid; a process that may not occur.

5. If the good-faith activity of telecoms, which is now explicitly legal and was NOT known to be "illegal" before, as I stated above, then how is it productive to prosecute them for activities that are currently legal?

Your excuse that legislation providing retroactive immunity thereby 'constitutionalizing' prior illegal activity is at best, lame

In your opinion, which is out of step with the vast majority of Congress.

The only way a claim of illegal activity would be able to be made for certain is if the Supreme Court hears a case which directly addresses the Article II authority for these specific activities from 2001 to 2007. That was the authority that was asserted, and Obama's Attorney General agreed in his confirmation hearings, on this precise topic, that there is authority in Article II in the course of duties to protect the United States that cannot be negated by any statute.[1] But the judicial review of these specific activities will probably never happen, so saying it was "illegal" is disingenuous.

[1] Note that I am NOT saying that Holder agreed that this activity was allowed by Article II. He simply agreed that the President has authorities under Article II that cannot be negated or impinged upon by statute. This may, or may not, be one of those cases, but only the courts have the authority to say for certain.

 

[daveschroeder]

Marked with a big WWYBYWB?

Sorry, this is my first account, and first time I've ever posted on these forums under any name. Not sure why a factual post on this issue would make you think I must have been banned before...

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: RichardE
This man is a traitor going public with NSA secrets. If you want to end it, do it closed door, there is dirty laundry the world does not need to see. But to compromise the ability of the NSA to monitor communications outside of the USA because you had a moral awakening is inexcusable.

Glad to see he grows a pair after Bush leaves.

The NSA officials who did are traitors to our Constitution, our country, and our way of life. They should be tried for treason and hung.

 

[SagaLore]

Thats kind of cool.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644

Originally posted by: RichardE
This man is a traitor going public with NSA secrets. If you want to end it, do it closed door, there is dirty laundry the world does not need to see. But to compromise the ability of the NSA to monitor communications outside of the USA because you had a moral awakening is inexcusable.

Glad to see he grows a pair after Bush leaves.

The NSA officials who did are traitors to our Constitution, our country, and our way of life. They should be tried for treason and hung.

Fair enough, it still does not excuse this man from a) partaking in these efforts which make him a traitor and b) Discussing ongoing NSA surveillance programs that are legal by our definition (outside of the USA).

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Nothing in the constitution against surveying people overseas, which he discusses, therefore he is a traitor. Unless you think the safety of American Soldiers lives is more worthwhile than his book deal (since the process for dealing with these crimes has been well under way)

Start by watching Olbermann's interview with Tice. He states that the surveillance went way beyond monitoring overseas calls. He said various members of the press and others were targeted for 100% monitoring, domestically, as well.

Originally posted by: daveschroeder

1. The so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, which was not reauthorized after January 16, 2007. The content of fewer than 100 US Persons were monitored without a warrant under TSP, under the auspices of the President's authority under Article II of the Constitution in conjunction with the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Please watch Olbermann's interview with Tice before you continue to defend false assumptions. Tice specifically states:

The National Security Administration had access to all Americans' communications, their faxes, their phone calls and their computer communications, and it didn't matter whether you were in Kansas, in the middle of the country, and you never made a communication... foreign communications, at all. It monitored ALL communications.

The AUMF is meaningless if it is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

Originally posted by: daveschroeder

2. Monitoring the metadata of communication by a government entity ? any and all communication ? is allowable without a warrant under Smith v Maryland and subsequent legal understanding and case law, and has been for 30 years. As applied to the Intelligence Community, this means that monitoring traffic under the current legal environment to determine which traffic's content can be collected is allowable without a warrant.

In the interview, Tice explicitly states that targeted groups included U.S. news organizations and reporters and journalists, and that, for those targeted, everything was collected, not just overseas communications.

3. Misuse of the word "target" with respect to US Persons. If the content of an individual's communication is not monitored and a warrant is not obtained to do so, that person/entity is not a "target".

Your semantic argument fails. Would you feel more comfortable saying the NSA painted concentric circles on the backs of those they monitored? :roll:

4. Legal gray areas that existed from 2001 to 2007.

Which just happens to coincide with the Bushwhacko's criminal reign of terror against American citizens. :shocked:

We'll know more if Tice returns to continue the interview, tonight.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: RichardE

Nothing in the constitution against surveying people overseas, which he discusses, therefore he is a traitor. Unless you think the safety of American Soldiers lives is more worthwhile than his book deal (since the process for dealing with these crimes has been well under way)

Start by watching Olbermann's interview with Tice. He states that the surveillance went way beyond monitoring overseas calls. He said various members of the press and others were targeted for 100% monitoring, domestically, as well.

Originally posted by: daveschroeder

1. The so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, which was not reauthorized after January 16, 2007. The content of fewer than 100 US Persons were monitored without a warrant under TSP, under the auspices of the President's authority under Article II of the Constitution in conjunction with the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Please watch Olbermann's interview with Tice before you continue to defend false assumptions. Tice specifically states:

The National Security Administration had access to all Americans' communications, their faxes, their phone calls and their computer communications, and it didn't matter whether you were in Kansas, in the middle of the country, and you never made a communication... foreign communications, at all. It monitored ALL communications.

The AUMF is meaningless if it is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

Originally posted by: daveschroeder

2. Monitoring the metadata of communication by a government entity ? any and all communication ? is allowable without a warrant under Smith v Maryland and subsequent legal understanding and case law, and has been for 30 years. As applied to the Intelligence Community, this means that monitoring traffic under the current legal environment to determine which traffic's content can be collected is allowable without a warrant.

In the interview, Tice explicitly states that targeted groups included U.S. news organizations and reporters and journalists, and that, for those targeted, everything was collected, not just overseas communications.

3. Misuse of the word "target" with respect to US Persons. If the content of an individual's communication is not monitored and a warrant is not obtained to do so, that person/entity is not a "target".

Your semantic argument fails. Would you feel more comfortable saying the NSA painted concentric circles on the backs of those they monitored? :roll:

4. Legal gray areas that existed from 2001 to 2007.

Which just happens to coincide with the Bushwhacko's criminal reign of terror against American citizens. :shocked:

We'll know more if Tice returns to continue the interview, tonight.

That is great and I hope the proper people are prosecuted, he still should not have discussed anything that did not have to do directly with this subject, the fact that he broached the techniques used to monitor overseas calls is enough that he should be tried as a traitor.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: daveschroeder
Tice's claims, under the current law and the August 2008 FISC ruling, represent activities that are explicitly legal.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, allows for foreign intelligence collection on non-US Persons without a warrant, no matter where the collection occurs. The longstanding Smith v. Maryland, 442 US 735 (1979), allows for the collection and examination of communications metadata, i.e., "to" and "from" information, without a warrant. The FISC ruling explicitly finds legal such collection under the now-sunset Protect America Act and, thus, the current FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

-snip-
I also wonder what it's called when you "blow the whistle" on legal activity...?

It is interesting to see all of the legal grounds that supposedly support the spying programs were amended or created after the programs had been in place for a number of years.

 

[daveschroeder]

1. The so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, which was not reauthorized after January 16, 2007. The content of fewer than 100 US Persons were monitored without a warrant under TSP, under the auspices of the President's authority under Article II of the Constitution in conjunction with the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Please watch Olbermann's interview with Tice before you continue to defend false assumptions. Tice specifically states:

The National Security Administration had access to all Americans' communications, their faxes, their phone calls and their computer communications, and it didn't matter whether you were in Kansas, in the middle of the country, and you never made a communication... foreign communications, at all. It monitored ALL communications.

I know what Tice said. And you're choosing to ignore that what Tice is talking about is the metadata of the communications, which is what he explicitly says ("What was done was sort of an ability to look at the metadata ... and ferret that information to determine what communications would ultimately be collected.") and repeatedly alludes to throughout the interview (e.g., "looked at organizations just supposedly so we would not target them.") Since the whole crux of the issue is that metadata monitoring for the purposes of targeting is not illegal, I see that point continues to be ignored. (This has nothing to do with Article II or AUMF arguments, by the way.)

The AUMF is meaningless if it is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

Whether this is or is not the case has not been established.

In the interview, Tice explicitly states that targeted groups included U.S. news organizations and reporters and journalists, and that, for those targeted, everything was collected, not just overseas communications.

No, he doesn't state that. He says everything was "monitored", and that's probably correct: a lot of traffic groups were "monitored". The mistake is thinking that means the CONTENT of the communication was collected.

3. Misuse of the word "target" with respect to US Persons. If the content of an individual's communication is not monitored and a warrant is not obtained to do so, that person/entity is not a "target".

Your semantic argument fails. Would you feel more comfortable saying the NSA painted concentric circles on the backs of those they monitored? :roll:

The argument doesn't fail, and semantics is incredibly important here. "Targeting" is an explicit term under the law. Monitoring traffic, as long as the CONTENT of the traffic is not viewed, stored, or interpreted, is not illegal. The traffic of many persons and entities who are not "targeted" is "monitored": monitored so that it can be determined if the CONTENT of the traffic can be lawfully collected.

4. Legal gray areas that existed from 2001 to 2007.

Which just happens to coincide with the Bushwhacko's criminal reign of terror against American citizens. :shocked:

Foreign intelligence collection isn't a political issue, but those who choose to make it one do so in apparent willful ignorance of the actual issues at hand.

We'll know more if Tice returns to continue the interview, tonight.

And Tice ? and Olbermann ? certainly don't seem to have any political slant or motivations, do they?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Why our newest best buddy **daveschroeder** in all his eloquence is 'hostile' to the allegation and admission that US news organizations and individuals were targeted is that the courts would most likely find the Congressional-granted retroactive immunity unconstitutional.

Originally posted by: RichardE ~~~~

As I said, just because you can speak state secrets does not mean you should. Why don't you grow a pair and realise that some things are best kept a secret? Especially things that are already in the open. (Being discusses as the internal wiretapping was)

The guy is doing it for a book deal, the internal monitoring is stopped or will be with OBama, so it is not an issue yet he speaks openly about what capabilities the NSA has for monitoring outside the US. Bush isn't going to get in shit for any of this, if he wanted to make a *difference* he would have spoke much earlier in the administration. This guy is a traitor. ~~~~

Tice did speak earlier and has chosen his words carefully. His allegations are that specific news organizations and individuals were targeted in violation of FISA and this information was 'warehoused'. Not little bits of data --- ""everything"" --- 24/7 and 365 days a year.

If the allegations are true, these organizations and individuals have a cause of action giving them the right to seek judicial redress and, as noted above, rendering the Congressional-granted 'retroactive immunity' unconstitutional under the 5th and 14th amendments.

 

[SecPro]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Who's watching over who's watching over you?

It was worse than we knew.

Yes, we all agree your song is worse than we knew.

No shit.

It's no coincidence that Harvey is using as evidence an interview by a total fucktard who probably is the only person in the country with a bigger case of BDS than harvey.

Tice was not only denied access to classified at NSA his entire clearance was taken away. We ll see where this goes but my guess is Tice has gotten himself in a real bind.

BTW daveschroeder nailed it. The rest of you are so far out of your league trying to refute it, it's absolutley hilarious.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: SecPro ~~~~

BTW daveschroeder nailed it. The rest of you are so far out of your league trying to refute it, it's absolutley hilarious.

You mean this Dave Schroeder ?

The one with the membership in the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO) and the National Military Intelligence Association (NMIA) ?


Our good buddy Dave is parsing words.

He clearly has no conflict of interest, huh?