General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNadler vs. Mueller
Nadler is a smart, decent and reliable Democratic congressman.
Mueller is a Bush appointee.
Hmmm... Which one's claims do I believe... So tough to decide...
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Because he forgot to tell us in the FBI hearing.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Looks like he's asking the same question I am.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)And in the CNET article it said that Nadler was unavailable to CNET for a comment.
Sounds to me like the CNET article is NOT backed up by any reliable source.
Would be a good idea to wait and see what Nadler has to say in the upcoming hours.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Yikes!
neverforget
(9,436 posts)on Americans under Obama.
I've asked many times and have not received an answer from them with this question: what business is it of the government who I call, when I call and for how long? No answer has been forthcoming..........
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Fuck the transcript.
Mueller: As we all know, these particular records are not covered by the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that to be the case. And secondly, the determination as to the legality and that standard has been addressed by the FISA Court, in the affirmative, to support this particular program.
[someone introduces Nadler]
Nadler: Let me ask you the following. Under section 215, and Id also like to associate myself with the remarks that a dragnet subpoena for every telephone record, etc every e-mail record, though I know they dont do that anymore, though they could again tomorrow, and they did do it certainly makes a mockery of the relevance standard in section 215. If everything in the world is relevant then theres no meaning to that word. Some of us offered amendments to narrow that several years ago and in retrospect maybe we should have adopted those amendments. But thats no excuse for a misinterpretation of relevance to the point that there is no such meaning to the word.
Now secondly, under section 215 if youve gotten information from metadata, and you as a result of that thing that, gee, this phone number, 873-whatever, looks suspicious and we aught to actually get the contents of that phone. Do you need a new specific warrant?
Mueller: You need at least a national security letter. All you have is a telephone number. You do not have subscriber information, so if you need the subscriber information you would need to probably get a National Security Letter to get that subscriber information. And then if you wanted to do more
Nadler: If you wanted to listen to the phone
Mueller: Then you would have to get a special, a particularized order from the FISA Court directed at that particular phone and that particular individual.
Nadler: Now is the answer you just gave me classified?
Mueller: Is what?
Nadler: Is the answer you just gave me classified in any way?
Mueller: I dont think so.
Nadler: OK, then I can say the following. We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didnt need a new warrant. In other-words what you just said is incorrect. So theres a conflict.
Mueller: Im not sure its the answer to the same question. Im sorry, I didnt mean to interrupt.
Nadler: Well I asked the question both times and I think its the same question, so maybe you better go back and check, because someone was incorrect.
Mueller: I will do that. That is my understanding of the process.
Nadler: OK, I dont question your understanding. It was always my understanding. And I was rather startled the other day and I wanted to take this opportunity to
Mueller: Id be happy to clarify it.
Nadler: Thank you.
Courtesy and a H/T to LGF.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Forgive me for being dense.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)No... make that three.
1) It remains unclear whether Nadler was talking about content or subscriber info.
2) It's abundantly clear that he didn't say "if the NSA wants 'to listen to the phone,' an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required", as the CNET article claims.
3) One can believe or disbelieve anyone, regardless of party affiliation.
Damn. Make it four.
4) Better to disbelieve anything ratfucking "journalists" say.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Theres no mention of it in McCullaghs article, but this entire discussion was about metadata. They explicitly say this several times, using the word metadata. And metadata is not listening to phone calls, its the equivalent of looking at a telephone bill. Thats why Mueller begins (in the clip above) by saying that the Supreme Court has ruled that this kind of data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
The bottom line: this CNET article and headline are extremely misleading. There is no evidence here to support the hyperbolic claims made by their article.
-snip-
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42138_CNET_Says_NSA_Admits_Listening_to_US_Phone_Calls_-_but_Thats_Not_What_the_Video_Shows
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Meuller is FBI. His answer is what any reasonable person would expect. And obviously the NSA has been operating under its own rules that have no connection to the Constitution or even the Patriot or FISA acts.
This all seems to corroborate the Snowden claim that so many people here poo-poohed as outlandish that any old pole-dancer-romancer, high-school dropout can indeed wiretap without any court order.
Outlandish? Yes, indeed. But unfortunately, completely true.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Mueller is FBI, he won't speak for the NSA, just the FBI.
NSA is secret. Nadler heard, in secret, that the NSA does tap any phone an analyst deems desirable to tap. In secret, without a warrant.
Nadler can't come right out and say so, because he has pledged to keep secrets. But what he did was find a way to say so without spilling a secret by conversing with Mueller.
Mueller, speaking for FBI says they go by the law. Nadler, speaking round about, says that what Mueller is saying is not the case when it comes to the NSA.
Which now Mueller, if he really is a public servant, will discover and bust the secret NSA spying. If.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Alex Jones calls Snowden a CIA plant/false flag patsy so I guess we must all go with Mueller to prove what good, pragmatic Democrats we are.
And the Washington Post says he's a martyr without a cause for whom no cathedral will be erected.
There. That should simplify things for you.
By Anne Applebaum, Published: June 14
....
And his methods are curious. There is a tradition of whistleblowing in the United States, even among people who work with classified information and there are long-established ways to do it. Snowden might have approached a member of Congress, perhaps one of those with intelligence oversight. He might have written to his organizations lawyers, to clarify the legality of his work. He might have argued his case from within. Jack Goldsmith, a legal expert then working in the Justice Department, fought against the use of torture by the Bush administration. Eventually he resigned and wrote about it. There were setbacks, but ultimately, Goldsmith was successful: The policy was reversed.
Snowden chose a different path. He stole a hoard of documents and fled to Hong Kong. Thus did he place his fate in the hands of a government that exerts total control over its nations Internet and spares no expense in its attempts to penetrate ours. His decision to speak from there, in public, is also noteworthy: It means his interest in publicity trumps his stated fear of arrest.
Nothing about the context, in other words, tells us that Snowden is interested in anything other than martyrdom and a perverse sort of fame. Nothing tells us that his primary interest is the welfare of his fellow Americans. Nothing about his actions, so far, seems likely to help him achieve his stated goals. There may be further investigations. Congressional oversight might be increased. Unless we learn something new, the NSAs data-mining will not come to a halt because of Snowdens personal sacrifice and, at the moment, it doesnt seem likely that anyone will build a cathedral in his honor.
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/anne-applebaum-snowden-the-impulsive-martyr/2013/06/14/5c059462-d511-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Here's some more help. Declan McCullagh, author of the CNET story is an Alex Jones regular and a Paulite so we must all go with him, blindly accepting his fabricated quotes to prove what good, holier-than-thou libertarian-cum-emo-leftists we are.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)These posts look much like the libertarian garbage one finds here:
http://www.infowars.com/
Check out the front page, looks identical to the horseshit they're shoveling here. Daily.
Helloooooo.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)How about this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3020965
Al Gore: NSA Surveillance Violates The Constitution Updated