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 Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

reusrename

(1,716 posts)
33. I think there is quite a bit of confusion about the order of things,
Fri Jun 21, 2013, 02:44 PM
Jun 2013

In other words, it might be important to understand how these things are related to each other in time.

If so, 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:

1) Yes, they do need a separate warrant in order to access content of individual phone calls/emails.

2) 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.

My understanding is that the analyst has legal access, on his own authority, once he has been verbally authorized by either the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence. I think the analyst only need fill out a form in order to take a peek at anything.

At least this is my current 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 process perfectly legal.

If you start to parse the Q&A information with this timeline in mind, it starts to reveal an amazing consistency. Many of the contradictory claims evaporate.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Set me straight, is the ACLU in the racist category? nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #1
I believe they are currently in the "ratfucker" category Dragonfli Jun 2013 #11
Well it makes sense nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #12
It's getting crowded under the "corporate apologist's" bus. nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #28
it's such a stupid smear...ignorant of history nashville_brook Jun 2013 #49
The ACLU never loved him! City Lights Jun 2013 #32
clearly the ACLU is a firebagger organization noiretextatique Jun 2013 #34
I admit, I did not consider that possibility nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #35
welcome noiretextatique Jun 2013 #44
today is a good day to join the ACLU grasswire Jun 2013 #2
isn't that how you get on the watch list? reusrename Jun 2013 #30
apparently we are all already on a watch list. grasswire Jun 2013 #48
This too, is entirely legal. Cali_Democrat Jun 2013 #3
"The government also claims the authority to retain Americans' purely domestic communications" morningfog Jun 2013 #17
How can the FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Court issue legally issue domestic warrants? Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2013 #36
There were no warrants issued in these cases Cali_Democrat Jun 2013 #37
"Technically" Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2013 #39
I agree Cali_Democrat Jun 2013 #41
I missed the paragraph which stated "fuck President Obama... Earth_First Jun 2013 #4
The ACLU ProSense Jun 2013 #5
You finally admit they can take content? RobertEarl Jun 2013 #6
So much information is surfacing Harmony Blue Jun 2013 #8
It has ProSense Jun 2013 #10
Are you aware of the protocols that the NSA uses to distinguish between "Foreign" and "Domestic"? bvar22 Jun 2013 #18
Here: ProSense Jun 2013 #20
i have figured why the rumours started that the onion was closing Monkie Jun 2013 #24
As John Oliver says..."a coin toss plus 1%"!!! dkf Jun 2013 #27
Well, there is a caveat Coccydynia Jun 2013 #19
Stop it with the facts and stuff. Some here at DU don't like that. SlimJimmy Jun 2013 #23
Oops. My bad. Coccydynia Jun 2013 #25
I think there is quite a bit of confusion about the order of things, reusrename Jun 2013 #33
You may be correct. Coccydynia Jun 2013 #43
Actually, some of the documents indicate they can also take some JDPriestly Jun 2013 #51
Oh, no, that can't be true. She's quoting Greenwald there, and Jackpine Radical Jun 2013 #21
what, no "racism, bigotry, hate, agendas, envy and jealousy"? MisterP Jun 2013 #7
Well, that's ACLU for you. Jackpine Radical Jun 2013 #22
Thank you ACLU Harmony Blue Jun 2013 #9
K&R for the ACLU! "far weaker than we imagined they could be" n/t Catherina Jun 2013 #13
k/r marmar Jun 2013 #14
but it's leeeeeeegal!!1 frylock Jun 2013 #15
"purely domestic". that means non-foreign calls. seems excessive. nt limpyhobbler Jun 2013 #16
K&R Solly Mack Jun 2013 #26
Somebody's lying.... kentuck Jun 2013 #29
Good question. Octafish Jun 2013 #40
Kick nt Hissyspit Jun 2013 #31
Why does the ACLU hate us for our freedoms? Rex Jun 2013 #38
+1 nashville_brook Jun 2013 #47
HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! WillyT Jun 2013 #42
We can hear you now. blkmusclmachine Jun 2013 #45
k and r nashville_brook Jun 2013 #46
Kick...Interesting Info...We Need to KNOW! KoKo Jun 2013 #50
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»ACLU: NSA Retains Purely ...»Reply #33