Republicans Back Sound Minimization Oversight

by emptywheel

I'm watching HJC's first hearing on FISA Amendment, and I think the Republicans may be giving us a superb opportunity to address one of the big problems of the FISA Amendment.

You see, the Republicans have no fucking clue that the reason McConnell chose the Republican bill over the Democratic one is because it removed all oversight over minimization.

Thus far--and at 12:04 we've only had questions from 3 Republicans--Dan Lungren has already said the way to deal with concerns about civil liberties is to ensure the minimization procedures protect Americans. And the designated Republican shill, Robert Turner, said precisely the same thing.

Since the absence of any way to do that is one of the big defects with the current bill, I propose we use these public Republican comments to push a revision of the minimization oversight to ensure the Administration can't sneak into my underwear drawer.

Comments

[Jodi]

emptywheel,

if you are going to generate these threads at your current rate, then perhaps you need to increase the number of Recent Posts listed over on the right. People don't get to comment before the Posts have dropped out the bottom of the Recent Posts list. You are only keeping 10 over there now.

[drational]

12:33 and the panelists are now talking about liberty in response to Lee interrogation.
Still haven't seen any indication that anyone talking can delinieate the exact scope and limits of the revision...

[katie jensen]

From your fingertips to their ears, E.W.

(that didn't sound right and the visual is darn right displeasing.)

From your fingertips to their eyeballs.

(still not right)

Crap, just get them the plan. Yes, sounds good. Do great ideas EVER come from the floor??

[selise]

i'm listening to the HJC hearing also - and my head is about ready to explode. FISA is an "agreement" and not a law the president is required to follow?

and does anyone understand the law they just passed? let alone why?

[drational]

Why in the heck didn't we have hearings before the law was passed?
And who is this Professor?
The president is controlled by a "higher power" than congress?

[drational]

Professor Robert F. Turner:

"And in this instance [FISA before August 3, 2007], it is
absolutely clear that Congress has grossly usurped presidential power. In so doing, it has
contributed to the success of one major terrorist attack and may soon bear responsibility
for others if no quick solution is found."

[cboldt]

-- Why in the heck didn't we have hearings before the law was passed? --

The House passed a functional equivalent of this bill last year. "Minimization concerns" and all.

There are all sorts of smokebombs being tossed out. One is "minimization," and anoter is "warrants for foreign to foreign acquisitions." Smokebombs, like satire, work best when they have some attachment to facts.

[emptywheel]

Turner is kind of stupid (he really hasn't read the new amendments). And he's also completely unaware that BushCo refused any oversight on minimization.

[bmaz]

Katie Jensen - "Do great ideas EVER come from the floor??" Well, sometimes late into Drinking Liberally sessions.....

[selise]

"The House passed a functional equivalent of this bill last year."

cbolt - do you have resolution number for that bill? thanks!

[drational]

Rep Cohen just called for James Comey to be nominated as AG.
Fat chance.

[cboldt]

-- do you have resolution number for that bill? --

Noted here (TNH) on August 12, 2007 at 13:38

[emptywheel]

Argh!!

Rep Cohen just said, effectively, "If Bush appointed Jim Comey, this law would be okay."

I appreciate the attempt, presumably, to give Bush a reason to appoint Comey (not that it'll happen). But you need laws first before you have a rule of law.

[selise]

cbolt - thank you, i should have remembered that!

[katie jensen]

Bmaz,

Yeah, like "why don't I just wait here until the room stops spinning..."

That's a good idea from the floor...

[drational]

They are still missing 503b changes that allow sifting or mining of Domestic-Domestic data:
the approved bill merely requires the acquisition to be information CONCERNING persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States. This means the approved bill allows warrantless acquisitions of any communication that "concerns" foreigners. THIS BILL ALLOWS ACQUISITION OF PURELY DOMESTIC COMMUNICATIONS if it concerns foreigners. In other words, this bill permits data mining looking for "foreign" keywords in ALL of the communication traffic.

[emptywheel]

drational

The former CIA lawyer hit that liberally early on.

Turner has no fucking clue that they gutted the minimization oversight.

[drational]

I suspect Turner knows but doesn't care.
Executive Privilege is a "higher power".

Missed the domestic-domestic discussion. any highlights?

[emptywheel]

Nope, but the CIA lawyer addressed it very specifically, in her prepared comments and a bit of follow-up--she has made clear distinction between the two, and actually raised the possibility that a stored email would fall under that part of the law.

[cboldt]

The new "clearly erroneous" review is directed at exactly ONE finding. And that ONE finding has little, if anything to do with "minimization."

The ONE finding that FISC -must- render, to the standard of "clearly erroneous," is to the logic the snooper uses to conclude that a snoop has one end foreign. That's easy, "we snoop on wires that enter the US from outside the US."

The DNI/AG's statement relating to minimization pertains to a statement/certification that justifies an individual order to (probably) a telecom, and a telecom who owns the US-end of the international wire. That "minimization" regime is supposed to be -exactly- as protective of US privacy interests as minimization procedures that were submitted to FISC for approval before the snoop. But ... certain factors must be in play before FISC would look at the certification. As a practical matter, I think the DNI/AG can prevent the FISC from -ever- viewing the certification. They could put blank pages in the sealed package.

The law provides that a "frivolous" challenge (by a telecom) does not result in viewing the certification. As long as the snoop order is directed at a wire that crosses a US border, a challenge to the snoop order is "frivolous."

[Darclay]

Comments
emptywheel,

if you are going to generate these threads at your current rate, then perhaps you need to increase the number of Recent Posts listed over on the right. People don't get to comment before the Posts have dropped out the bottom of the Recent Posts list. You are only keeping 10 over there now.

Read faster!

EW are any of these congressmen qualified to (lawyers who practice fisa laws) actually understand what they are doing. seems to me that would be a prerequsite to sit on this commitee.

[Mary]

Amen on needing laws first EW - and you need CONSEQUENCES for breaking the laws, consequences that apply to the President, the Dir FBI, the AG, the DOJ, the NSA head, the NSA eavesdroppers, the telecoms - CONSEQUENCES.

Here is the result of all the Democratic "nicey nicey" post 9/11.

In so doing, it has contributed to the success of one major terrorist attack and may soon bear responsibility for others if no quick solution is found."

No one has ever chosen to nail Hayden's hide to the wall over his failure to cooperate, the failure to stay on top of the bin laden intercepts they had despite the CIA and FBI and Clarke "hair on fire" aspects. No one has ever called bull on the fact that the illegal program would have done anything to prevent 9/11, when the CIA report (and how many of the stories on that report that mentioned failings at NSA FAILED to mention that Hayden - the head of the failing grade NSA effort, is now promoted to the head of the CIA that is still in the torture and kidnap and no consequences business? No one has challenged his lack of candor when testifying before Congress and the real issues that still exist.

All the illegal and illicit surveillance in the world and they have done LESS WELL at being able to figure out where bin laden is and what he is up to than they did under the legal program - where they had lots of info, they just weren't sharing it or translating it.

So idiot shills get by with inventing a fairy tale and the crap that keeps getting repeated, over and over, becomes the reality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300933_pf.html
discussing a Center for Disease Control pamphlet on disease truths and myths and the way in which people processed the informtaion:

he found that within 30 minutes, older people misremembered 28 percent of the false statements as true. Three days later, they remembered 40 percent of the myths as factual.

Younger people did better at first, but three days later they made as many errors as older people did after 30 minutes. Most troubling was that people of all ages now felt that the source of their false beliefs was the respected CDC

Iraq/911
Illegal programs are needed to save us.
Torture is good.
Kidnapping children is fun for the whole CIA.
Congress sux.

[selise]

"Missed the domestic-domestic discussion. any highlights?"

i'm recording the audio and will post an mp3 later today.

[drational]

Just reviewed the Spaulding written testimony- she pretty much nails the breadth issues. I take it back my earlier comments that the witnesses are not informed....
hopefully the committee members and congressmen will become informed.
I still lament that the discussion did not occur before the law was passed.

[drational]

So here is Davis;
He cast his vote to expand wiretapping authority, because he trusts the next person in the white house will be responsible.

Cut his mic.