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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why the Snowden Leak Is Such a Big Deal [View all]DirkGently
(12,151 posts)48. In 2011, PRISM was found to be violating the Constitution.
We haven't heard much, or had any discussion, because all of that is part of the secret FISA court system.
EFF and others have been trying to get the ruling released, so we can at least all see how the law was being broken in the first place, and better understand what it is that has changed that the administration would contend now makes its activities legal.
But the administration has crafted (or adopted from the Bush administration) a legal argument that no court, anywhere -- including the FISA court itself -- has the authority to release a FISA ruling, even one that was about a violation of the law by the executive branch.
In a rare public filing in the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the Justice Department today urged continued secrecy for a 2011 FISC opinion that found the National Security Agency's surveillance under the FISA Amendments Act to be unconstitutional. Significantly, the surveillance at issue was carried out under the same controversial legal authority that underlies the NSAs recently-revealed PRISM program.
EFF filed a suit under the Freedom of Information Act in August 2012, seeking disclosure of the FISC ruling. Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall revealed the existence of the opinion, which found that collection activities under FISA Section 702 "circumvented the spirit of the law and violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. But, at the time, the Senators were not permitted to discuss the details publicly. Section 702 has taken on new importance this week, as it appears to form the basis for the extensive PRISM surveillance program reported recently in the Guardian and the Washington Post.
The government sought to block EFFs FOIA suit by arguing that only the FISC, itself, can release the opinion. In an effort to remove that roadblock, EFF filed a motion with the FISC on April 22 seeking the surveillance courts consent to disclosure, should the document be found to be otherwise subject to release under FOIA. In its response filed with the FISC today, the government offers a circular argument, asserting that only the Executive Branch can de-classify the opinion, but that it is somehow prohibited by the FISC rules from doing so.
EFF filed a suit under the Freedom of Information Act in August 2012, seeking disclosure of the FISC ruling. Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall revealed the existence of the opinion, which found that collection activities under FISA Section 702 "circumvented the spirit of the law and violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. But, at the time, the Senators were not permitted to discuss the details publicly. Section 702 has taken on new importance this week, as it appears to form the basis for the extensive PRISM surveillance program reported recently in the Guardian and the Washington Post.
The government sought to block EFFs FOIA suit by arguing that only the FISC, itself, can release the opinion. In an effort to remove that roadblock, EFF filed a motion with the FISC on April 22 seeking the surveillance courts consent to disclosure, should the document be found to be otherwise subject to release under FOIA. In its response filed with the FISC today, the government offers a circular argument, asserting that only the Executive Branch can de-classify the opinion, but that it is somehow prohibited by the FISC rules from doing so.
Which brings us back to the Bush Doctrine, which contends that, in matters the Executive deems to be of national security importance, the Executive can decide what is legal on its own, AND if the secret court system designed to oversee secret warrants finds it has misinterpreted or violated the law, NO ONE CAN EVER KNOW HOW.
What's interesting about the "leak" story is that the administration is now rushing to explain how PRISM works to refute the supposed details reported. Which already defeats its original position that we can't discuss PRISM or how PRISM was unconstitutional, and must take the Executive's word that they're now conducting only legal super-secret surveillance.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
123 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
They may respond with terrorist attacks, which is why there was probably a better way to achieve
JaneyVee
Jun 2013
#3
Yeah, meanwhile he flees to China and I'm living in the #1 terrorist target on planet Earth.
JaneyVee
Jun 2013
#12
If you are looking for calling patterns, how would you pull only the numbers you want...
randome
Jun 2013
#65
It's not likely they can set fire to it with out your knowing about it. Besides, it would'nt be them
corkhead
Jun 2013
#64
But they could do that at any time. The only thing that prevents them are laws.
randome
Jun 2013
#66
Americans should have no worry assuming all involved, including contractors, are assiduously honest,
indepat
Jun 2013
#92
Like it or not, we would not be able to function without trusting the bureaucracy a little.
randome
Jun 2013
#94
The government also has the capability of collecting all the data you've ever produced...
dkf
Jun 2013
#103
The UK govt is saying that it's not circumventing UK law by using PRISM
muriel_volestrangler
Jun 2013
#93
It's also important because he makes it *real* - now people are interested and will follow the story
reformist2
Jun 2013
#11
It's not too late to cut way back on internet/phone use. I think it's the only solution, actually.
reformist2
Jun 2013
#41
Someone leaked this information to Greenwald. We all should be concerned about that.
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jun 2013
#13
No one seems concerned that a person who lives in a foreign country now holds classified info.
JaneyVee
Jun 2013
#14
Exactly!! That's what is so disconcerning. We're not paying attention to the real story here.
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jun 2013
#72
He agrees and so do I. Unlike others who somehow think that the president's intentions are evil
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jun 2013
#76
Yep. You've been around long enough to know that it's ALWAYS about the president...
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jun 2013
#75
I work for the federal government, so believe me, I'm very concerned about security.
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jun 2013
#82
The next thing you know there will be x-ray machines and pat downs at airports
Major Nikon
Jun 2013
#21
Let's see, to change the laws signed by Bush, Obama only needs the cooperation of Republicans
Coyotl
Jun 2013
#108
You mean Kerry, right? But it is an interesting question about Clinton as well
BlueStreak
Jun 2013
#39
I doubt it. That would suppose that she is against it, and that is doubtful.
BlueStreak
Jun 2013
#78
The PTB are getting hot under the collar as we reach the Tipping Point or whatever it is.
Octafish
Jun 2013
#105
The stuggle 4 secrecy has already begun the character assassination of Snowden.
morningfog
Jun 2013
#58
The word "Echelon" ring a bell? This type of activity has been around for years.
TxVietVet
Jun 2013
#53
Unfortunately, some narcissistic troublemakers in Philadeplphia leaked the 4th Amendment.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jun 2013
#62