Worth remembering: on at least 1 occasion, the FISA Court said NSA surveillance violated the 4th Amendment. http://bit.ly/MB6CBl #NSAfiles
-
-
Replying to @attackerman
@attackerman Doesn't that suggest FISA court is not the rubber stamp it's often described as?2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @speechboy71
@speechboy71 FISC isn't so much rubber stamp as designed to have limited authority by statute. Minimization is their one play.@attackerman1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@attackerman That's a pretty big play.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @speechboy71
@speechboy71 It might be. But they were designed by statute not to be able to check whether govt abides by minimization rules.@attackerman1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@attackerman Why would they need to?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @speechboy71
@speechboy71 What guarantee is there govt abides by their own minimization rules? Won't be submitted as evidence.@attackerman1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Doesn't really answer my question on minimization. If FISA sets rules what reason is there to believe NSA doesn't abide by them2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @speechboy71
@speechboy71 Because govt doesn't do that unless there is a real check. Consider the Exigent letters debacle as VERY similar example.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel You're saying that government employees don't abide by the law unless another branch of govt is directly overseeing them?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@speechboy71 So yes, I'm foolishly relying on the evidence in the record. In the old days, the telecoms had an incentive to check on things
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.