EITHER the dog-and-pony we've seen thus far on 215 dragnet is woefully incomplete or TS/SCI treatment of hearing is to protect lying.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Betting on the former. Wild guess: using database for (at least) fingerprinting they don't want to discuss.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative Yeah, as I pointed out here, they told the court it is still "in may respects" classified. http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/07/23/will-keith-alexander-finally-tell-the-truth-about-the-section-215-dragnet-in-todays-secret-emergency-hearing/ … Transparency™!2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Probably lots of other circumstances where you want records that don't pertain directly to a named subject.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative Like acetone! ;p If they got gun records, would they ALSO be unnamed?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel I don't even think gun records are unreasonable if there's a specific lead that provides a nexus to AFP activities.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative Agree entirely. But it WOULD be unreasonable if it were bulk so as to have records. Esp since nutjobs more lethal thus far w/guns1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Agreed—only reasonable if time/region/type delimited in response to specific intel. But not clear this allows that either.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@normative They have plenty of time to modify it in Senate, conference.
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.