Think of the NSA data collection as a large rainwater sistern that the gvt can only drink from with a specific warrant authorized by a court
@Hesiod2k11 And it was your use of "warrant" that I corrected, because it is false.
-
-
@emptywheel -- The 4th amendment issue arises from the lack of particularity of the FISA Order. -
@Hesiod2k11 Because the 4th requires a WARRANT, and what is involved here is a non-particular ORDER. Really basic stuff. -
@emptywheel -- A Warrant isa neutral magistrate giving permission for the search activity. Greenwald conveniently didn't reveal the request -
@Hesiod2k11 FIRST THING Greenwald revealed WAS the order. The request is for ALL phone records. -
@emptywheel -- Right. Greenwald revealed the Order, but not the specific particularized request and reasons for the request.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel -- Under Bush, it was 100% off the books, warrantless and illegal. Post 2008, it followed the FISA statute. -
@Hesiod2k11 You don't even have your dates correct, or your statutes. You're just word salading such that even Sarah Palin would be proud. -
@emptywheel -- Sorry, 2007. -
@Hesiod2k11 Still wrong. I'll continue this conversation when you can manage a single tweet w/o huge errors. Buhbye. -
@emptywheel -- The two at issue statutes were passed in 2007 and 2008. They authorized what transpired. Acting shocked by it is disenguous -
@Hesiod2k11 No. You are wrong. The statute covering metadata program was passed in 2006. Again, this is so basic it is painful to correct
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.