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
-
-
Replying to @Hesiod2k11
@Hesiod2k11 Or, you could listen to what EVERYONE has said about it and realize it doesn't ever involve a warrant.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel - The initial collection has to be authorized by a broad warrant. And the use has to meet legal standards as well.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Hesiod2k11
@Hesiod2k11 No. You're badly mistaken. It is authorized by an ORDER, not a warrant. The use only requires RAS, monitored after the fact.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel - We only have the Order by the FISA ct post application. Which is the same thing as a fucking warrant. IT'S A COURT ORDER!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Hesiod2k11
@Hesiod2k11 "A fucking warrant" is not "A COURT ORDER." There is no prior court oversight of particularity. Zero.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel -- It's still an Order from a Court authorized by an act of Congress to issue such Orders. Nothing illegal about it.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Hesiod2k11
@Hesiod2k11 Except that the guy who wrote the statute (hint: NOT in 2008) says this use of it wasn't envisioned by the statute.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel -- That's odd considering that's exactly what the Bush administration was requesting when the statute passed.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@Hesiod2k11 Again, you're thinking of a completely different statute. Wrong year, wrong statute, wrong request. Batting 0 on facts.
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.