@normative That's actually not what I said - I disagreed with the premise of happening on a massive scale.
-
-
Replying to @speechboy71
@speechboy71 Well, constitutionality of 702 is hotly contested, but challenges have foundered on standing. Scale of collection quite massive2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative Right. What I was trying to say that by the current FISA interpretation of the law it is considered constitutional1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @speechboy71
@speechboy71@normative Just because it has been done does not mean it is "considered constitutional" by anyone other than those doing it.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sftokarski
@sftokarski@speechboy71 Well, and the FISC, who are in fact federal judges, but I don't think anyone believes that settles the matter.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative@speechboy71 I hope not. Anonymous judges appointed in secret for lifetime appointments. Hey, it's "considered constitutional."1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sftokarski
@sftokarski@speechboy71 Well… they’re not really anonymous & the term is seven years, not life. But they’re certainly not a normal court.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative@sftokarski Definitely not normal, but a creation of Congress & members are federal judges4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @speechboy71
@speechboy71 Given that is something SHUT DOWN by Bush bc was problematic, hard to say it's clearly Constitutional.@normative@sftokarski2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Again, I was referring to the FISC interpretation of constitutionality.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@speechboy71 Upstream in particular seems to be something DOJ is explicitly parallel constructing to avoid any review by Title III court.
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.