2/2 conclusively for rule that suspicionless nat sec searches are ok? Unreal.
@granick I'm still tracking down some on this but reminder how govt used it w/FISCR in 2002. https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/082102appeal.html … @rachelblevinson
-
-
@emptywheel imho FISCR’s use of the case is reasonable—establish special needs exception. Yoo, however, is outlandish.@rachelblevinson -
@granick That Yoo letter likely tracks the 11/02/01 memo very close ex 2 pages. https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/04/06/john-yoos-two-justifications-for-stellar-wind/ …@rachelblevinson -
@emptywheel yeah because he wrote the letter in one day. Cut and paste job from the memo.@RachelBLevinson -
@granick Complete w/typos. Actually saying it's prolly exact same memo except for 2 rewritten pages of even more interest.@RachelBLevinson -
@emptywheel I assume he had to hide the fact the surveillance was already ongoing.@RachelBLevinson -
@granick She knew that. Lamberth and Baker told her.@RachelBLevinson -
@emptywheel Interesting. Why then do you think that Yoo framed the letter as conditional: could/would/etc.? -
@granick Also remember Ashcroft later said he did not get complete understanding from that.
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.