I think the problem we're going to run into here is "clandestine intelligence activities" This administration classfies information willy nilly, and anytime these leaks or stories involve classified info, they're going to claim it involves "clandestine intelligence activities"
I don't think that's a fair reading. The investigation isn't of 'clandestine intelligence activities', it's of the public exposure of classified information. The language as written looks to me to unambiguously pick out investigations of spying on the US, not the open leaking of US information.
These are whistleblowers and reporters, not terrorists and spies
I think you had it right the first time: same thing, as far as the administration is concerned.
If it turns out that it was an improper use of NSLs, is there any recourse? Since, as you note, it's not subject to review by a court, it's almost as if the very issuance of the NSL makes it legal, even when it perhaps shouldn't be.
Which is what makes the PATRIOT Act a very, very, very bad law, at least in this regard. I wouldn't say 'makes it legal'; if my reading of the law is right, it's not legal. Instead, I would say 'there is no remedy for its illegality'. Very bad law.
#2
I agree. But I bet they'll use that justification all the same.
"We needed those records, they reveal classified information involving clandestine intelligence activities."
"What? How the hell does an article on secret prisons constitute clandestine intelligence activities?"
"We can't tell you that. It's classified."
And round and round we go. Then if by some miracle the DOJ tries to investigate, they'll get denied the necessary security clearance to view the files, and they'll just slink away.
God I'm sick of this banana republic bullshit. Any real opposition party would be on TV every night telling the country to vote them back into the majority so they could impeach this motherfucker.
Instead, we have the Democrats.
Re: 4,5. See my update. It looks as though there is a civil remedy for violations of the law.
Ah, civil remedies. Here's a preview of how that will go.
Keep in mind that it's a crime to use the government classification process to cover up government crime. Accordingly, if someone is blowing the whistle on a government crime (and maintaining secret prisons in Europe constitutes both a U.S. crime and a war crime, I believe), the fact that the information they give the media is classified isn't a defense.
Keep in mind that it's a crime to use the government classification process to cover up government crime. Accordingly, if someone is blowing the whistle on a government crime (and maintaining secret prisons in Europe constitutes both a U.S. crime and a war crime, I believe), the fact that the information they give the media is classified isn't a defense.
I suspect the question is going to be whether the "against" is distributive.
Now that is clever. My suspicion is that it won't stand up, because you have to make a choice -- the 'against' is either distributive or it isn't -- and if it isn't then you can't get an NSL to investigate someone else spying on us, if there's no terrorism connection. That seems like a far less likely interpretation than the distributive 'against', but you're right, it is possible.
11. Yeah. I read it as "protect X or clandestine intelligence activities." If that's right, then the leak investigation is going on to both punish the leaking of info that threatens the usefulness of clandestine intelligence activities (so they claim) and as a deterrent to other would-be leakers. So, if it's the case that more leaks could further harm these "clandestine intelligence activities", and this investigation is a plausible deterrent, then they might have some wiggile room.
Again -- that only stands up if the administration is willing to say that NSA's are not available in espionage investigations (and if the legislative history, which I haven't looked at, supports that proposition). It's possible, but I think unlikely.
Gotcha. I seems likely my first reading was too much in the context of the rest of the post, skewing my interpretation.
So they didn't have a court order.
I find any argument that "X is legal under the Patriot Act" weak on its surface, because of what you're saying in 5, LB. It seems to me that the PA, as I understand it blah blah IANAL, is terrible law and in some aspects probably unconstitutional.
God, I hate these people.
I am nothing if not a silly, silly little person.
Dude, I cannot make sense of 17. Well played! Well played indeed.
Oh my word. Is this the legendary Troll?
Do we really need to be encouraging him? How was abc last handled?
ogged asked abc to leave.
Russell sucks, by the way.
We have a new, ToS only comment editing policy. This applies only to the ToS -- everyone else's comments will be respected. He's just too boring to be allowed to comment unmolested.
I don't intend to encourage him, and am done discussing him or engaging him in any way, other than to note that I strongly vote for doing whatever it takes to make him go away, either through technological solutions, polite requests, whatever.
There is zero need for tolerance, as he's already demonstrated elsewhere that he can't be constructively engaged.
Heads up, y'all. Kevin Drum has linked to this post.
Just because Drum linked? That seems disproportionate. No, seriously, woohoo!
27: Dear god. The comments over there make me despair of my countrymen. (And, to a lesser extent women, although Drum's place seems pretty free of asinine women.)
Quine was from Akron. [edited for clarity]
abc was enouraged to spew crazy shit for our amusement until he began espousing some racist stuff, which was the point at which Ogged asked him to quit commenting.
27:I noticed. Scarey. Pretty soon petey and cranky and pgl will be showing up and I will need to find a smaller quieter place to comment. Aspberger's, ya know. At least so Gary tells me.
Nice catch LB. It looks as though whoever tipped off the reporters had his facts wrong. If the FBI is only interested in old calling records, then a trap and trace isn't going to be of any use, which makes the Pen Register Act useless, I think, and the use of an NSL here practical. So far as the legality of the NSL here goes, I share the reservations about whether Patriot's broadening of their use is wise, but imho this is a legal use of an NSL.
The FBI cannot assume at the outset that the leak was perpetrated by an otherwise loyal whistleblower. All they really know is that an extremely sensitive and very compartmentalized program was breached and disclosed to the media, thereby placing the program in jeopardy and likely having other harmful effects on national security as well. Such a breach calls for a counterintelligence investigation, and obviously the journalists' phone records are relevant to that investigation. So 2709 applies.
What you're saying, if I understand you, is that NSLs are properly limited to investigations of [terrorism and] clandestine intelligence activities against the US, and that they were justified in this case because the FBI was, in fact, actually investigating the possibility of espionage against the US rather than simply investigating the leak to the newspapers. The latter clause seems unlikely to me, but I suppose not impossible.
Put differently, how could anyone know, prior to investigating, that the leak was not perpetrated by or connected with a foreign intelligence operation? Wouldn't a cautious counterintelligence department treat all breaches of classified material as related to a foreign intelligence operation, until an investigation shows otherwise?
Well, offhand? I would expect that well-functioning espionage operations generally strive to keep their existence, you know, clandestine. And don't publish the information they collect. I would take the fact of newspaper articles detailing the leaked information as strong evidence that the leak was not connected to clandestine intelligence gathering.
Yes, but to my amateur eyes, foreign intelligence operations may be directed as much at sabotaging US operations, or otherwise damaging US power and influence, as at collecting information. And certainly leaking this information to the press accomplished both.
I do agree that it's more probable that this is a concerned whistleblower though.
And of course, there's a real fact question here -- the FBI (from their own point of view) either was or wasn't investigating espionage in this case, whether or not they might have been justified in investigating espionage. If they were not, then the NSLs are unjustified.
True. But I'd be willing to give good odds that the counterintelligence division at the FBI is given responsibility for investigating all such security breaches as a matter of routine.