home

WaPo: Individual Section 215 Searches Not Subject to FISA Court Review

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Constitution
Posted on Fri Aug 09, 2013 at 02:09:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This is an interesting bit of pushback from the NSA, as anonymously sourced to Dana Priest of the WaPo:

The analysts’ 215 requests go to one of the 22 people at the NSA who are permitted to approve them — the chief or the deputy chief of the Homeland Security Analysis Center or one of 20 authorized Homeland Security mission coordinators within the Signals Intelligence directorate’s analysis and production directorate.

Once a request is approved, it is given to one of the Signal Intelligence directorate’s 33 counterterrorism analysts who are authorized to access the U.S. phone metadata collection.

The sourcing is intended to push back from the idea that any old analyst can just make this decision. But in the attempt, it undermines the idea that the FISA court is an actual check on NSA abuse. The FISA court is not involved at all in the individual search process, according to Priest's NSA sources.

That undermines the idea of the FISA court as an effective check on the NSA.

< Two Friends of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Indicted | Mexico Releases Raphael Caro-Quintero >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    WaPo: Individual Section 215 Searches Not Subject to FISA Court Review | 25 comments (25 topical)
    Leave it to the NSA... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 09, 2013 at 02:24:13 PM EST
    ...to not understand the obvious subtext and, in this case, SUPERtext, of their announcement..

    Sigh...

    They don't really need to (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by sj on Fri Aug 09, 2013 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    They can count on the Big Megaphones telling the story that the NSA wants. Notice that Dana Priest didn't make the point that BTD did. Just as they also don't bother pointing out that "anonymously sourced" information is [likely] equal to "leaked" information.


    Parent
    Her article is propaganda (none / 0) (#18)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 09, 2013 at 09:43:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Propaganda? (none / 0) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 09, 2013 at 10:33:37 PM EST
    Admittedly,  I don't read the W.P. as much as I used to, but smearing Dana Priest with the same brush that The Post deserves is a little unfair, I think. Priest has been a dogged investigator/reporter regarding secrecy in Government for decades.

    As BTD said, "the FISA court is not involved in determining the relevance of those searches."

    Which is exactly what Ms. Priest said in BTD's quote, "The FISA court is not involved at all in the individual search process, according to Priest's NSA sources."

    Where's the propaganda?

    Parent

    What check? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 09, 2013 at 04:41:14 PM EST
    "....FISA court as an effective check...?"

    Since one person alone, Chief Justice, Roberts, hand picks the FISA judges (who, by the way, are virtually all Right Wing Republicans) is it any wonder they have denied eavesdropping requests fewer times than you have fingers on one hand?

    Rubber stamps, masquerading as judges, does not emote confidence in my book.

    Congressional oversight? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 09, 2013 at 04:52:25 PM EST