Obama Admin Also Spied on JOURNALISTS. A Special FISA Was Developed Just For Them. :-)

a reply to: Grambler

Now if the higher ups are mopre willing to use these powers to go after journalists, that isnt making the process harder at all. It is just giving cover by making it seem like the process is stringer, when in fact you now just put it into the hands of Obamas "wingman"

On the contrary. It does not authorize "hire ups" to overrule a FISA finding if it rules against issuing a warrant. Your argument is simply an ad hom attack against Holder.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: DJW001

No, I didn't. You just don't want to answer if the media guidelines were followed.

What part of "the media guidelines are classified" can you not wrap your head around?

a reply to: DJW001

Maybe you are roght, I will reread again.

regardless, it is clear that whatever the guidelines, the Obama admin went after more journlaists and whistle blowers than all presidents before him I believe.

That shows that these guidelines were merely lip service if they were intended to make the process harder.

And eta;

I was right, it says the AG or deputy ag now has to sign off on it.

This means that it gives the appearance of being more strict, but ultimately as we saw Obamas "wingman" still allowed the going after of whistle blowers and journalists at a record pace, so it was all for show.

a reply to: introvert

Again, false. It was stricter than other fisa warrants but less strict than following the media guidelines.

When using the legal authorities named in the “media guidelines,” the Justice Department (DOJ) must go through a fairly stringent multi-part test (e.g. certifying that the information is critical to an investigation, that it can’t be obtained by other means, and that the DOJ exhausted all other avenues before doing so) before targeting a journalist with surveillance. They must also get approval from the Attorney General.

With the FISA court rules, there is no multi-part test that we know of. The DOJ only must follow its regular FISA court procedures

So now show me where those guidelines are used in fisa.

a reply to: DJW001

So we'll take the one paragraph that wasnt redacted and conflate the rest of the redacted portions by it. Because protecting you and me is just totally why the redacted 'everything'.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: DJW001

No, I didn't. You just don't want to answer if the media guidelines were followed.

What part of "the media guidelines are classified" can you not wrap your head around?

That's funny because I see it online.

www.justice.gov...

a reply to: Grambler

He dont want no big picture for which to conflate those redacted portions with, nope, we're just supposed to zoom in on the fraction of it we're still only able to read.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Grambler

They made it more difficult and then circumvented the rules they established and said it was fine because it's harder than other fisa warrants, but it was easier than the guidelines they set up.

That's my reading.

That is not what it said.

What it says is that they enacted more guidelines on top of the already existing requirements under FISA rules. They still had to follow the existing standards, with an extra step added.

From the Columbia source:

Specifically, the memo mandates that FISA applications for surveillance targeting known news organizations or journalists be presented to the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General for approval prior to submission to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, unless, upon direction of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General, they are referred to the Assistant Attorney General for NSD for disposition. The memo further provides that, once approved, subsequent applications to monitor the same target should be presented to the Assistant Attorney General for NSD unless circumstances related to the target’s status as a journalist or media organization have changed.

Moreover:

The extent to which the government uses—and has used—NSLs and FISA court orders against journalists is unclear.

knightcolumbia.org...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

Again, false. It was stricter than other fisa warrants but less strict than following the media guidelines.

When using the legal authorities named in the “media guidelines,” the Justice Department (DOJ) must go through a fairly stringent multi-part test (e.g. certifying that the information is critical to an investigation, that it can’t be obtained by other means, and that the DOJ exhausted all other avenues before doing so) before targeting a journalist with surveillance. They must also get approval from the Attorney General.

With the FISA court rules, there is no multi-part test that we know of. The DOJ only must follow its regular FISA court procedures

So now show me where those guidelines are used in fisa.

I just posted a link to the original source that discusses this.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: DJW001

No, I didn't. You just don't want to answer if the media guidelines were followed.

What part of "the media guidelines are classified" can you not wrap your head around?

That's funny because I see it online.

www.justice.gov...

Thank you:

Given the elimination of the phrase "ordinary newsgathering activities," the policy reflects
additional revisions that are necessary to strike the proper balance between law enforcement and free
press interests. For example, the changes ensure the highest level of Department oversight by
providing that the Attorney General must both determine that the affected member of the news media
is a subject or target of an investigation relating to an offense committed in the course of, or arising
out of, newsgathering activities, and authorize the use of the requested law enforcement tool. See 28
C.F.R. §§ 50.10(c)(1), (c)(4)(i), and (c)(5)(i). The revised policy does not, however, require the
Attorney General to take into account the considerations identified in paragraphs (c)(4)(ii) - (viii) or
(c)(5)(ii) - (viii). The changes also permit, but do not require, that notice be provided to the affected
member of the news media. See 28 C.F.R. § 50.10(e)(1).

a reply to: introvert

False. The media guidelines already stated the AG had to sign off.

This is circumventing the media guidelines not adding to them.

They made fisa harder for journalists, but circumvented most of the protections they created for journalists in the media guidelines.

Your evidence of them adding the AG signing off is actually evidence against you because that was already in the media guidelines.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Grambler

He dont want no big picture for which to conflate those redacted portions with, nope, we're just supposed to zoom in on the fraction of it we're still only able to read.

You are the one obsessed with the part you can't read, yet think you know what it says.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: carewemust

Read the actual wording. It made it harder to spy on journalists because the FISA warrant had to be reviewed and authorized by the AG.

How does it make it harder? Didn't we already learn during past discussions that the Attorney General could bypass the FISA court process?

The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year, provided that it is only to acquire foreign intelligence information,[7] that it is solely directed at communications or property controlled exclusively by foreign powers,[8] that there is no substantial likelihood that it will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party, and that it be conducted only in accordance with defined minimization procedures.[9]

The code defines "foreign intelligence information" to mean information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential grave attack, sabotage or international terrorism.[7]

"Foreign powers" means a foreign government, any faction of a foreign nation not substantially composed of U.S. persons, and any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government.[10] The definition also includes groups engaged in international terrorism and foreign political organizations.[11] The sections of FISA authorizing electronic surveillance and physical searches without a court order specifically exclude their application to groups engaged in international terrorism.[12]

A "U.S. person" includes citizens, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, and corporations incorporated in the United States.

"Minimization procedures" limit the collection of information concerning United States persons by protecting their identities and requiring a court order to retain the communications for longer than 72 hours. The communications can be retained without court order if there is evidence of a crime. Identification of a US person, known as "unmasking", may also be authorized if an agency believes it is necessary in order to understand the intelligence or believes that the person was committing a crime.[13]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: DJW001

Yes. Those are the media guidelines. That's exactly what fisa circumvented. Don't tell me the guidelines are classified, it's untrue.

a reply to: Deetermined

The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year, provided that it is only to acquire foreign intelligence information,[7] that it is solely directed at communications or property controlled exclusively by foreign powers,[8] that there is no substantial likelihood that it will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party, and that it be conducted only in accordance with defined minimization procedures.[9]

Note the use of the word "foreign." If a journalist crops up on monitored foreign communications, a FISA warrant would be necessary to spy on him or her directly.

Then why is IgnoranceIsntBliss claiming they are?

Then why is IgnoranceIsntBliss claiming they are?

a reply to: introvert

Thanks for proving me right yet again.

The Media Guidelines are far from perfect, however, in their protection of journalists. One persistent criticism is that they do not apply to the use of National Security Letters (NSLs) or surveillance conducted under FISA.

Media guidelines do not apply to fisa. Exactly what I was saying.

originally posted by: introvert


Ok. The member I responded to was talking about Leftists, not the media.

I cannot comment about how Leftists would hypothetically act/react IF this would have come from Bush or Trump.

So yes, it is a hypothetical.

They are one in the same.

a reply to: DJW001

Note the use of the word "foreign." If a journalist crops up on monitored foreign communications, a FISA warrant would be necessary to spy on him or her directly.

In the meanwhile, if they think the U.S. person is involved with committing a crime with the foreign person under surveillance, they still get to keep the communication of the U.S. person and use it for whatever purpose they wish.