Meet the Muslim-American Leaders the FBI and NSA Have Been Spying On - The InterceptThe Intercept. The National Security Agency and FBI have covertly monitored the emails of prominent Muslim-Americans—including a political candidate and several civil rights activists, academics, and lawyers—under secretive procedures intended to target terrorists and foreign spies.
According to documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the list of Americans monitored by their own government includes: • Faisal Gill, a longtime Republican Party operative and one-time candidate for public office who held a top-secret security clearance and served in the Department of Homeland Security under President George W.
Bush; • Asim Ghafoor, a prominent attorney who has represented clients in terrorism-related cases; • Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor of international relations at Rutgers University; • Agha Saeed, a former political science professor at California State University who champions Muslim civil liberties and Palestinian rights; Faisal Gill Asim Ghafoor. Confirmed: DOJ Uses Section 702 to Get Title I FISA Warrants. In addition to the apparent miscommunication between Mark Udall and Acting (and presumably soon to be confirmed) DOJ National Security Division Head John Carlin, there was an even more telling exchange in today’s hearing.
In it, Martin Heinrich asked whether DOJ had yet written down its radical new policy of giving notice to defendants caught using Section 702. Heinrich: As you know in October 2013, after months and months of discussion and debate in which you and the NSD were involved, DOJ adopted a new policy by which Federal prosecutors would inform defendants when they intended to offer evidence informed, obtained, or derived from intelligence collected under Section 702 of FISA. And when you and I met in December you informed me that that policy had not yet been reduced to a formal written policy, and so, Mr. Carlin, I wanted to ask, is that process done yet and has that policy been finalized and if so has it been disseminated in written form? Um. I’m glad that’s all cleared up. If One Judge Gives FISA Review, and Another Judge Gives FISA Review, All Hell Will Break Loose!
There have been a couple of developments on the government’s effort to continue its practice of shielding its dragnet from adversarial legal review behind the screen of FISA.
First, the 7th Circuit appears to want to punt on the question of whether or not Adel Daoud’s lawyer should be able to review the FISA materials used against him. It claims (incorrectly, I suspect) it may not have the authority to review Sharon Coleman’s decision to give Daoud review. A preliminary review of the short record indicates that the order appealed from may not be an appealable order.Section 3731 of Title 18, United States Code, permits the United States to appeal certain rulings in a criminal case.
Fisa judge: Snowden's NSA disclosures triggered important spying debate. The court that oversees US surveillance has ordered the government to review for declassification a set of secret rulings about the National Security Agency's bulk trawls of Americans' phone records, acknowledging that disclosures by the whistleblower Edward Snowden had triggered an important public debate.
The Fisa court ordered the Justice Department to identify the court's own rulings after May 2011 that concern a section of the Patriot Act used by the NSA to justify its mass database of American phone data. The ruling was a significant step towards their publication. Barack Obama says the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 'is transparent'
President Barack Obama has taken a lot of criticism from both friend and foe in the wake of recent disclosures about how the U.S. government monitors telephone and Internet traffic.
He defended himself recently in an interview with Charlie Rose on June 17, 2013, making several claims in defense of government surveillance. The full discussion is available here, but one exchange in particular struck us as noteworthy. It involves the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a special court that hears government requests for warrants related to national security investigations. Rose: "So I hear you saying I have no problem with what NSA has been doing. " Secret-court judges upset at portrayal of ‘collaboration’ with government. U.S.
District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the former chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, took the highly unusual step Friday of voicing open frustration at the account in the report and court’s inability to explain its decisions. “In my view, that draft report contains major omissions, and some inaccuracies, regarding the actions I took as Presiding Judge of the FISC and my interactions with Executive Branch officials,” Kollar-Kotelly said in a statement to The Post. It was her first public comment describing her work on the intelligence court. A guide to FISA §1881a: The law behind it ... A guide to FISA §1881a: The law behind it all. Simply put, the National Security Agency is an intelligence agency.
Its purpose is to monitor the world's communications, which it traditionally collected by using spy satellites, taps on cables, and placing listening stations around the world. In 2008, by making changes to U.S. law, the U.S. Congress enabled the NSA to make U.S. industry complicit in its mission. No longer would the NSA have to rely only on international gathering points. It can now go to domestic companies who hold massive amounts of information on foreigners and order them to submit any information of interest to the NSA. Below we carefully analyse the legal framework around these requests. Of particular concern is U.S. law's distinction between foreigners and U.S. citizens or residents -- legally referred to as "U.S. persons.
" About the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act § 1881a (a.k.a. FISA was established in 1978 in response to abuses in domestic intelligence surveillance powers. Who may be targeted? No. Yes. Understanding the 2008 Changes to FISA — A Visual Guide (Flowchart) Understanding Recent Changes to FISA — A Visual Guide (Flowchart) July 11th, 2008 Posted in Politics I have to admit that despite the fact that I read Glenn Greenwald’s blog and have followed his numerous posts on FISA , until recently I haven’t fully understand the law or how it recently changed .
I think the complexity of the issue is one of the reasons there isn’t more outrage about or opposition to the revised FISA law. So I took the time to do some careful reading, diagramming as I went. I thought these might be useful to others. What you’ll see below are two diagrams comparing Old and New FISA. A Guide to the New FISA Bill, Part I. A Guide to the New FISA Bill, Part II. A Guide to the New FISA Bill, Part II Guest Blogger David Kris Yesterday, in discussing H.R. 6304, the FISA modernization bill passed by the House on Thursday, I identified the key elements of current FISA, and described what I see as the main legal and operational arguments for and against modernizing the statute.
Today, I’d like to describe the Bush Administration’s actual efforts to “modernize” electronic surveillance. There have been, essentially, three Administration approaches to modernizing electronic surveillance – one directed at each branch of the federal government. A. B. As noted in yesterday’s post, FISA has three essential substantive requirements: first, a target that is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; second, a facility being used by that target; and third, minimization. A Guide to the New FISA Bill, Part III.
A Guide to the New FISA Bill, Part III Guest Blogger David Kris [Here is Part I and Part II]
Concurring Opinions. I have been following the new FISA Amendments Act of 2008, but I have refrained from chiming in, as many others have been doing terrific blogging on the issue. Of particular note: * David Kris, A Guide to the New FISA Bill (I, II, III) The Volokh Conspiracy - The New FISA Law. Assessing Surveillance Laws in An Era of Sunset Provisions: In my blog post last week on the new FISA Amendments, and a follow-up on Friday, some commenters expressed strong disagreement — and in some cases, downright contempt — at my view that the most natural baseline for assessing the latest FISA Amendments was last year's FISA law, the Protect America Act.
Our disagreement raises a conceptually interesting question: How should we characterize the direction of new surveillance laws in an era when so many surveillance laws are being subject to sunset provisions? And applying that to the specific case here, is the Protect America Act the right baseline for the new FISA Amendments? I think the question is tremendously important. Statutory laws require a feedback loop: The public needs to know if their policy preferences are being enacted into law.
Secret Court Ruling Put Tech Companies in Data Bind. NSA taps in to systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and others, secret files reveal. Revealed: NSA collecting phone records of millions of Americans daily. Verizon forced to hand over telephone data – full court ruling.
Post details: CA3: FISA surveillance led to domestic prosecution, and Patriot Act amendments not unconstitutional; even if they were, Krull wouldn't require exclusion.