Bigger than Watergate

Quote:

This is sheer speculation

Well, there's a little speculation involved, sure, but it aint really all that "sheer," ya know?

Quote:

You're confused as to the meaning of "unmasking." It isn't the divulgence of classified information. The word for that that's been bandied around is "leak."

I aint confusin no kinda nuthin. Maybe you just don't read so good, ever think of that?

I happen to share the anger in the media over the treatment of the press by this president. However, journalistic ethics require reporters to transcend such anger and maintain objectivity. No matter how much we might prefer blissful ignorance, there are no facts too good to check.

Reporters are now so committed to refuting Trump that they are refuting actual stories. The loss of objectivity in the response to the Rice story reflects a broader problem of the press focusing so hard on Trump that it is losing sight of its own bearings. The irony is that Trump was wrong about the media but many in the media seem to be working hard to prove him right.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.

Back in January in an in interview with NPR, Obama national security adviser Susan Rice was still touting the Obama administration's success at removing chemical weapons in Syria, saying, "We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile."

Questions about what intelligence can be shared are supposed to be settled through consultations that involve the General Counsel of the Director of National Intelligence, with numerous sign-offs and a memorandum of agreement governing its availability and how it will be used.

The same rules demand that an agency that obtains the raw SIGINT, as electronic monitoring programs are known, must ensure that anyone with access to the material uses it appropriately and that the constitutional rights, especially Fourth Amendment rights, of any American citizen who is monitored are respected.

The document states that those guarantees should be in place for every request involving such sensitive information—including the information requests made by Rice to “unmask” the redacted identities of people associated with the victorious Trump presidential campaign who were caught up in “incidental” communications collection by NSA.

The revamped procedures, approved in the last days of the Obama Administration, also specifically warn U.S. government agencies against sharing any personal information from raw NSA intelligence with the White House“for the purpose of affecting the political process in the United States.

(U) SECTION H ~ REQUESTS FOR RAW SIGINT

A. (U) Access request from an IC element. NSA may provide raw SIGINT to an IC element only if the head of the IC element or a high-level designee makes a written request describing the raw SIGINT sought and stating whether the element wishes to conduct communications metadata analysis in accordance with section IV.F below. The request will address the following:

1. (U) Use of information. The IC element will explain how it will use the raw SIGINT, to include identifying the particular authorized foreign intelligence or counterintelligence missions or functions that are the basis for its request.

2. (U) Value of information. The IC element will describe how it expects the raw SIGINT to further such missions or functions in a sig1,1ificant way.

3. (U) Other sources of information. The IC element will explain why other sources reasonably available to it cannot provide the information the element expects to obtain from the raw SIGINT.

4. (U) Access requirements. The IC element will describe its access requirements (e.g., the estimated number of analysts who will have access to the raw SIGINT and the time period that the element will retain the raw SIGINT).

5. (U) Processing and disse1nination. The IC element will explain how it will process raw SIGINT and, if appropriate, disseminate the information obtained from it.

6. (U) Protection of information. The IC element will explain how it will safeguard the raw SIGINT, including limiting access to those personnel described in section III.B.5 and protecting all sensitive sources, methods, and activities, in a manner consistent with security requirements specified or agreed to by the Director, NSA (DIRNSA).

It now appears that these new rules may have been drafted, at least in part, as part of a backlash designed to help prevent, rather than facilitate, the political abuse of information obtained through FISA warrants.

Any IC element that obtains access to raw SIGINT under these Procedures will: (1) Take steps to ensure its processing, retention, and
dissemination of the information complies with applicable requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) Not engage in any intelligence activity authorized by these Procedures, including disseminations to the White House, for the purpose of affecting the political process in the United States.

Any IC element that obtains access to raw SIGINT under these Procedures will: (1) Take steps to ensure its processing, retention, and
dissemination of the information complies with applicable requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) Not engage in any intelligence activity authorized by these Procedures, including disseminations to the White House, for the purpose of affecting the political process in the United States.

It now appears that these new rules may have been drafted, at least in part, as part of a backlash designed to help prevent, rather than facilitate, the political abuse of information obtained through FISA warrants. The outrage of many (non-partisan) intelligence agents against such abuses has been noted in many places.

Let me add, for (is this the fourth time?) the last time. The White House is not an investigative organization. There is no one in the executive branch that should be running any investigations from the White House. They have whole departments for that. Those departments are non-partisan (supposedly) and are supposed to investigate for the truth. Not the Natl Sec Adviser.

McGentrix wrote:

Let me add, for (is this the fourth time?) the last time. The White House is not an investigative organization. There is no one in the executive branch that should be running any investigations from the White House. They have whole departments for that. Those departments are non-partisan (supposedly) and are supposed to investigate for the truth. Not the Natl Sec Adviser.

Read my reply to one of your iterations here.

InfraBlue wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Let me add, for (is this the fourth time?) the last time. The White House is not an investigative organization. There is no one in the executive branch that should be running any investigations from the White House. They have whole departments for that. Those departments are non-partisan (supposedly) and are supposed to investigate for the truth. Not the Natl Sec Adviser.

Read my reply to one of your iterations here.

Read my rejoinder to your lame reply here, eh?:

https://able2know.org/topic/378683-6#post-6399618

Not to even mention that Rice has no unrestricted or unqualified right to unmask U.S. citizens to begin with. A cop is authorized to carry a gun. He's authorized to fire it. But, for some damn reason, he aint authorized to shoot you dead on a whim.

Go figure, eh?

Rice acted within her rights and powers in unmasking these US citizens