Comments on: Phone Slip

By: JodiDog

JodiDog — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:13:11 +0000

garyg,

I will take that as a compliment meaning that I am simple, direct and exceedingly effective.

Thanks

By: garyg

garyg — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:09:01 +0000

underhanded primitive tool

sounds like a certain someone who posts here.

By: wavpeac

wavpeac — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:55:11 +0000

What’s primitive is skirting the american public and the very foundation of democracy. It’s kinda like Bushco and the teleco’s went back to the days of King George. (they forgot about the constitution and the bill of rights.) Now that’s primitive!!!

By: JohnLopresti

JohnLopresti — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 04:54:25 +0000

Wonder if any of the candidates campaigning participated in briefings on draft PAA between their live sessions at yK that week just before congress passed the sunsetted version of it. Some candidates had a tight schedule for appearance length there.

By: MadDog

MadDog — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 04:05:59 +0000

Well EW, after reading through all the latest DNI/ODNI document dump, most of it appears to be garbage. Stuff like the Administration’s 200+ page draft of the PPA.

The only good bits that surfaced were as you mentioned that Phone Slip that will never be seen in public, and the nugget I mentioned in your “We’re not getting the FISA opinions” post” which I’ll reprise here:

From part one of the ODNI documents, a Mikey McConnell - DNI letter to the chair and ranking memmber of the HIC dated June 8th, 2007:

We understand the Committee’s desire to obtain certain documents relating to the President’s Terrorist Surveillance Program and we will continue to work with you to address your needs. However, some of the documents requested by the Committee such as the President’s authorizations of the Program are not within my discretion to provide. This is also the case with the Executive Branch legal opinions and any potentially responsive communications with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. These documents currently are the subject of an ongoing discussion within the Executive Branch.

My takeaway on the bolded part is that the WH refuses to provide Congress the “the President’s authorizations of the Program” because the said authorization is for far more programs, activities and actions that with certainty the public knows about, and tis highly probable that it is also much more than the Congress knows about.

Plus these “unmentionables” are also likely against the law.

By: JodiDog

JodiDog — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:44:16 +0000

So to evade the law, the phone companies resort to such low tech methods as hand written communications.

Dastardly rascals! Employing such underhanded primitive tools.

By: Leen

Leen — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:22:02 +0000

So under the present law they have to get a court order if they are conducting electronic surveillance on two foreign persons?

By: bmaz

bmaz — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:08:41 +0000

Jello Jay does not have the intestinal fortitude to make such a call…..

By: Peterr

Peterr — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:07:17 +0000

Ah-one ringy-dingy . . .
Ah-two ringy-dingies . . .
Ah-three ringy-dingies . . .

Mr. Mukasey? Please hold for Mr. Rockefeller. I believe he has a few questions for you . . .

By: JohnLopresti

JohnLopresti — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:46:15 +0000

I noticed part of the 204pp draft law seems to exempt odni from future foia requests; also there is a paring of oversight by congress, a suggestion to omit public version of some reports; and the outside contractor issue has coverage. Seems lots in there. Finding draft legislation even in congress is difficult. There was an early internet era dustup over making draft laws more available to the public instead of to the select few who had lobbyists in the capitol to obtain markups, in one state in which I worked at some of these interfaces; in fact EFF’s early founders were involved in leading the legislature to helping that happen. But I need to read more in the first set, as well.