Comments on: EFF FOIA Working Thread, Two

By: ncardozo

ncardozo — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:11:49 +0000

I just remembered two more updated Vaughns, ODNI and OIP from May 2009, and posted them. Now we have all the current Vaughn indices up. For real this time.

http://www.eff.org/fn/directory/4800/361

Nate

By: bmaz

bmaz — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:10:11 +0000

It is not that hard of an answer. They have all but admitted as much as to al-Haramain. Actually if you read Eisenberg’s affidavit and attachments in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, they have directly admitted it.

By: MadDog

MadDog — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:56:57 +0000

Minor typo in “Correspondence about amendinng FISA” link. Got an extra “n” in amending there.

So, on with more commentary. At the close of yesterday evening, I was reading through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence material.

There are some dynamite statements in the redacted portions of a QFR in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, part 03 (36 page PDF). The Q&A starts on page 2.

One of the Q&As that I found to be most interesting is on page 18. Even as late as January 2008, the Bush/Cheney regime found it problematic to answer:

Liability Issues…

…Question 1: [redacted though any fool can see (TS/??/NF)] Were the contents of the communications of any plaintiff in any lawsuit concerning the Terrorist Surveillance Program targeted for interception under the Terrorist Surveillance Program?

Answer: (U) Answers will be forth coming.

By: Mary

Mary — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:50:20 +0000

the distinction between agent and employee is critical to them for some reason

Because of how agent of a foreign power was defined in FISA. It was anyone other and a US citizen who is yada yada yada employee, officer, yada yada yada. So by statutory definition a US citizen wasn’t an “agent of a foreign power” for purposes of the warrantless powers granted to the AG under FISA.

By: earlofhuntingdon

earlofhuntingdon — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:33:25 +0000

The agent category includes mercenaries and other contractors, to which the US government is now addicted. The drafters here may assume that the Brits and other friendly governments will follow us down that path. The Brits, for example, use mercs, too. They are the preferred choice for many mission in Africa and the Middle East.

Perhaps this is the Leave No Merc Spied Upon law. You never know when they might also be working for us via a cut-out, such as the Israelis or Brits. Wouldn’t do for US government agency A to intercept messages about a foreign activity of US government agency B, when they haven’t a need to know.

By: WilliamOckham

WilliamOckham — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:46:14 +0000

Bush had already personally blocked the DOJ investigation into the TSP in 2006. Although that was OPR and not OIG, but I’m sure that’s the reason.