General Discussion

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)

32. Here About not getting FISA warrant on Tamerlan:

Thu Jun 13, 2013, 08:32 PM

Jun 2013

Last edited Fri Jun 14, 2013, 01:38 AM - Edit history (1)

"There’s a lot of information there that will get sorted through, like the indication of databases kept by the government for the purposes of data mining green-card holders (and American citizens?). But the ultimate fight between the Hill and the FBI, or perhaps the GOP and the White House, will hinge on how and why the FBI decided to conclude from their searches that Tamerlan wasn’t connected to international terrorism.

Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Patriot Act, in order to unlock powerful surveillance and investigative tools the FBI must show probable cause that an individual is engaged in international terrorist acts on behalf of a terrorist group. The foreign government seemed to believe that Tamerlan was. Did they supply sufficient evidence for the FBI to meet a FISA court judge’s standard of probable cause? Was the FBI going the extra mile to meet the probable-cause test? Initially it doesn’t look good for the FBI. The definition under FISA of international terrorist acts is that they must:

… transcend national boundaries, in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the person they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which the perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

The classic example, experts say, of operating internationally is training in an al-Qaeda camp in the Pakistani hinterlands. To be sure, to get a FISA warrant the standard is higher for American citizens and green-card holders (like Tamerlan) — the FBI has to show the suspect is knowingly engaging in international terrorism or preparing for it on behalf of a terrorist group. If the suspect isn’t a citizen or green-card holder, then you just have to show the suspect is a member of terrorist group.

But FISA court judges don’t often reject warrant requests. And if the foreign government thought or knew that Tamerlan was traveling abroad to associate with “underground groups,” that could have been enough. Which raises the question how hard, if at all, the FBI and prosecutors in Boston tried to get a FISA warrant."

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/20/why-the-fbi-white-house-will-face-hard-questions-about-their-boston-bombing-interviews/#ixzz2W95mM4jB

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I am a little surprised that nobody else has thought of this. [View all] Savannahmann Jun 2013 OP

Like I asked earlier this week, if they are doing this and it is for our security liberal N proud Jun 2013 #1

Because they can't look at the data without a warrant. randome Jun 2013 #4

Which is what I am saying. Savannahmann Jun 2013 #9

I did not read your Jenoch Jun 2013 #53

Procedures that everyone knows about, about Data that everyone is now aware is being collected Savannahmann Jun 2013 #56

You keep repeating that they "cant look at the data without a warrant." Where did you hear that? rhett o rick Jun 2013 #12

Snowden SAYS he looked at the data without a warrant. But he's a proven liar. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #18

What is the proof? Maedhros Jun 2013 #23

Of what? That he lied. He lied about his salary and his educational background. pnwmom Jun 2013 #31

Yes - I hadn't seen it. Maedhros Jun 2013 #33

In addition to the lies about his education, which are detailed here pnwmom Jun 2013 #34

Hmmm. Maedhros Jun 2013 #49

The White House disputed many of the details of what he said. pnwmom Jun 2013 #50

Is that a "lie" Maedhros Jun 2013 #55

Betting he received a lot of overtime so Live and Learn Jun 2013 #54

So you are saying that he had a warrant? nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #40

I'm saying that his claim that he could look at anyone's emails, including pnwmom Jun 2013 #41

And you are basing that on what?? nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #44

I'm basing it on the fact that he didn't provide a bit of proof of it; pnwmom Jun 2013 #46

I wish you the best. nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #48

Actually, it's in the warrant that Snowden produced thucythucy Jun 2013 #30

But if you had been paying attention, Snowden isnt the only one confirming that rhett o rick Jun 2013 #42

Who else is confirming Snowden and on what points? pnwmom Jun 2013 #45

Here are a few. rhett o rick Jun 2013 #63

I have been paying attention, thank you very much. thucythucy Jun 2013 #57

I was overly snarky. I got frustrated yesterday with all those that want to put everything rhett o rick Jun 2013 #59

Thank you for the clarification thucythucy Jun 2013 #60

I agree 100 percent with you sikofit3 Jun 2013 #61

Excellent post. Thank you. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #43

This message was self-deleted by its author rhett o rick Jun 2013 #47

Here About not getting FISA warrant on Tamerlan: DevonRex Jun 2013 #32

Haven't I heard meta data, such as location, doesn't require a warrant? dkf Jun 2013 #51

Then why did the NSA request a warrant to see it? thucythucy Jun 2013 #58

You can't listen to the call or read the contents til you do dkf Jun 2013 #62

An interesting angle on the story. nt avebury Jun 2013 #2

In general, anything the NSA collects as part of its national security geek tragedy Jun 2013 #3

The telephone company had already deleted the data prior to the request Savannahmann Jun 2013 #6

Supposedly it exists on the NSA servers. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #10

It was a Brinks Truck robbery Savannahmann Jun 2013 #15

if as a category NSA documents are inadmissible in court, that bites geek tragedy Jun 2013 #16

We are heading down that road. Savannahmann Jun 2013 #19

government says "he was not the target of electronic surveillance ergo geek tragedy Jun 2013 #20

But they also said Savannahmann Jun 2013 #21

Just because his cell phone is one place doesn't mean he's where It is.... bobalew Jun 2013 #5

Certainly that's the next step Savannahmann Jun 2013 #8

But with the collection of meta-data that can be fed into a computer, rhett o rick Jun 2013 #13

Police do this already riverbendviewgal Jun 2013 #7

A few things. JoePhilly Jun 2013 #11

Interesting stuff, but the OP is about defense uses of the information in court Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #26

Excellent. bvar22 Jun 2013 #14

Zing! HangOnKids Jun 2013 #25

BUT...if he had the phone and made a call and they can test his voice then its good! dkf Jun 2013 #52

I hope it isn't tied up in court too long because the NSA deletes their data after five years. Tx4obama Jun 2013 #17

Yeah, and J. Edgar Hoover purged his files every 5 years too. Fuddnik Jun 2013 #22

I believe it is the phone companies that purge their data after 5 or fewer years. SunSeeker Jun 2013 #24

The telecoms delete their meta-data after 30 to 90 days depending on which company. Tx4obama Jun 2013 #29

I know for certain AT&T here in Cali keeps it for at least 4 years. Not sure about elsewhere.nt SunSeeker Jun 2013 #35

Are you talking about the actual call conection meta- data OR 'billing info' regarding your bill? Tx4obama Jun 2013 #36

Individual customers' phone records, listing all their called numbers and time they called them. nt SunSeeker Jun 2013 #37

The only thing it might prove is that his cell phone wasn't near the crime MiniMe Jun 2013 #27

But proving his cell phone was not at the crime Savannahmann Jun 2013 #28

The feds always have the trump card ... GeorgeGist Jun 2013 #38

Looking a little weaker. Savannahmann Jun 2013 #39