Word to the wise: think very clearly about everything Dianne Feinstein says
by digby
It often makes little sense. Exhibit A from Marcy Wheeler this morning:
[T]his is absolutely batshit crazy.
FEINSTEIN: Well, of course, balance is a difficult thing to actually identify what it is, but I can tell you this: These programs are within the law. The [Section 215] business records section is reviewed by a federal judge every 90 days. It should be noted that the document that was released that was under seal, which reauthorized the program for another 90 days, came along with a second document that placed and discussed the strictures on the program. That document was not released.
So here’s what happens with that program. The program is essentially walled off within the NSA. There are limited numbers of people who have access to it. The only thing taken, as has been correctly expressed, is not content of a conversation, but the information that is generally on your telephone bill, which has been held not to be private personal property by the Supreme Court.
If there is strong suspicion that a terrorist outside of the country is trying to reach someone on the inside of the country, those numbers then can be obtained. If you want to collect content on the American, then a court order is issued.
So, the program has been used. Two cases have been declassified. One of them is the case of David Headley, who went to Mumbai, to the Taj hotel, and scoped it out for the terrorist attack. [my emphasis]
Dianne Feinstein says that one of the two plots where Section 215 prevented an attack was used (the other, about Najibullah Zazi, is equally batshit crazy, but I’ll return to that) is the Mumbai attack.
What’s she referring to is tracking our own informant, David Headley.
And it didn’t prevent any attack. The Mumbai attack was successful.
Our own informant. A successful attack. That’s her celebration of
success215′s use.
Think about it. She actually went on TV to brag about the efficacy of a massive sweeping program that apparently was needed to track one of our own informants about a successful terrorist attack. This is why we all need to be willing to give up our 4th Amendment rights to keep our communications private from the government without probably cause. Seems like a bit of a blunt instrument to me — one that doesn’t work all that well.
Marcy has some other speculation that’s quite intriguing about whether or not we’re actually in the process of expanding this program in light of the Boston Bombings.
“Oversight” — oy.