Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Top Spy: 'Single Analyst' Cannot 'Eavesdrop on Domestic Communications Without Proper Legal
Weekly Standard ^ | 6/16/13 | Daniel Halper

Posted on 06/16/2013 7:12:03 PM PDT by Nachum

In a Sunday evening statement, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence Public Affairs Office released this statement, meant to clear up information on the National Security Agency’s data program

"The statement that a single analyst can eavesdrop on domestic communications without proper legal authorization is incorrect and was not briefed to Congress. Members have been briefed on the implementation of Section 702, that it targets foreigners located overseas for a valid foreign intelligence purpose, and that it cannot be used to target Americans anywhere in the world," the full statement reads.

(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: communication; domestic; eavesdrop; nsa; nsalies; prism; snowden; snowdenlies; spy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last
Hmmmm... must be fairly serious to respond on a Sunday night.

Full title: Top Spy: 'Single Analyst' Cannot 'Eavesdrop on Domestic Communications Without Proper Legal Authorization'

1 posted on 06/16/2013 7:12:03 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


2 posted on 06/16/2013 7:12:36 PM PDT by Nachum (The Obama "List" at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Top Spy: 'Single Analyst' Cannot 'Eavesdrop on Domestic Communications Without Proper Legal authorization

OK...How about the other Analysts


3 posted on 06/16/2013 7:17:17 PM PDT by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Just because you’re told not to doesn’t mean you don’t do it. Hell, that’s like a green light for some folks.


4 posted on 06/16/2013 7:17:21 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

If there was a tool for such eavesdroping, and it was kept locked on a special server, with only a couple of people authorized for that server, and security maintained a control over those people and what they did....I might be willing to believe these folks.

I seriously doubt that they are running the game that way. This Snowden character...it would appear....cracked his way through their passwords and firewalls. So this comment here...doesn’t mean much in the real world.


5 posted on 06/16/2013 7:18:53 PM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
I'm having trouble parsing this, Mr. Director.

Could a married analyst eavesdrop?

How about multiple analysts, can they cooperatively eavesdrop?

Did you leave the word "legaly" out, perchance?

Or is it not called eavesdropping if we do it?

6 posted on 06/16/2013 7:19:08 PM PDT by null and void (Republicans create the tools of opression, and the democrats gleefully use them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Top Spy: 'Single Analyst' Cannot 'Eavesdrop on Domestic Communications Without Proper Legal Authorization'

And why should I believe that given that the agency [and government] said it wasn't listening in on the conversations at all? Moreover, why should I find any mercy for these who so blatantly defy the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments? — No, they need punished. Government agencies need to find themselves in terror at the idea of overstepping Constitutional bounds.

7 posted on 06/16/2013 7:19:45 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

This seems to be coming out of the office of James Clapper, a proven liar and obfuscator, not a word from which can be believed.


8 posted on 06/16/2013 7:23:14 PM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I don’t believe Mr. Top Spy in the least. NSA chief Clapper said he gave Congress a Least Untrue Statement about what his agency was doing. Ergo, I believe none of them.


9 posted on 06/16/2013 7:23:44 PM PDT by Lawgvr1955 (You can never have too much cowbell !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Section 702. Does lying Crapper mean to admit there’s a 1 to 701. What’s 701; The procedure for aiming cameras in your toilet bowl?


10 posted on 06/16/2013 7:23:55 PM PDT by Stentor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I’m sorry, but this is just pure spin IMO.

There’s too much out there these days for them to stuff the toothpaste back in the tube.


11 posted on 06/16/2013 7:24:46 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Now playing... [ * * * Manchurian Candidate * * * ], limited engagement, 8 years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Admitted liar and perjurer assures us he’s telling the truth for real this time.


12 posted on 06/16/2013 7:26:14 PM PDT by PlanToDisappear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat2

Not a great deal of trust with these folks.


13 posted on 06/16/2013 7:27:23 PM PDT by phormer phrog phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Define “proper legal authorization.”

Is he calling Jerry Nadler a liar? Oh wait. This was a statement from an office.


14 posted on 06/16/2013 7:27:49 PM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

What? The analyst has to be married?


15 posted on 06/16/2013 7:29:20 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

So what they are saying is it takes two analysts to bypass the requirement for a warrant.


16 posted on 06/16/2013 7:30:33 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

maybe a “single analyst cannot eavesdrop...” as a matter of policy, but that’s not the same thing as not being capable of doing so. And if they’re capable, they’re doing it.


17 posted on 06/16/2013 7:38:49 PM PDT by schm0e ("we are in the midst of a coup.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104

A group can do what they want.


18 posted on 06/16/2013 7:39:53 PM PDT by bmwcyle (People who do not study history are destine to believe really ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; Nachum

Spooks / Spys/ Lies = all have the same meaning


19 posted on 06/16/2013 7:48:08 PM PDT by Tilted Irish Kilt (“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

That could simply mean that only the analysts who have received proper legal authorization at some point in their careers can do the eavesdropping. But once they have that legal authorization given, they are free to do as they wish. I would imagine it would involve some type of course certificate to learn what they can or cannot do. Like for example: never ever bug the prezzy dude !


20 posted on 06/16/2013 7:48:38 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson