When “incidental” intel collection—isn’t incidental

Sharylattkinsson.com ^ | April 12, 2017 | Sharyl Attkisson

[georgiarat]

I’ve spoken to a small group of reliable, formerly high-placed intelligence officials who have dropped a few interesting tidbits on me of late. Here’s my understanding, based on the discussions:

It’s not true that wiretaps and/or electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens can “only” be done with a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court order.

Besides the FISA court, “wiretapping” or electronic surveillance can also be done under Title III authority. The government used this authority, for example, in the Justice Department’s secret Fast and Furious “gunwalking” case.

Additionally, U.S. Presidents have the power to issue secret presidential directives that can authorize otherwise illegal acts (theoretically in the country’s best interests). These directives may come with pre-planned cover stories to be used in the event the operation is exposed, and they come with indemnity for those involved, giving them permission to lie about the operation or their involvement without fear of prosecution.

[georgiarat]

Help explains all the nuances used by the inside people to explain way "not wiretapping", no knowledge, and how such survellience can be contacted with no trace.

[ManHunter]

As I have stated repeatedly here and elsewhere, in the case of electronic surveillance, there is no longer any such thing as incidental collection.

[thinden]

Additionally, U.S. Presidents have the power to issue secret presidential directives that can authorize otherwise illegal acts (theoretically in the country’s best interests). These directives may come with pre-planned cover stories to be used in the event the operation is exposed, and they come with indemnity for those involved, giving them permission to lie about the operation or their involvement without fear of prosecution.

aka: taqiyya

the islamization of american

[Lionheartusa1]

Long live Sharyl Attkisson ,,, one of the worlds best investigative reporters alive today .

[marktwain]

She does some good work here.

I knew of most of these methods, but the idea of a U.S. vessel in international waters not being subject to U.S. law was one I had not considered.

[bgill]

We knew this but it’s good to see it in print and verified.

[CyberAnt]

OH MY .. THAT NEEDS TO BE REPEATED:

“Additionally, U.S. Presidents have the power to issue secret presidential directives that can authorize otherwise illegal acts (theoretically in the country’s best interests). These directives may come with pre-planned cover stories to be used in the event the operation is exposed, and they come with indemnity for those involved, giving them permission to lie about the operation or their involvement without fear of prosecution.”

GEEEEE .. WHO DO WE KNOW THAT FITS THAT .. PERFECTLY .. A PRESIDENT NAMED OBAMA.

Former President Obama believed HE was the law of the land; that HE could do anything HE wanted; to whomever HE wanted. And, HIS actions have destroyed his whole Presidency. I wonder if HE realized that would happen.

America .. you better wake up and realize that Former President Obama did not do you any favors. HE did everything HE could to tear America apart.

Fortunately, some parts of America figured it out and hired someone who could put it back together: President Trump.

[Steve_Seattle]

Summary: The president and/or the intel agencies can do pretty much anything they want. And, with a compliant media eager to bring down Republican politicians, they WILL do just about anything.

[ptsal]

Good information.

[CyberAnt]

And .. now it has just come to thought .. was that why the Russian sub was trolling our waters on the East Coast ..??

[marktwain]

Signals intelligence data collection by foreign powers has been going on for decades, so that would not surprise me.

With the Russians, the more traditional method was with “fishing trawlers” that had numberous and sophisticated antennas.

[marktwain]

numberous should be numerous

[romanesq]

She’s done some outstanding work and doesn’t chime in with the media chorus.
Going it alone has some benefits.

This is a very well done story on the surveillance options government holds and as we and President Trump has learned, uses.

[Chewbarkah]

From the article: “If the work of targeting an individual cannot be accomplished by government intel officers, it can be contracted out to third parties or to foreign parties who aren’t bound by U.S. law.”

For example, the FBI might contract with Christopher Steele ... or, “Russian hackers”.

[GOPJ]

Additionally, U.S. Presidents have the power to issue secret presidential directives that can authorize otherwise illegal acts (theoretically in the country’s best interests). These directives may come with pre-planned cover stories to be used in the event the operation is exposed, and they come with indemnity for those involved, giving them permission to lie about the operation or their involvement without fear of prosecution.

FYI

[GOPJ]

Additionally, U.S. Presidents have the power to issue secret presidential directives that can authorize otherwise illegal acts (theoretically in the country’s best interests). These directives may come with pre-planned cover stories to be used in the event the operation is exposed, and they come with indemnity for those involved, giving them permission to lie about the operation or their involvement without fear of prosecution.

FYI

[Mr. K]

They used the word ‘incidental’ here as a technical term- not to mean “by accident”

[GOPJ]

There are “back-door” ways to collect and report on a target without Title III or FISA court authority. If it’s for political purposes or blackmail, this may consist of “inventing” an excuse to surveil the target. If the work of targeting an individual cannot be accomplished by government intel officers, it can be contracted out to third parties or to foreign parties who aren’t bound by U.S. law.

If this stuff's 'known' and still happens... we're living in a police state..

[GOPJ]

...the word ‘incidental’ here as a technical term- not to mean “by accident”

Ahhh, THAT clears up an easy misunderstanding... thanks Mr.K.

[Liz]

One post described “incidental” thusly:

If the target of the surveillance has phone conversations w/ others NOT being surveilled, the latter are considered “incidental” ....... persons that may often reveal info that is pertinent to the surveillance issue.