Second Short Quiz: Extending FISA Sec 702 a Faustian Bargain

Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Second Short Quiz: Extending FISA Sec 702 a Faustian Bargain

Post by johnkarls »

.
Second Short Quiz: Extending FISA Sec 702 a Faustian Bargain


1. In rejecting the recommendation of the Founding Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government regarding how to cope with Osama bin Laden’s now-irrevocable fatwā to nuke 10 million Americans despite the exhaustive supportive efforts of former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman 1987-1995), U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman 2003-2007) and Messrs. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton (Chair and Co-Chair of The 9/11 Commission) -- and despite the efforts of Tim Russert to publicize the efforts of Nunn/Lugar/Kean/Hamilton on Meet The Press and Tom Brokaw’s participation in a Docu-Drama produced by Nunn/Lugar/Kean/Hamilton -- did Congress instead opt for Sec. 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pursuant to which the National Security Agency (aka NSA aka “No Such Agency”) was permitted to collect all electronic communications (phone calls, e-mail, text messages, etc.) and have immediate access to the “meta data” (who communicated with whom, when and where) concerning those communications?

2. Was Sec. 702 intended (except for one-year emergencies determined by the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence) to limit NSA’s ability to access THE CONTENT of such communications to solely those communications which were identified by searching the “meta data” to confirm the participation by known foreign terrorists AND ONLY AFTER a Warrant was obtained from a FISA judge?

3. If the foreign terrorists, THE CONTENT of whose communications was the subject of a FISA Warrant, communicated with U.S. citizens, did the NSA have access to THE CONTENT of those communications pursuant to the FISA Warrant?

4. Did Sec. 702 provide that the IDENTITY of U.S. citizens, THE CONTENT of whose communications was accessed by the NSA as described in Q-3, must be MASKED?

5. Did Top Officials of the Obama Administration UNMASK (and then obtain THE CONTENT of communications of) POLITICAL OPPONENTS?

6. Had the Obama Administration’s POLITICAL OPPONENTS been surveilled as the result of a FISA Warrant obtained on the basis of the false information illegally purchased by the Clinton Campaign and the DNC from the Kremlin and illegally NOT reported -- using the Perkins Coie law firm as their agent to conduct and hide these illegal activities?

7. Was this obviously POLITICAL WARFARE since, for example, more than 100 UNMASKINGS were obtained by Samantha Power who, as Obama’s Ambassador to the United Nations, had no need to know about the communications vis-à-vis which she was obtaining UNMASKING?

8. Does FISA Sec. 702 expire on 12/31/2017 unless it is extended by new legislation?

9. For our 5/10/2017 meeting, did we focus on “Authoritarian Rule by Our Intelligence Services” because of their behavior in ILLEGALLY leaking UNMASKED communications to the media concerning governmental officials that they didn’t like?

10. For our 5/10/2017 meeting, did we all re-read (probably for the first time since High School for most of us) George Orwell’s “1984”?

11. At our 5/10/2017 meeting, was there universal opposition to the possibility/probability that our Intelligence Services will use their power to zap any of our democratically-elected officials with whom they disagree?

12. NONETHELESS, at our 5/10/2017 meeting, was there a diversity of opinion on (1) whether we are just “around the corner” from Authoritarian Rule by Our Intelligence Services à la George Orwell’s 1984, or (2) whether we are merely (!!!) in a permanent modus vivendi pursuant to which Our Intelligence Services dictate U.S. policy by zapping whichever democratically-elected officials displease them WITHOUT the oppression of Orwell’s 1984?

13. And WAS THERE UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT that (as posited in both the Suggested Discussion Outline and the Suggested Answers to the Fourth Short Quiz posted on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org for the 5/10/2017 meeting) there is NO SOLUTION to the problem? Unless, of course, we simply disband entirely our Intelligence Services BECAUSE THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES HAVE ALREADY PROVEN TO BE SO “LAWLESS” THAT THERE IS REALLY NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE IN TERMS OF ADDITIONAL LAWS BECAUSE THEY WILL IGNORE THOSE AS WELL !!!???

14. In other words, isn’t FISA Sec. 702 a Faustian Bargain pursuant to which we sell our soul (democracy and freedom from Orwellian-Style Authoritarian Rule) in exchange for protection (which is NOT absolute) from having 10 million Americans nuked???

15. Does The USA Liberty Act which was reported to the House Floor on 11/8/2017 represent a conscientious effort to increase in the future the criminal penalties for the type of illegal behavior that has occurred in the past under FISA Sec. 702???

16. HOWEVER, on the one hand, did Attorney General Sessions testify before the House Judiciary Committee on 11/14/2017 that the U.S. Justice Department (which includes the F.B.I.) OPPOSES the reforms contained in The USA Liberty Act (!!!)???

17. AND ON THE OTHER HAND, would the reforms of The USA Liberty Act be sufficient to prevent Authoritarian Rule by our Intelligence Services à la Orwell’s “1984”???

18. AND EVEN IF the reforms would be sufficient IF ENFORCED, why should America believe in Washington DC’s “Kabuki Theater” in which NOBODY is ever HELD ACCOUNTABLE for violating the law???

19. AFTER ALL, do there appear to be ANY INVESTIGATIONS of such obvious criminal behavior imperiling our national security as (A) the Clinton Foundation in general and Uranium One in particular, (B) Hillary putting top-secret documents on a personal computer server that was less secure than g-mail and that was hacked by at least 5 foreign governments, (C) Hillary and the DNC buying false “opposition research” from the Kremlin and distributing it to the mainstream media while masking their deeds by using the Perkins Coie law firm as their agent to accomplish these illegal activities, and (D) rigging the Democratic Primaries against Bernie Sanders who was the only candidate in 2016, other than Donald Trump, standing up for American workers (which should comprise a “slam dunk” case of criminally defrauding all of Bernie Sanders’ zillions of small campaign contributors)?

20. While we are treated to constant demands to return to the Cold War by investigating so-called Russian “collusion” which is NOT a crime?

21. Since the refusal of the Justice Department to pursue the obvious criminal behavior described in Q-18 is apparently based on the ridiculous grounds that doing so would appear political, what is the excuse for a refusal to appoint a Special Prosecutor for the obvious Q-18 crimes and “let the chips fall where they may”?

22. After all, until the obvious criminal behavior described in Q-18 is prosecuted, how can the American public be expected to believe that any of the wonderful-sounding reforms of The USA Liberty Act would ever be enforced???

23. BTW, since it appears that Hillary is intent on “roaming this earth” forever, why doesn’t some local District Attorney do the country a favor by prosecuting the “slam dunk” criminal case against her for being an Accessory After The Fact to President Clinton’s many “felony murders”???

Post Reply

Return to “Participant Comments - Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now by Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Dec 13”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests