
The Justice Dept's secret rules for targeting journalists with FISA court orders - DyslexicAtheist
https://freedom.press/news/revealed-justice-depts-secret-rules-targeting-journalists-fisa-court-orders/
======
benmmurphy
The FISA court should be abolished or needs very serious reforms. The original
reasoning was for surveilling foreign spies but it is now being used to
monitor journalists (presumably American as well!) and American's involved in
political campaigns. If the FBI had disclosed it would be using the FISA court
in this manner when the laws were proposed the laws would not have received
support.

~~~
GVIrish
FISA court is still about national security and espionage cases. The reason
they may want a FISA warrant on a journalist is because we know that there are
foreign intelligence services that use journalists to spread disinformation,
propaganda, and stolen classified materials.

So for example, RT America was recently forced to get FARA registration, as
was some Chinese media outlets.

One development in the Paul Manafort case is that he admitted to pushing
disinformation to American media to support his Ukrainian clients. If there
were other avenues of hostile foreign influence operations attempting to
subvert US media, a FISA warrant would be one way it might be done.

One thing to remember about the FISA court is that it's not about surveillance
for the purpose of normal criminal prosecutions, it's about supporting
national security, which often doesn't necessarily lead to criminal charges.
It may mean just monitoring what adversaries are up to. This is also why the
bar for FISA warrants is different than it is for normal criminal
investigations.

At any rate, the FISA court's powers can certainly be abused and meaningful
oversight is needed. Especially in this time with increasing politicization of
federal law enforcement. Spying on journalists gets into dangerous territory,
so yes, people should pay close attention here.

~~~
pdkl95
> the FISA court is that it's not about surveillance for the purpose of normal
> criminal prosecutions

It _is_ used for domestic criminal purposes, as long as the court only sees a
_parallel construction_ [1] that conceals that the evidence is the fruit of
the poisonous tree.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction)

~~~
GVIrish
Yes, that is a very important loophole to bring up here.

On one hand, parallel construction can be used in order to not compromise
sensitive sources and methods. If you found out about a spy ring because you
compromised a spy's phone, you might not want that revealed, so a different
path to the evidence is constructed to conceal that method.

But it of course can be used in a nefarious manner to launder evidence gained
on someone illegally. So maybe in the course of a nat'l security investigation
the feds stumble conversations of a drug trafficker, then use parallel
construction to create a paper trail that would make it seem like the
knowledge about the drug trafficker was obtained through normal channels.

That is absolutely an area that requires more rigorous controls and oversight,
although I don't know how often FISA warrants have been exploited in that
matter. Could be mostly federal law enforcement eavesdropping with stingrays.

~~~
michaelmrose
Parallel construction doesn't have nefarious uses it is inherently nefarious.
It is an end run around the law they are supposed to be upholding.

In actual practice you shouldn't perform broad illegal surveillance of your
populace and if you do you shouldn't be able to use it in court without
revealing your sources.

This fundamentally violates the rights of the accused.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Parallel construction is a euphemism for perjury committed by law enforcement.

~~~
michaelmrose
This should be prosecuted as such instead of concealed.

------
gergles
Just a note to try to derail the inevitable political handwringing: these
documents are all dated from 2014 or 2015 and therefore have nothing to do
with the current administration, beyond that they haven't revoked them and
replaced them with something else.

~~~
unstuckdev
I'm more curious about the status quo before the rules. They might have been
put in place due to abuses in the absence of clear policy. The government
shouldn't target journalists _at all_ , but it will, and clear policy may rein
in darker impulses.

~~~
yasp
FISA surveillance is intended to go after spies. If government shouldn't
target journalists _at all_ , won't spies just become journalists?

~~~
unstuckdev
Government is going to target journalists regardless of the ethics and
legality of it. Joining a profession with less access to vital government
secrets and more scrutiny by government than any other seems like an odd
choice for a spy.

~~~
bluGill
Journalist is also a good cover. There are a lot of secrets that are not
actually secret if you just spend some time looking in the right places.
However normal people do their day job and go home to the family so they don't
figure out much.

An example: a "office building" that has a large underground lab. Normal
people see a construction site with a few dump trucks of dirt leaving. A spy
will watch long enough to figure out it isn't just a few dump trucks, a lot
more dirt is leaving than should be. A journalist has cover to watch long
enough.

It is a double edge sword. A spy who can copy the real blueprints, or works in
the lab is better. However the people who have that access to that might not
talk at any price so you take what you can get.

~~~
creaghpatr
Journalists are complementary to government agencies. Complicit journalist
looking for access can leak anonymous scoops that can then be used as a
pretext to launch a FISA request.

------
yardie
Just another reminder that the Justice Department is not your ally. Sessions,
Mueller, Rosenstein, and Comey; if they eat their own fine by me. But don't
think for a second if they aren't working against your interests while they
are arguing over Russian influence.

~~~
prolikewh0a
A lot of left wing Americans seemingly threw out their ability to question
once the DNC started making claims that Russia was responsible for Trump. They
trust these people hands down, without realizing that Mueller was instrumental
in lying about the Iraq WMD's [1]. While I'm glad massive fraud charges are
being brought up on Trump's friends & cabinet, I'm hesitant to not seriously
question anything about foreign influence from the same people who lied us
into the Iraq war.

[1] [https://youtu.be/uTDO-kuOGTQ](https://youtu.be/uTDO-kuOGTQ)

~~~
jessaustin
From that perspective, it's possible to see Trump's schizophrenic foreign
policy as a sort of negotiation from his previous stated position of non-
interventionism. He could get away with peace talks with Kim only by
countering them with saber-rattling toward Iran. He has avoided the planned
Syrian War but still managed to drop bombs in Syria. The military-industrial-
media complex wants Endless War, and they were only too happy to corrupt
progressives in order to pressure Trump. The biggest risk now is that D's take
back both houses, and Trump starts another disastrous war in order to avoid
impeachment and removal from office.

~~~
oh_sigh
Why would you need to threaten war with Iran in order to have peace talks with
NK?

~~~
mmjaa
Because the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex exerts an enormous
influence over American politics, both domestic and foreign, and if they want
war: they get it. (cf., the last 40 years of illegal American wars.)

All this attacking-the-figurehead is really doing, is distracting the public
from the real cause of trouble in American politics today: the Generals. The
Pentagon is a significant source of turmoil in the world - for anyone to think
that this doesn't apply to the President, is just plain nuts. Nobody exerts
more pressure for war, more war, endless, holy war, on an American President
than the Pentagon and its complex of intricate corporate lackeys, financiers,
courtesans and pimps...

~~~
rurban
The generals are also just dominos of the business interests. The US industry
generals are driving the endless wars, through the generals, CIA, bought
politicians and bought press.

------
tptacek
I'm not sure what I'm reading here. The only documents in this tranche that
discuss FISA orders make it _harder_ to get a FISA order targeting an overseas
journalist, not easier.

------
throw2016
If China, Russia or any other country target journalists its oppression and
totalitarianism. If the US does it its not? This is alarming double standards
by jingoists who do not believe in any values.

FISA courts, secret processes, secret orders are completely arbitrary and
undemocratic. You can't hollow out the very things that define democracy and
continue to call it that. How does a secret court fit in a democracy? How does
targeting journalists with secret courts and orders fit a democracy? Then what
is the difference between totalitarianism and democracy?

Threads on China, Russia and others are full of commentators lecturing others
about democracy and human rights. How can you hold others accountable for the
very things you are guilty of yourself, how can this kind of hypocrisy pass in
informed discussion?

It's this alarming dissonance, hypocrisy and complete failure to hold anyone
accountable since Snowden's revelations that is providing cover for these
kinds of shocking overreach. And in the absence of mainstream protest and
activism it will keep getting worse.

------
prolikewh0a
I feel like Noam Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' needs a 2019 update to the
propaganda model.

~~~
rapsey
In what way? Nothing really has changed, it has only gotten more extreme and
blatant.

~~~
mtgx
So something has changed then?

------
motohagiography
We need a list of lists and how you get on them, and off them, then a service
for managing them.

------
pwned1
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

------
rasengan
Targeting journalists is horrible.

Any government that is doing these things does not represent we the people.
Journalists are our loudest narrators - meaning - the government appears to
really wish to control our narrative.

~~~
slowmovintarget
> Journalists are our loudest narrators - meaning - the government appears to
> really wish to control our narrative.

When the narration is coordinated with the DNC, this makes me think they
aren't doing their job any more.

But yes, it wasn't acceptable when the Obama administration was wire tapping
Fox News reporters, and it's not acceptable now.

~~~
falcrist
ABC, NBC, CBS, WSJ, NYT, Chicago Tribune, New York Post, BBC, PBS, NPR, AP,
Reuters, etc...

All of these (or even the majority) are controlled by the DNC?

I don't think so, and if that isn't on the nose enough for you, I'll just say
that I think you're talking about 24 hour news networks... CNN specifically.
Yea, they endorsed Clinton as hard as they could.

So STOP WATCHING THEM, and stop equating journalism to the likes of CNN and
Fox. Watch and/or read something else. You speak English and live in a country
with a protected press (which is why this article is worrying in the first
place). There are literally thousands of newspapers, magazines, television
news shows (and networks) out there.

Pick a couple of reputable ones (including at least one that challenges your
views) and stop watching piffle.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>All of these (or even the majority) are controlled by the DNC?

To play devils advocate, yes they are (to varying degrees), in the same way
that college campuses are "controlled" by the DNC.

>and stop equating journalism to the likes of CNN and Fox

Kinda funny how far we've come. CNN used to be the impartial one.

~~~
tokai
It is pretty disingenuous to compare correlating political opinions to being
"controlled".

