Oh, Sure, Suddenly Now The House Intelligence Boss Is Concerned About Surveillance... Of Mike Flynn
from the high-court,-low-court dept
We've written a few times about Rep. Devin Nunes, who heads the House Intelligence Committee. He's been a long-time vocal supporter of NSA surveillance. He insisted that there was no need for reform after the Snowden leaks and he actively misled the public and other members of Congress to shoot down an amendment that would have stopped so-called backdoor searches of "incidentally collected" information on Americans. Nunes falsely claimed that by blocking backdoor searches of the 702 database, it would have blocked things such as tracking whether or not the Orlando nightclub shooter had overseas contacts (it would not have done that at all).
So it's fairly hilarious to see that Nunes' first reaction to the news of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn's resignation was to demand answers on why Flynn's calls with Russian officials were recorded.
“I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which is conducting a review of Russian activities to influence the election. “The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.”
Uh, dude, you approved this kind of thing (loudly and proudly), and not only that, but you actively blocked suggested amendments that would have blocked the using of this information to dig into information on US persons. Maybe it's time to rethink that one, huh? Of course, (former assistant Attorney General) David Kris (who knows this stuff probably better than anyone else) has made it clear that Flynn's calls with a Russian official wouldn't need to be "minimized" (i.e., have his identity excluded) because "a U.S. person’s name can be used when it is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information in the report."
Of course, there's lots of irony to go around here. Timothy Edgar -- who was the director of privacy and civil liberties for the White House National Security staff under Obama (and also did privacy/civil liberties work in the Bush administration) has noted that the leaking of the contents of his phone calls actually means that Flynn's own civil rights have been violated and even suggests he gives the ACLU a call (oh, and another layer of irony: Edgar has been warning about how Flynn and others in the Trump administration might trample on civil liberties... and yet here, he's arguing that Flynn's civil liberties have been violated.)
Along those lines, Glenn Greenwald notes that the leaking of actual content from intercepted communications is a really serious crime, but one that should be seen as totally justified here, as it was clearly a form of whistleblowing (even as he admits that the motives of the leakers likely weren't pure, but were possibly for revenge against Flynn, who many in the intelligence world disliked).
It is a big deal to actually leak the contents of an intercepted communication (most leaks and whistleblowing tend to be about programs, not the actual intercepted communications). Of course, this should raise other questions about why the NSA and FBI are surveilling so many people -- and will the content of those other calls be used for political vendettas rather than true whistleblowing? Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that someone like Devin Nunes is going to care about all that. In typical "high court/low court" fashion, he's only concerned that someone on his team was hurt by such surveillance, not that such surveillance regularly occurs.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: devin nunes, fisa, house intelligence committee, michael flynn, minimization, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Deepstate says what
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deepstate says what
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deepstate says what
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's also note that Flynn's an idiot
But this isn't the end of it. Flynn is just the little fish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's also note that Flynn's an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's also note that Flynn's an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wouldn't necessarily call that irony. On the face of it, it looks like... absence of hypocrisy. Principle, even.
On second thought, maybe that is ironic.
I'm so confused. This is exhausting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tribal affiliations
There is no need to go to deep into the analysis on this one. It is about any sort of principle but about tribal affiliations. Partisans only see two kinds of people, us and them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: tribal affiliations
Conversations are what is needed and a strong will to withstand the partisanship. Unfortunately such moderates are called (RINO/DINO) and would not survive a primary... You reap what you sow, I guess!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: tribal affiliations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because the Intelligence committee has supported the gather it all philosophy. Either you limit the Intelligence services to targeted surveillance, or you let them collect it all, which includes data on politicians. Filtering out a few select people will never happen, as the data will be gathered before the people involved are identified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In any case, the point *now* is Flynn's mess isn't to do with how or why but that it happened at all and what was discussed. Wheedling about anything else by rather vested parties is a distraction tactic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flynn should be fired -- for terminal stupidity
already read numerous transcripts of similar
calls previously captured by the NSA.
Regardless of politics, do we really want someone
so stupid in charge of U.S. national security?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
High court
So far, the "regular" people haven't had much success challenging mass surveillance in court. It'd be funny if this ended up being the case to end it. Unlike most plaintiffs so far, he clearly has standing: he knows he was surveilled and we know it had a negative effect on him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a minute...
Last I checked the Repukes did not bitch much about it then... are they all bent because it happened to one of theirs now?
I hope more of this shit happens!
The 1st Amendment applies here... I don't give a flying fuck what agency you work for in the US, you have a 1st Amendment right to the press. The very idea that you no longer have this right as an employee of the government is about the most telling fucking thing.
Sure, you CAN be fired, but it would be unconstitutional to criminally charge anyone for leaking to the press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Republicans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Republicans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Republicans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Republicans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
truthfulness as a strategy
It is possible to have brutal honesty as a strategy, if your own failings are quotidian and relatable. It's a good one since the public learns to believe you.
The problem is when you're actually engaged in criminal activity (insider trading, say), or have a habit that your party won't forgive. (Commonly, lechery or sexual perversion.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: truthfulness as a strategy
*...or had a habit that your party won't forgive. (Commonly, lechery or sexual perversion.)
FIFY
The new norm is "It doesn't matter what our guy does, and besides, you're exaggerating, fake news! etc."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unfortunately even when they 'change their tune' the response generally isn't 'This is bad and should be stopped' it' 'This wasn't meant to apply to us, we need to change the law so that the law specifically doesn't apply to the nobility'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law doesn't apply to nobility.
That was one of the whole points of this country, and was also made a point of post-revolution France. As per the Napoleonic Code the law applies to everyone.
Any form of selective enforcement, including prosecutorial discretion is a failure of justice, and therefore a failure of state.
And this is the outcome. People who believe the law doesn't apply to them behave as though it is true. Even to the point of atrocity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the Worms Ate into Their Brains
Along those lines, Glenn Greenwald notes that the leaking of actual content from intercepted communications is a really serious crime, but one that should be seen as totally justified here, as it was clearly a form of whistleblowing (even as he admits that the motives of the leakers likely weren't pure, but were possibly for revenge against Flynn, who many in the intelligence world disliked).
Did Greenwald have access to the leaked intercepts of Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador?
If not how does he/you know the leaks were totally justified here?
What was so unpalatable about the content of Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador that required him to resign as NSA?
In all fairness to Mike Flynn the full unadulterated transcripts of his conversations with the Russian ambassador need to be released to the public.
Once upon a time when a member of a new incoming presidential administration spoke with the ambassador of a foreign nation it was defined as diplomacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the Worms Ate into Their Brains
The legality of the content of the calls is a separate issue with no public evidence to argue with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the Worms Ate into Their Brains
Since "leaked" means "exposed, revealed, made public", I'm guessing that the answer is "yes".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Veterans against Trump and his cronies...
Cease and desist before enough Veterans and active military have to do what they swore to do when they joined.
Upholding the Constitution is the #1 priority of all branches of the military, against enemies foreign **AND DOMESTIC**.
Following orders within the chain of command comes a far second after this.
When I joined, this was the oath I swore.
I, My Name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed ...
I may no longer be physically able to come kick your ass out of office, but you can't say that about the rest of the people still doing active military service.
How many military personnel are currently deployed? When they come back, will they have to come and kick your ass out of the office that you are making a mockery of?
How about you actually start following and defending the Constitution that *YOU* swore to uphold.
Get rid of your cronies that you appointed to office, and put people in that actually care about the Constitution first, the human beings that make up our citizens and visitors second and last.
Corporations, which aren't *PEOPLE* (when has a company been drafted, or been sent to prison), can fend for themselves.
The constituents which voted you into office need your protection, not your abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Veterans against Trump and his cronies...
yea... if you have not already been moved to action then I have a bumper sticker you can buy. I has the phrase...
"I will believe it when I see it" in bold Comic Sans.
Soldiers are just like the police... reliably doing just exactly what they are fucking told!
Did you like Bush by chance? The one that spit on our honorable fallen with the DHS, TSA, and Patriot Act right along with congress and an apathetic citizenry scared to shit of people in little head diapers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The solution to this...
Won't be a solution either. Without accountability our officials are inevitability tempted to corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An independent? Balderdash, everyone knows there's only two tribes to belong to, if you aren't a member of one you must be a member of the other. The very idea that there might be more than two tribes is complete madness, clearly you just don't want to admit to belonging to one of the real tribes.
/poe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Until then... people need constant reminding for the same reasons why vigilance must be eternal if you want liberty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How dare they!
Oh wait.... never mind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One to think over?
So, why is the military in contact with the Russian ambassador discussing policy? Working during a campaign? Circumventing policy of a sitting president? Prior to the election? There is a common term for that. Found in the UCMJ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
> "Where are all the privacy groups screaming now?" [Nunes] asked.
Well, Devin, when you find "privacy groups" that actually said that American intel agencies shouldn't be trying to listen in on *the freaking Russian Ambassador*, let us know whether there's any "screaming" echoing through the phone booth where this group holds its meetings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thoughts on Flynn and related matters
More seriously, whatever you think of Trump and Flynn, as an OpEd in The Telegraph (UK) asked is it right for the permanent apparatus of the intelligence services in a liberal democracy to be using leaks to the media, rather than passing information to appropriate authorities (in the US case, Congress) to bring political appointees and thereby harm an elected government? Divorced from the personalities involved, the answer is very clearly "no", and therefore the answer is "no", even if it's General Flynn who's being brought down, and Donald Trump who is being harmed in this particular instance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]