10 ms·

This journalist has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Executive Order 12333 grants authority to the FBI (among others, with few exceptions), speci

This journalist has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Executive Order 12333 grants authority to the FBI (among others, with few exceptions), specifically as it relates to foreign intelligence and counterintelligence (EO 12333 1.7(g)(1)). I'm not even sure where they are getting the "unconsented physical searches" and "physical surveillance" line from. EO 12333 specifically states, "Elements of the Intelligence Community are not authorized to use such techniques as electronic surveillance, unconsented physical searches, mail surveillance, physical surveillance, or monitoring devices unless they are in accordance with procedures established by the head of the Intelligence Community element concerned or the head of a department containing such element and approved by the Attorney General, after consultation with the Director." It then goes on to infer the FBI is the only one who can conduct unconsented physical searches and physical surveillance on United States persons, except in specific circumstances. In other words...EO 12333 specifically authorizes activities for the FBI as they relate to foreign intelligence and counterintelligence activities; the FBI may use unconsented physical searches and physical surveillance to support their investigations into the previously mentioned activities; and they are the only ones able to do so except in specific circumstances. Lastly, the protests in Portland would not be considered as part of literally any of the FBI's authorities in EO 12333, it would be from their authorities related to conduct of criminal investigations, which would require a warrant or consent to a search. I'm not a fan of all this necessarily, but the fact checking in this article is mind-blowing.

animationwill 6y ago
>> This journalist has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. >> I'm not a fan of all this necessarily, but the fact checking in this article is mind-blowing. I'm starting to suspect that half of articles today are purposeful misinformation that fits a narrative, while the other half is lazy reporting and might even rely on the misinformation as a source, just perpetuating it. I've never read NYbooks.com before, but is a book reviewer really going to give me accurate insight into legal interpretation? Nope...
boomboomsubban 6y ago
>I'm not even sure where they are getting the "unconsented physical searches" and "physical surveillance" line from >EO 12333 specifically authorizes activities for the FBI as they relate to foreign intelligence and counterintelligence activities; the FBI may use unconsented physical searches and physical surveillance to support their investigations You don't understand why they're saying they can do exactly what you say they can do. The only hiccup you've introduced is that you don't think the Portland protests would count as foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, but they would only need a very weak link to some foreign agent to allow wide scale surveillance. Hell, a Canadian protester would fulfill the criteria.
- bladegash 6y ago
  I mean, that's not really a hiccup, it is a cornerstone of intelligence activity authorities. Sure, law enforcement officers can make up a bunch of crap that provides pretext for an investigation/other activities. However, I think you are misunderstanding the legal definitions and elements for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence. The Canadian would not be considered under either definition unless they are acting on behalf of the Canadian Government as an agent of a foreign power. There are specific legal definitions for all these terms that are worth looking into[1]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801
  - phobosanomaly 6y ago
    From your link, the definition of foreign power includes: "a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons" And, a foreign agent can be: "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power" That kind of language is so loose. A good legal team could easily claim something something something Antifa foreign influence burned down a Target to meet that legal definition.
  - rmrfstar 6y ago
    I think you're being a little naive about how these laws are used. At the end of the day they do a smell test to see if there is a sufficient "foreign nexus". And there always is. 99.9% of the surveillance they do is political and never sees the inside of a court room, so it doesn't matter if their analysis is implausible or made in bad faith. [1] Canadian: check. US citizen who studied abroad: check. US citizen with a foreign partner: check. US citizen with a foreign gardener: probably check. US citizen with a foreign car: check back in 2030. [1] https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MIsc%2019%2002%20191217.pdf https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MIsc%2019%...
onedognight 6y ago
There is evidence of foreign nationals fomenting violence at recent protests[0]. I would hope FBI is investigating. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/idaho-family-portland-trump-rally/2020/09/21/246ef878-f2e5-11ea-b796-2dd09962649c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/idaho-family-portlan...
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  There is absolutely no evidence of foreign nationals doing anything in that article.
phobosanomaly 6y ago
Maybe I'm missing something here, but what I read is: "...unless they are in accordance with procedures established by the head of the Intelligence Community element concerned or the head of a department containing such element and approved by the Attorney General, after consultation with the Director" So you need to get: 1. A department head to come up with a procedure for carrying out the unconsented physical searches. 2. AG Barr to sign off on it. That sounds like something you could do in, like, 20 minutes if you knew the right phone numbers to dial.
- bladegash 6y ago
  No worries, national security law is pretty complicated and a bit of a web of concepts. The portion you quoted relates to the ability/necessity for elements of the Intelligence Community to create formal implementing guidance of the requirements within EO 12333 (e.g., which activities can be performed by the agency, under what circumstances, etc.) Basically there is a negotiation that takes place between the IC element and DoJ/the White House in order to add some fidelity to the language in EO 12333. It is a process that generally takes years, not minutes. In addition, the AG wouldn't be able to make an exception that is inconsistent with the requirements in EO 12333. Theoretically, the President could amend EO12333 to allow for additional activities, but there are even issues with that considering Congress' role in intelligence oversight, power of the purse via the Intel Authorization Act, etc...
  - phobosanomaly 6y ago
    Ok, fair enough. I can tell that you probably know far more than me on this issue. I want to pose this question to you because I don't know enough about the subject to pose the question from the standpoint of justifying it. If all of the following parties wanted to make this happen: 1. White House 2. DOJ 3. IC element Say all of their incentives were aligned. And say that nobody was directly looking over their shoulder to blow the whistle and say 'hold on wait a minute,' then what would prevent this from happening? Considering the actions taken by federal law enforcement during the protests, I see this as being in the category of 'if it could potentially happen, it probably has.' Feel free to disagree. I'm here for the interesting discussion.
jlgaddis 6y ago
> Elements of the Intelligence Community are not authorized to use such techniques ... unless ... Perhaps "such techniques" were "... in accordance with procedures established by the head of the Intelligence Community element concerned or the head of a department containing such element and approved by the Attorney General, after consultation with the Director"? I would not be surprised -- at all -- to learn that AG Barr (after consulting with DIRFBI Wray) approved "such techniques".
- bladegash 6y ago
  I commented on this elsewhere, but that is not legally possible due to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Unconsented physical searches of US persons, for the purposes of obtaining foreign intelligence and/or counterintelligence, has to be ordered by the FISC. Recent examples of this taking place can be seen with Carter Page, Michael Flynn, and I guess even the President. EO 12333 is really just saying that IF these searches are to take place in the US, only the FBI has the authority to conduct the activity. They still have to follow other laws, policies, and procedures that exist.
raxxorrax 6y ago
Suggest they are influenced by Russia and all these nice rules fly out of the window. The journalist is correct on this.
antman 6y ago
I think you just gave me an answer to a question I had, why Russians are mentioned in everything remotely discomforting in internal US politics. I am not saying Russians are not trying but their destabilizing cspabilities are way lower than the FBI's.

animationwill 6y ago

>> This journalist has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. >> I'm not a fan of all this necessarily, but the fact checking in this article is mind-blowing. I'm starting to suspect that half of articles today are purposeful misinformation that fits a narrative, while the other half is lazy reporting and might even rely on the misinformation as a source, just perpetuating it. I've never read NYbooks.com before, but is a book reviewer really going to give me accurate insight into legal interpretation? Nope...

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>I'm not even sure where they are getting the "unconsented physical searches" and "physical surveillance" line from >EO 12333 specifically authorizes activities for the FBI as they relate to foreign intelligence and counterintelligence activities; the FBI may use unconsented physical searches and physical surveillance to support their investigations You don't understand why they're saying they can do exactly what you say they can do. The only hiccup you've introduced is that you don't think the Portland protests would count as foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, but they would only need a very weak link to some foreign agent to allow wide scale surveillance. Hell, a Canadian protester would fulfill the criteria.

bladegash 6y ago
I mean, that's not really a hiccup, it is a cornerstone of intelligence activity authorities. Sure, law enforcement officers can make up a bunch of crap that provides pretext for an investigation/other activities. However, I think you are misunderstanding the legal definitions and elements for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence. The Canadian would not be considered under either definition unless they are acting on behalf of the Canadian Government as an agent of a foreign power. There are specific legal definitions for all these terms that are worth looking into[1]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  From your link, the definition of foreign power includes: "a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons" And, a foreign agent can be: "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power" That kind of language is so loose. A good legal team could easily claim something something something Antifa foreign influence burned down a Target to meet that legal definition.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  I think you're being a little naive about how these laws are used. At the end of the day they do a smell test to see if there is a sufficient "foreign nexus". And there always is. 99.9% of the surveillance they do is political and never sees the inside of a court room, so it doesn't matter if their analysis is implausible or made in bad faith. [1] Canadian: check. US citizen who studied abroad: check. US citizen with a foreign partner: check. US citizen with a foreign gardener: probably check. US citizen with a foreign car: check back in 2030. [1] https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MIsc%2019%2002%20191217.pdf https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MIsc%2019%...

onedognight 6y ago

There is evidence of foreign nationals fomenting violence at recent protests[0]. I would hope FBI is investigating. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/idaho-family-portland-trump-rally/2020/09/21/246ef878-f2e5-11ea-b796-2dd09962649c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/idaho-family-portlan...

raxxorrax 6y ago
There is absolutely no evidence of foreign nationals doing anything in that article.

phobosanomaly 6y ago

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what I read is: "...unless they are in accordance with procedures established by the head of the Intelligence Community element concerned or the head of a department containing such element and approved by the Attorney General, after consultation with the Director" So you need to get: 1. A department head to come up with a procedure for carrying out the unconsented physical searches. 2. AG Barr to sign off on it. That sounds like something you could do in, like, 20 minutes if you knew the right phone numbers to dial.

bladegash 6y ago
No worries, national security law is pretty complicated and a bit of a web of concepts. The portion you quoted relates to the ability/necessity for elements of the Intelligence Community to create formal implementing guidance of the requirements within EO 12333 (e.g., which activities can be performed by the agency, under what circumstances, etc.) Basically there is a negotiation that takes place between the IC element and DoJ/the White House in order to add some fidelity to the language in EO 12333. It is a process that generally takes years, not minutes. In addition, the AG wouldn't be able to make an exception that is inconsistent with the requirements in EO 12333. Theoretically, the President could amend EO12333 to allow for additional activities, but there are even issues with that considering Congress' role in intelligence oversight, power of the purse via the Intel Authorization Act, etc...
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  Ok, fair enough. I can tell that you probably know far more than me on this issue. I want to pose this question to you because I don't know enough about the subject to pose the question from the standpoint of justifying it. If all of the following parties wanted to make this happen: 1. White House 2. DOJ 3. IC element Say all of their incentives were aligned. And say that nobody was directly looking over their shoulder to blow the whistle and say 'hold on wait a minute,' then what would prevent this from happening? Considering the actions taken by federal law enforcement during the protests, I see this as being in the category of 'if it could potentially happen, it probably has.' Feel free to disagree. I'm here for the interesting discussion.

jlgaddis 6y ago

> Elements of the Intelligence Community are not authorized to use such techniques ... unless ... Perhaps "such techniques" were "... in accordance with procedures established by the head of the Intelligence Community element concerned or the head of a department containing such element and approved by the Attorney General, after consultation with the Director"? I would not be surprised -- at all -- to learn that AG Barr (after consulting with DIRFBI Wray) approved "such techniques".

bladegash 6y ago
I commented on this elsewhere, but that is not legally possible due to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Unconsented physical searches of US persons, for the purposes of obtaining foreign intelligence and/or counterintelligence, has to be ordered by the FISC. Recent examples of this taking place can be seen with Carter Page, Michael Flynn, and I guess even the President. EO 12333 is really just saying that IF these searches are to take place in the US, only the FBI has the authority to conduct the activity. They still have to follow other laws, policies, and procedures that exist.

raxxorrax 6y ago

Suggest they are influenced by Russia and all these nice rules fly out of the window. The journalist is correct on this.

antman 6y ago

I think you just gave me an answer to a question I had, why Russians are mentioned in everything remotely discomforting in internal US politics. I am not saying Russians are not trying but their destabilizing cspabilities are way lower than the FBI's.