FBI: FISA Section 702 'absolutely critical' to spy on, err, protect Americans | Hacker News Reader

FBI: FISA Section 702 'absolutely critical' to spy on, err, protect Americans

theregister.com

224 pointsrntn108 comments

I think as a starting point maybe a good thing to agree on is that we want more transparency around alleged threats.

Iirc this all started around 9/11 and there was this shroud of secrecy mentality that revealing anything, even whether the operation had even caught a single terrorist, was somehow going to empower terrorists. I think in hindsight that doesn't hold up to scrutinty.

I think some good metrics to be made public before a renewal is considered should be: what crimes were being investigated (e.g. was this drugs, pornography, domestic election tampering, international spying, exfiltration of government secrets, money laundering?). And how many total cases? And what % of cases lead to a conviction? And also a way for everyday citizens to request an FOIA on whether they had their data looked at.

There are world where I could see this hypothetically being put to good use, and if people know what they use this for becomes visible to the public I think it forces us closer to such a world.

> a good thing to agree on is that we want more transparency around alleged threats.

I'll separate out digital threats here as evidence you are beyond correct.

1) Decades of taxpayers funding the hoarding of ~100% of threat data, away from qualified netsec experts, so that it could be reserved to protecting US Gov interests (noting that NatSec typically includes US Gov, Gov partners, major campaign donors and that's about it).

2) One agency head after another sounding klaxons w/o evidence (eg:Digital Pearl Harbor), to influence policy in a way that would ratchet up agency power.

They could definitely do a better job of communicating what they're doing, why they need to do it, risks, and their successes or failures. With that said they do communicate with Congress who are all directly elected by us.

I think that we should also agree that secrecy is sometimes necessary.

if i recall correctly, a three-letter agency was spying on the congress comitee that oversees them.

When was the last time a senior official of a 3-letter agency was fired/jailed for exceeding his authority? Did it ever happen?

> Iirc this all started around 9/11

Added in 2008.

https://www.intel.gov/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act/...

Secret courts have no place in the United States. The constitution guarantees you the right to defend yourself against an accuser (5A). You are not allowed to be in that court when you're accused. Also, the government is prohibited from unreasonable search and seizures (4A). When they get a court order, you're not allowed to defend against. FISA has never been before the Supreme Court, as you need a defendant. Since the court is secret, and no defendants allowed, it is never going to the supreme court. If you're accused, and go to trial, FISA evidence remains secret, and discovery is never given to your attorney. When you're on the receiving end of this, you will beg for your rights. The government has unlimited power, and resources to destroy you.

> FISA has never been before the Supreme Court, as you need a defendant. Since the court is secret, and no defendants allowed, it is never going to the supreme court.

Golf clap for the chum who yanked this loophole

Do you take the position that there is no role / need whatsoever for a court in the United States that needs to hear confidential matters having to do with law enforcement, where to reveal it to the subject would compromise the investigation?

I think your desire to paint it as some evil government bogeyman + some philosophy that everything should be open is over simplistic and honestly a little naive in how a country needs to defend itself.

Now I am no fan of all that the FISA court has allowed. There are legitimate criticisms of how the lack of transparency has allowed some rubber stamping of investigations without good adversarial oversight.

But to fundamentally assert that such a court should not exist is a bit ridiculous.

You might as well suggest that every time before knocking down the door of a drug dealer, the drug dealer's attorney must be notified and get a chance to argue against the search warrant in front of the issuing judge, because in a couple of cases, they knocked on the wrong person's door.

That you think the government should be in the business of kicking in doors without due process over mere chemical intoxicants is telling. It is anathema to the founding ideals, and historically illiterate with respect to alcohol prohibition.

Looking back through history, the abuses that happen behind closed doors always outweigh the negatives of transparency.

The inconvenience of being targeted by an illegal search warrant is nothing compared to what is going on right now. Political repression, killings, extreme corruption, and dictators want secret courts.

When it comes to the US, a lot of people treat "freedom" as a euphemism for war. (see: Team America)

I wonder if "protection" will start becoming a euphemism for surveillance.

that would be double-plus-ungood.

That's a word to be avoided in branding, I think.

The former German SS (Schutzstaffel) translates to "protection squadron" in English.

If? We're already there. That's the crux of this article.

Team America was satirizing a specific moment in history, where they used fear of 9/11 to support an unjust war. That moment has passed. We may be vulnerable to that kind of crap again, but I don't see it right now.

I am not sure. I feel more surveilled than I thought would ever be possible. My car watches me in my own garage, and the FBI can pull that data without telling me, without a warrant, just to learn my impressive laundry habits (I'll skip you the trouble, FBI: I use Gain and Downy and Borax, always on cold, tumble dry low).

And how is that related to using freedom as a reason to invade a sovereign state and suppress opinions not in favor?

Sure, but to be fair, how many 9/11’s have happened since the first one?

9/11 was the extreme statistical anomaly. US Citizens have been historically safe from domestic terrorism for 50 years.

ref: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/16/eight... (2013 but the numbers are about the same. Odds of dying in a domestic terror attack vary between 1:12000000 & 1:40000000 or the same as picking the correct inch between DC and NYC).

It is interesting this period of safety coincided with the release of the Pentagon Papers and the Church Committee that followed. One result of which was forcing the FBI away from domestic surveillance and refocusing it into a law enforcement mission. This lasted for about 40 years (after which the FBI officially abandoned it's LEO mission to pursue the power that comes with NatSec operations).

How many have been attempted since then?

They happen annually.

lol, you got me

The FBI never needed a warrant to get information you give to companies freely. That's why they never needed a warrant for phone records.

You have rights to protect your data, but you (and Tesla, et al) don't have rights or legal responsibilities to protect data you collect on others.

No. Team America was satirizing the general US approach of trampling over all other countries in the name of "The American Way".

That's not really changed.

Not really.

I haven't seen the thing since 2004. But I thought it was pretty dumb and ironically very US centric in its treatment of these topics. It wasn't a deep criticism. It also at the same time mocked celebrities for being against the war.

For the record I was very vehemently against the Iraq war from day one.

Maybe you missed the deeper satirical message.

Or maybe it was a shitty movie. There's lots one could say about US foreign policy, but that was 90 minutes of fart jokes. It's weird what people try to venerate sometimes.

Lots of people seemed to have really liked it.

As an example, when I was staying at a backpacking hostel in Perth, Australia many years ago the entire lounge area was packed out by people (during the day!) when it was being shown.

That was ~70 people, many of them who were walking by initially but saw it on and stuck around to watch it.

In that backpacking hostel, there'd not been anywhere close to that number of people watching any other movie. So, there was definitely some kind of interest by people. :)

The US Department of Defense (renamed from Department of War) is currently waging offensive war in a half dozen foreign lands right now.

Which foreign lands?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_involv... < look for present, it's probably more than a half-dozen. Falls under the same Authorization for Use of Miltary Force of 2001.

There are five conflicts under "present", none of which are offensive. Two are helping countries put down insurgencies, two are fighting piracy from Somalia and two are involved in civil wars in the Middle East. (They add up to six because insurgents and pirates are allies). Most of them are as part of a giant collation. Only the Syrian one is actually being led by the US.

None of them are to conquer territory or any other description of "offensive war" I've ever seen.

None of them involve defending the US.

Moving the goalposts. Original claim was offensive wars.

Well given that they're not engaging in the defense which is in the title of the organization, they must be offensive - there is no third option.

Point being that we already invert terms like "defense" to mean "offense".

Are these charitable wars? Decorative wars? What's the right term for entering into war with countries that aren't attacking you?

None of them are terribly US specific. The UK is involved in all the same conflicts. France, all but the intervention in Somalia. Three of them have countries like Belgium and Canada involved.

The two fighting pirates who are attacking US ships overseas are clearly "defending the US" under international and US law. (And the coalition there includes Russia and North Korea fighting on the US side). The others are the US honoring it's treaty obligations by defending her allies or honoring the request of a government for help, usually by providing training and logistics support.

Except for Syria, where the US is actually leading a coalition. But that is more a humanitarian intervention than anything else.

> Except for Syria, where the US is actually leading a coalition. But that is more a humanitarian intervention than anything else.

The intervention is what created the humanitarian crisis. Currently, its humanitarian goal is to guard oil production.

For those interested in a genuine intellectual debate about it, I offer the following point.

Do you believe that there is no role / need whatsoever for a court in the United States that needs to hear confidential matters having to do with law enforcement, where to reveal it to the subject would compromise the investigation?

If you do believe there is the role for such a court, then the question is not whether it should exist, but how well it is overseen / checked, and what mechanisms there are to make sure it operates on correct information and has an advocate for the parties that are not allowed to participate in its decisions.

If you believe that there is never a need for law enforcement decisions to be made that cannot be revealed to the accused party, then that is a separate (and in my opinion, impractical/unreal) point. We might as well ban judge-issued search warrants unless the person whose property is being searched gets a chance to hear the evidence and object.

There’s a very good reason we have the process of investigate > accuse > bring to court and in those cases the accused party is detained while the facts are reviewed and the matter decided. Judge-issued search warrants are done as a part of the investigation and the investigation itself is secret.

> If you believe that there is never a need for law enforcement decisions to be made that cannot be revealed to the accused party, then that is a separate (and in my opinion, impractical/unreal) point.

Well, uhh, thanks for inviting a "genuine intellectual debate" and then out-of-hand dismissing any disagreements as "impractical/unreal".

We already have the grand jury which is a secret process and can deliver so called "sealed indictments" which prevents the indicted party from knowing they have been indicted. Grand juries have significant oversight and a long history of legal oversight.

FISA "courts", on the other hand, operate in an intentionally ill-defined legal space. To me, FISA courts are just as nonsense as the "unlawful enemy combatant" Bush-era policies. "This system is not _technically_ against the law because we built-in enough loopholes to prevent any actual legal oversight" should not be a valid argument for upholding a corrupt status-quo.

I don't accept the premise that some information is _too dangerous_ to be heard by a grand jury. We already have legal processes to limit exposure, including many trial processes that are done without the jury being present.

Grand juries are sworn to secrecy already, with pretty strict penalties if that secrecy is broken. There is no reason that this can't apply to so-called "Top Secret" information (a label that is already applied far too liberally) if you run a background check on them. Over a million people have a TS-level clearance already. Grand juries would add another few hundred.

People who like the FISA court want that grand jury to have the powers of a court. This is ridiculous.

a need for that? i suppose, but i wouldn't call it a court

why can't all of this secrecy stuff be done behind the scenes, then brought before a real court once finalized? federal courts even have some layers of secrecy so i don't see the issue with implementing the plain-jane judicial system here

There is unequivocally no role for a top-secret court in a democratic society. You can argue that there is a role for a top-secret investigative body, but that is not, and cannot be called, a court of law in a free society. It also cannot, in turn, have the powers reserved for a court.

If the FBI wants a warrant, they should have to go through a process where they are held accountable to the public and afterwards the accused can challenge the validity of the warrant. End of story. That is how a free society works. Plenty of people go through the normal warrant process without hearing about their warrant (so evidence is not destroyed) and then get a chance to challenge it after the fact. The FISA courts close off any chance to challenge your warrant. I think the bare minimum for an enforcement body to get a warrant is to reveal the information being used to get the warrant to the party being served the warrant. The fact that the FISA court does not have this requirement makes a mockery of democracy.

You may not like it. It may make your job inconvenient (if you happen to be a fed). I don't care. As the person holding the gun to the peoples' head, you should have to do a little extra paperwork if you want to pull the trigger.

>...I think the bare minimum for an enforcement body to get a warrant is to reveal the information being used to get the warrant to the party being served the warrant.

Since when do we do that for police searches for crimes in progress?

Drug dealers are notified that the police are seeking a warrant on their address and given a chance to review the evidence?

Police do that for every single warrant.

There is no adversarial process in getting the warrant, but the people on whom the warrant is served are given a document explaining the evidence that led to the warrant. The police give it to you when they do their search, or after the search is complete if it was something like a wiretap.

If the document does not support the need for a search or contains evidence that is fraudulently obtained, you can fight it either by striking the evidence at your trial or by separately suing the bad actor. At a minimum, during your trial, the warrant becomes part of the record and is publicly obtainable.

In the FISA case, the warrant document does not contain the evidence against you, since it is secret, barring you from fighting its validity later.

Also, when a crime is in progress, police don't need a warrant if they see it. They can just intervene. However, they can't search you for evidence of further crimes without probable cause of that other crime or a warrant.

I was addressing the point that you seemed to be raising that accused should get to challenge a warrant in court before it is issued.

Anyway, separately from that, what is your position on the statement that for certain types of evidence and cases in progress, the accused should not be allowed to see the specific evidence (and methods of collection used) against them, because it would compromise compelling national security considerations?

How about if it were to be unsealed after some amount of time when the need for security of the collection mechanism(s) were to have expired?

I never said that the accused should get to challenge a warrant in court before it is issued. I said that the accused should get to "challenge the validity of the warrant." Challenges against warrants always happen after the fact. FISA court warrants can't be challenged at all, before or after the warrant is issued.

There are no legitimate "national security considerations" if you're going to use that information to try to take away someone's rights. Their security from the nation outweighs the supposed security of the nation against any supposed adversary that might use that information against the US. If they want to use any information to get a warrant, the relevant investigator would have to narrow the evidence they use in court to what is okay to reveal - they do that anyway on normal warrants. Also, why would there be national security considerations on evidence against particular individuals anyway?

Finally, waiting until unsealing to allow someone to fight a warrant would take too long. Documents tend to take over 20 years to be unsealed, which would mean that an innocent person could sit in prison for their entire adult life while waiting to fight an illegally obtained warrant. No.

My understanding is that they'll give the subject the warrant, which just describes what they're allowed to search for and where. The affidavit submitted the judge, which describes the evidence that established the requisite probable cause, is not provided.

If the search turns up evidence, and the government wants to use that evidence at trial, then the affidavit is available in discovery.

If no trial results, I don't think there's any reliable way to get at the affidavit.

I think sometimes the affidavit can be sealed, in which case it becomes discoverable at trial, but if it's not sealed, it gets attached to the warrant. I may be wrong or it may be that judges just seal affidavits like that as a matter of course - I have never been served one.

Exactly, GP comment only makes sense with zero context about existing courts and transparency.

The past several years have shown that while the intentions of FISA are probably good, it is too easy to abuse.

The FBI and many high government officials have abused FISA again and again. Crossfire hurricane is just one obvious instance.

The FISA court has admonished FBI officials for the abuse, but that's about it.

If they're going to have FISA, there needs to be real penalties for abuse. Loss of position. Prison time. There needs to be real consequences for breaking the laws on this.

Otherwise, it need to go.

The state won’t subjugate and punish itself

It's been this way for decades. Consider Feinstein's permanent, steadfast, and sweeping support. She asked completely a performative set of "questions" about its abuse in 2017, along with a lot of pro-702 data.

Mostly, she was chock full of softballs under the false pretense of being concerned about privacy, that obviously led to no improvement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Fa-G6pGmI

Laws like 702 of FISA and the Patriot Act seem to be 2 of the 1,000 cuts against the legitimacy of government.

The FISA process is seeing a lot of much needed scrutiny because of perceived political persecution towards Republicans and Trump. I think it'll be a good thing whether or not Republicans intentions are selfish or noble.

FISA originated as a response to Nixon's snooping, as an attempt to secure Americans' privacy against potential threats from (rogue elements of?) the government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...

I agree that Ted Kennedy had good intentions in 1978. The stuff today is out of control and completely contrary to the original intent.

> The past several years have shown that while the intentions of FISA are probably good

When did the past several years show this?

To any HN community that was here prior to the Edward Snowden releases:

Prior to 2013, we had enough evidence (Mark Klein, etc) that US Gov was actively conducting bulk warrantless surveillance of Americans (not suspected of a crime).

Back then, was there a dominant HN vibe about domestic spying (eg: yawn, apologist, anger)?

The mood back then was that domestic spying didn’t exist.

As in: Imagine the scale it requires, you’re stupid if you believe, what, that the NSA tapes all of our records?!? Put your tinfoil hat back.

I dunno, there's always been a greybeard contingent here that's been in or around telecom or otherwise know about Operation Shamrock, Echelon, room 641A, and so on, before Snowden.

Yeah and it was pretty common to be voted down and called a crank over it too.

Hence, "greybeard." Even when people are talking about something that they know to be true, they ground themselves in derogatory stereotypes about the people who were right.

Do you consider “greybeard” to be a derogatory stereotype? I sure don’t..

I've seen it used with either positive or negative connotations depending on the context.

This is why I framed the question to see if there was a 'dominant vibe'. It sounds like there were voices in a position to best know but that they were a minority.

I think I can infer that their education explanations didn't meaningfully change that dominant vibe.

You were called a nutjob for trying to bring it up.

Once it became public, a lot of the narrative that you see now was developed behind the scenes by the people responsible for these systems. The (yawn, apologist, anger) was created as a playbook, and most people don't think for themselves, so they parrot this narrative.

It is 100% clear that domestic spying in the US is unconstitutional and unethical. There is no debate, and those that present it as a debate, or even that you are naive for not wanting it, are in service of the narrative.

> The (yawn, apologist, anger) was created as a playbook,

To be pedantic on this one point, I don't think that's the case. Warrantless surveillance of citizens not suspected of a crime is a divisive activity. People will reasonably stake out a position. I certainly did and do.

It wasn't "divisive" until it was revealed to exist, and the narrative was pushed. The division was sowed.

Before people knew of the extensive surveillance, there was no division - you were nuts for thinking that our government was capable of trampling on the law to do something like this in secret. It's only after the revelations that the waffling around whether it was legal and whether it was ethical started to arise.

So long as it first, and only applies to the plebes, most of whom are too caught up in just surviving, these arguments will just remain as doublespeak.

Problems in any institution are systemic to large degrees. From hiring to training and culture. Those take time to change too.

Checks and Balances, the Supreme courts etc are just the tail end of the endemic issues. Add the military-corporate-oligarchy complex and you have what we got here.

And in spite of saying all this, I too am juggling with high rent and trying to secure a future for my family. Ie no “time” to do anything but offer just words. I suspect many are in situations like me.

I wonder how we are protecting the public square for or against private interests?

Secret courts violate all laws....

Forgive me, but it's hard to believe 2 years ago a far right supremacist president tried to overthrow democracy and we are supposed to believe the FBI is using this to protect Americans?

I think the two aren't closely tied to each other. Here are >15 years of stories that show an fairly unbroken line of this particular abuse. https://www.google.com/search?q=site:techdirt.com+"fbi"+"702...

Tbf he did fail, was prevented from going himself in person, and over a thousand of the people that he got to go have all been arrested as a result now.

The FBI has been mum, but some sources indicate a large FBI presence among the Capitol rioters, and some incitement by them too. If true, this would be typical FBI behavior.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2022/08/11/w...

https://www.techdirt.com/2010/11/30/fbi-celebrates-that-it-p...

I don't know why this is particularly contentious or controversial. The FBI played a huge role in the Chicago 7 incident in the 70's, which hit progressive democrats. They did the same thing with many other progressive movements in the 70's and 80's. Incitement of riots using informants and undercover agents is a time-honored tradition for the FBI.

You are living proof that propaganda works. Thanks for confirming.

yes the insurrection without weapons led by FBI informants. meanwhile the govt is trying to jail the leading opposition candidate for 100 years is not overthrowing democracy?

Trump shouldn't blatently commit crimes if he doesn't want to be charged with them.

    Willful retention of national defense information: This charge, covering counts 1-31, only applies to Trump and is for allegedly storing 31 such documents at Mar-a-Lago.

    Conspiracy to obstruct justice: Trump and Nauta, along with others, are charged with conspiring to keep those documents from the grand jury.

    Withholding a document or a record: Trump and Nauta are accused of misleading one of their attorneys by moving boxes of classified documents so the attorney could not find or introduce them to the grand jury.

    Corruptly concealing a document or record: This pertains to the Trump and Nauta's alleged attempts to hide the boxes of classified documents from the attorney.
    Concealing a document in a federal investigation: They are accused of hiding Trump's continued possession of those documents at Mar-a-Lago from the FBI and causing a false certificate to be submitted to the FBI.

    Scheme to conceal: This is for the allegation that Trump and Nauta hid Trump's continued possession of those materials from the FBI and the grand jury.

    False statements and representations: This count concerns statements that Trump allegedly caused another one of his attorneys to make to the FBI and grand jury in early June regarding the results of the search at Mar-a-Lago.

    False statements and representations: This final count accuses Nauta of giving false answers during a voluntary interview with the FBI in late May.

According to the indictment, each one of those charges carries a maximum fine of $250,000, with maximum prison sentences between five and 20 years.

Some of which that Trump himself signed into law, specifically because he was trying to jail his political opponent at the time.

either Trump, the only elected official of the executive branch has the highest authority over the executive branch or the archivist has a higher authority than him? if the latter is true, then effectively your third branch is no longer run by a president. The documents where created by his administration. He can have a copy as much as you can have a copy of your business record or tax returns. Further every dictator in existence was claiming to rule under the authority of the law, and claimed arrest opposition candidates under such authority. Resorting to arresting your opposition rings hallow to anyone with some shred of common sense.

Trump is not above the law. At least some of the documents (nuclear secrets) are not ones that the president has the legal right to declassify – the statute specifically limits that process – so his only option would have been to pardon himself, but he didn’t even want to admit having done this at the time and likes to pretend that he’s innocent, so he didn’t.

Shocked by how many Trump Cultists are on Hacker News.

Shocked by how easy it was to convince liberals that the Espionage Act was a wonderful thing. The ACLU was started to oppose it.

The world is a mean and dangerous place, with genteel civilization a very thin veneer on top. Top secret documents are usually classified as such because the information they contain would cause severe harm to the United States if leaked. Names of spies and design and operations of nuclear weapons are top secret. Leaking the names of spies would get them killed.

There’s been an intense, well-funded libertarianism outreach effort for decades and it’s been especially pronounced in the tech sector where relatively high wages and negotiating power let a lot of people tell themselves that they’re in the same group as their CEO, and should vote to give them a tax cut (surely I’ll need that, too!) and freedom from paying for externalities, etc. That meant voting for Republicans over the years and saying that the people they voted for probably wouldn’t really do all of the anti-liberty things they promised to do.

After doing that, for some it’s easier to support Trump than admit making so many mistakes for years. There’s an entire media empire devoted to supporting that decision.

Espionage Act doesn't apply to him. Your president is not a spy, lol.

The document about nuclear secrets he's alleged to be in possession of is the nuclear capability of a foreign country. It's an open secret that it's Israel that has nuclear weapons.

So you want to jail your former president, and leading candidate for 100 years over this document?

I think we both know it's not about that.

Suppose Trump has documents on the letter agencies committing crimes. And they want them back to destroy.

Should presidents be subjugated by them, than who really will be running the country?

"Espionage Act doesn't apply to him. "

Yes it does. Why wouldn't it? the US has presidents not Kings.

> Your president is not a spy

Then why was Trump acting like one?

> So you want to jail your former president,

Anyone else who handled classified docs the way he did would be in jail for a minimum of 10 years.

You really don't have a clue how the US government works.

The president is the head of the bureaucracy. He's the source authority. Classification is for his benefit, so that people under him don't disclose secret information. However as the source authority, he can disclose at will.

You don't have to take my word for it.

Here's a Lawyer going over all the legal and constitutionals problems with this indictment.

https://rumble.com/v2tn4ac-get-this-video-to-trump-barnes-br...

> The president is the head of the bureaucracy. He's the source authority. Classification is for his benefit, so that people under him don't disclose secret information. However as the source authority, he can disclose at will.

Its a shame that he admitted on tape that he didn't declassify or couldn't declassify the documents he took, and that he shouldn't be in possession of them.

I think you're being misinformed by an out of context quote.

“Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this,” Trump says at one point, according to the transcript. “This was done by the military and given to me.”

Specifically in that excerpt Trump is referencing information about Milley leaking secret information. In the full context, Trump was saying to that reporter that Milley was the leaking plans to attack Iran. This was the "secret information", given to Trump confirming this by the Military.

Trump is claiming that Milley was the one that was leaking classified information of "Trumps plans" to attack Iran. Trump had no such ambitions, but it was Milley that wanted such an attack to happen.

As president, it's part of his administration's record that he received that information from the Military. If he want to let the American Public know this information he has the constitutional authority to do so.

However, Milley has no authority to disclose secret military plans, and has committed a crime.

> As president, that doesn't mean that Trump can't disclose that.

But he cannot disclose at least a large amount of what he has been accused of leaking. This article from the American Bar Association[0] is a good primer on what can and cannot be declassified at whim and specifically these two parts are important to this discussion.

>> In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point: “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said.

>> Some secrets, such as information related to nuclear weapons, are handled separately under a specific statutory scheme that Congress has adopted under the Atomic Energy Act. Those secrets cannot be automatically declassified by the president alone and require, by law, extensive consultation with executive branch agencies.

So it looks like regardless of if that quote is out of context that the President does not have the sole authority to declassify everything.

[0] - https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2...

There are rules for people under the president that are followed for them to disclose information. That doesn't mean the president is restrained under such rules.

Imagine you're the chief executive officer of your household (dad). You can make rules that your kids have to follow, but that doesn't mean you have to follow the same rules. You can have a rule that says "no TV after 10 pm" That doesn't mean you can't watch TV. It just means your kids can't watch TV after 10. As the Dad you're the source of the rules. It would be meaningless for you to restrain yourself to such rules, as you could just as easily unrestrain yourself (being the source of the rules).

Let's assume there's a secret document that says Israel has nuclear weapons.

The president is meeting with the prime minister of Israel, are you saying that the president can't talk to prime minister about their nuclear weapons because congress (DOJ? FBI?) restrained him from disclosing this secret... It would be nonsensical.

Hypothetically, suppose you are correct. Which branch of government would you like to be telling the president what he can and can't disclose. DOJ? FBI? CIA? Congress?

> There are rules for people under the president that are followed for them to disclose information. That doesn't mean the president is restrained under such rules.

This is precisely not the contents of the article, I see you did not read it all.

The article entirely about the president and his ability to declassify.

Are you tying to suggest you know more than the American Bar Association?.

> Hypothetically, suppose you are correct. Which branch of government would you like to be telling the president what he can and can't disclose. DOJ? FBI? CIA? Congress?

I quoted the answer to this, did you not bother reading it?.

The article is bunk, full of double speak jargon, and statements that amount to nothing of value. No wonder it has no author credits.

The BAR association, has proven itself to be a biased leftist controlled organization that wanted to strip anyone that question the integrity of the last election of their Law license.

As to the article:

Misrepresentation of Experts' Views: The article states that "Most national security legal experts dismissed the former president’s suggestion that he could declassify documents simply by thinking about it." However, it does not provide any evidence or references to support this claim.

Inconsistent Information on Presidential Declassification Authority: The article initially states that legal guidelines support the former president's contention that presidents have broad authority to formally declassify most documents. However, it later contradicts itself by mentioning that a formal procedure is required for declassification and that declassification cannot occur without officials following specified procedures. These statements create confusion regarding the extent of a president's authority to declassify materials.

Lack of Clarity on Statutory Protection: The article mentions that documents not statutorily protected can be declassified by the president. However, it does not provide specific information on what qualifies as "statutorily protected" documents. This lack of clarity hinders a comprehensive understanding of the declassification process.

Limited Scope of Court Challenge: The article states that the extent of a president's legal authority to unilaterally declassify materials without following formal procedures has yet to be challenged in court. However, it does not provide any additional context or explanation as to why this issue has not been challenged. This omission leaves the reader with an incomplete understanding of the legal landscape surrounding declassification authority.

> The article is bunk, full of double speak jargon, and statements that amount to nothing of value. No wonder it has no author credits.

The article references most of its claims unlike you, who just spurts out a couple paragraphs random nonsense.

> The BAR association, has proven itself to be a biased leftist controlled organization that wanted to strip anyone that question the integrity of the last election of their Law license.

Screeching about bias because we have no substantive evidence for anything I see.

I think you will find the bar associations around america striped those lawyers of their licenses because they broke the ethical rules associated with being a lawyer.

> Misrepresentation of Experts' Views: The article states that "Most national security legal experts dismissed the former president’s suggestion that he could declassify documents simply by thinking about it." However, it does not provide any evidence or references to support this claim.

Here’s another article with three different presidents that disagrees with your rant and agrees with the actual lawyers (the ABA).

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/can-donald-trump-...

> Inconsistent Information on Presidential Declassification Authority: The article initially states that legal guidelines support the former president's contention that presidents have broad authority to formally declassify most documents. However, it later contradicts itself by mentioning that a formal procedure is required for declassification and that declassification cannot occur without officials following specified procedures. These statements create confusion regarding the extent of a president's authority to declassify materials.

This is untrue the president can have broad declassification powers and still be limited to a formal procedure.

This is not a limitation of the article but more a limitation in your understanding of the article.

> Lack of Clarity on Statutory Protection: The article mentions that documents not statutorily protected can be declassified by the president. However, it does not provide specific information on what qualifies as "statutorily protected" documents. This lack of clarity hinders a comprehensive understanding of the declassification process.

It literally references the definition of restriction data for the DOE at the end of the article but because you seem to be unable to read even quotes I’ll just link it.

https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/doe/rdfrdhtm.html#:~:text=R%20e...

> Limited Scope of Court Challenge: The article states that the extent of a president's legal authority to unilaterally declassify materials without following formal procedures has yet to be challenged in court. However, it does not provide any additional context or explanation as to why this issue has not been challenged. This omission leaves the reader with an incomplete understanding of the legal landscape surrounding declassification authority.

It’s never been challenged because it’s never been taken to court before.

It’s never been taken to court before because prior to Trump we didn’t have a president that thought he could declassify anything with his mind nor one that didn’t cooperate when they had taken/removed classified documents.

You are speaking complete rubbish. Trump didn't have a right to those docs, and he knew it. And speaking of dictators, Trump did try very hard to overturn a fair election he lost.

Indictment says Trump lied, schemed to keep highly classified secrets The former president faces 37 criminal charges. His longtime valet, Walt Nauta, faces six charges. Former president Donald Trump stashed sensitive intelligence secrets in a bathroom, his bedroom and a ballroom at Mar-a-Lago, according to a scathing 49-page indictment unsealed Friday against him and a loyal servant who is accused of lying to cover up his boss’s alleged crimes.

The grand jury indictment tells a story of hubris and hypocrisy, describing a wealthy former president living among neck-high stacks of boxes with classified documents scattered inside them, sometimes literally spilling out of their containers. In the prosecutors’ telling, neither Trump nor any of his aides or lawyers appeared bothered by the sprawl of sensitive papers until government agents came calling. Then, the former commander in chief allegedly set out to hide some of what he had.

We don't have a Constitutionally permitted secret police with power over the President about secrecy. It just can't be that way and have a functioning democracy. President is commander-in-chief under Constitution. He determines what's classified. Espionage Act doesn't apply to him. Finally, The Presidential Records Act (PRA) allows a President access to documents, both classified and unclassified, once he leaves office.

>Former president Donald Trump stashed sensitive intelligence secrets in a >bathroom, his bedroom and a ballroom at Mar-a-Lago,

You mean like a bathroom in a hotel room turned into a storage room. The horror, lol. The Mar-A-Lago is a large hotel and his residence. Part of it is public the other private. There is security guarding one from the other. Literally nonsense. You're being manipulated by out of context pictures, of boxes that you don't even know what those boxes contain.

> The grand jury indictment tells a story of ...

The prosecution will always frame their accusations in a most biased damming way. And routinely make allegations that are false or unprovable. The Grand Jury will only hear their side.

"We don't have a Constitutionally permitted secret police with power over the President about secrecy."

Yes we do. If you think any president can read any classified document he wants to you are completely wrong.

> He determines what's classified

False, and Trump is a very good example of why it would be a very bad idea.

> You mean like a bathroom in a hotel room turned into a storage room.

When will you freaks get tired of selling your souls to defend this complete dumpster fire of a human being?

Sorry but that's incorrect. The President is granted access to classified information on a need-to-know basis, meaning they must have a legitimate reason to access that particular information for the purpose of carrying out their duties. This is the only restriction, if the bureaucrats are following the law, and he's following the law, he will get access to any secret information if he needs it.

If you think about it, it must be this way because otherwise a secret government would in charge. In fact this is what the entire confrontation is about.

Do we want the only elected representative, and the Person on top of the Executive branch, to be able to tell us what the government is up to. Or do we want a deepstate shadowy government that commits crimes, and has the right to even censor the president from telling us about it.

Keep in mind at least with the president, you can vote in or vote out. You can't get rid of the shadowy bureaucrats, that don't need your vote.

They're about to spend multiple billions of dollars on a new gigantic FBI headquarters. Do you want these giant organizations sucking up more and more control over your government and people.

> yes the insurrection without weapons

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters...

Mobility scooters can be dangerous. Also, the rioting insurrectionist revolutionaries that dropped dead of heart attacks could have caused a tripping hazard.

What do you think about the enormous amount of evidence against trump, including him incriminating himself on tape and on camera?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com