Slashdot Mirror
Intelligence Chairman Accuses Obama Aids of Hundreds of Unmasking Requests (thehill.com)
mi writes: When American spies capture our communications with foreigners, the identities of Americans on the other side of the conversation are generally protected -- if not by bona-fide laws, then certainly by rules and regulations. A transcript of the conversation should have their name replaced with labels like "U.S. person 1". The citizen involved can only be "unmasked" with a good reason. In 2011, Obama relaxed these rules, making it much simpler even for officials without any intelligence role to obtain the identities. Predictably, certain top officials of the Obama Administration abused their access to get this information: "The [House Intelligence] committee has learned that one official, whose position had no apparent intelligence related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama administration," [Intelligence Chairman Devin] Nunes wrote. "Of those requests, only one offered a justification that was not boilerplate."
Unmasking a public or political official who is trying to sell out the country should earn you a $3 fine and a gift certificate to Chili's.
Be very careful what you wish for. The US ability to collect technical intelligence is extraordinarily powerful. It should have very strong restrictions to protect the citizenry it is in place to serve, the violation of which should carry swift and harsh penalties as a deterrent to abuse. The officials in question had no business accessing the identities of any US person caught up in incidental collection, regardless of how bad the appearance of the alleged activity.
Before Obama relaxed the rules the responsibility and authority to deal with collecting intelligence on US persons (whether as part of incidental or targeted collection) was the Attorney General and I am relatively certain that the authority could not be delegated. A proper procedure would be after discovering potential evidence of a serious crime (you don't want to use this sort of thing for minor offenses) the matter should be referred to the intelligence folks at the Department of Justice who have special training and oversight to guard against abuse. They then make the determination on how to proceed and make a recommendation to the AG on whether the individual should be unmasked or not. An exception for something like an imminent terrorist attack or other crime which could result in loss of life should allow for quick action but still require review and adjudication by the Attorney General after the fact.
The kind of "bounty" program you suggest would do nothing more than invite abuse and promote a cavalier attitude among low level intelligence personnel. It is most definitely not in the best interests of the US government, the people in general, and potential victims of that abuse. Does that mean that some people will get away with crimes? Probably. But then our justice system is specifically designed to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused, as it should be.
This unmasking was for political purposes which makes it far worse. The sitting administration was running an intelligence op against the candidate of the opposition party. All the The Russians! bullshit is just a continuation of that op against the electorate.
Nunes is hardly a reliable source to digest this information. There was an active Russian intelligence operation to swing the election and a lot of indications that they were collaborating with one of the campaigns.
That the Obama administration and intelligence agencies concealed as much of that as they did is remarkable, all they had to do is spill a few of these secret meetings and it could have changed the election. Instead they essentially let Russia succeed in swinging the election for fear of acting improper.
Can you imagine watching that election spin out of control from Russian interference, having the goods that could stop it, but not being allowed to say anything about it?
I stole this Sig
"..You are saying that an American citizen speaking with a Russian citizen must be evidence of nefarious collusion..."
This part I take issue with. If this were "American Citizen 1" speaking with "Russian Citizen 1" about what each had for dinner, captured in some sort of blanket surveillance of all communications between Americans and Russians, you're point is well taken. However, it's more likely that it was:
"American Citizen 1" speaking with speaking about matters that were well beyond what each had for dinner.
As such, with the context of the redacted transcripts available to whomever was requesting the identify of "American Citizen 1", I'll hope that the transcript(s) provided sufficient context to warrant knowledge of who "American Citizen 1" is.
Of course I don't know the details, but I choose to have some faith still that, at the end of the day, we're not moving towards a world that the comment I quoted above implies.
Oh, and don't forget about Trump's National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn. He effectively made promises to Russians re: sanctions prior to Trump being elected. He also took money from Russian interests, and he resigned in disgrace.