Tucker was right. NSA illegally unmasked him.

A bit besides the point. If Trump had used the NSA to read all Rachel Maddow's emails for no good reason, Democrats would have impeached him a third time, lol.

 

Tucker's new bow tie ...

 

When a person is masked it simply means the intelligence agents will refer to the individual by an alias name (like "Person A") in their transcripts, meaning the lower level officials won't know their identity. To be "unmasked" an official has to make a request under the stated purpose of needing to know more context of the person's identity, this request can then be accepted or denied. Even when the request is accepted, it is illegal for them to leak their name to anyone who is not authorized.

 

Very strict and a journalist asking for an interview does not qualify.

 

Actually, journalists have been vulnerable to FISA 702 for years. This has been addressed several times in the past by a very wide multitude of journalists, human rights groups, and whistleblowers from all around the world. The stated purpose for FISA 702 isn't limited to counter terrorism, but "foreign intelligence" which is such a broad term that it can include pretty much anyone who is in contact with a surveilled foreigner. It doesn't even have to be a political leader that they are in contact with, it could literally be another journalist, or business owner from a foreign country.

 

You're getting warmer.

 

If there's any part you find inaccurate, I'm all ears. In either case, an individual can still be spied on even when they are not the "target" of the operation, and being masked doesn't necessarily mean you won't be spied on either.

 

Again, I refer you to the testimony I posted from Admiral Mike Rogers. There has to be a legitimate reason to unmask American citizens. Talking to a foreigner isn't sufficient.

 

Unmasking isn't necessarily where the spying begins.

If you are a masked individual it means that you are either under surveillance, or are in contact with someone who is under surveillance, but your identity is kept secret (except to a small group of high ranking officials). When you are unmasked it means that you are either under surveillance, or in contact with someone who is under surveillance, and your name is known to anyone who views the intelligence transcripts (which is still only supposed to include authorized individuals). You're putting this emphasis on the unmasking, but that's not really the bad part.. the fact that Tucker Carlson was unmasked does indicate a higher probability that he was under surveillance, however the unmasking part usually comes after the person is already under surveillance



and for the record, Mike Rogers' testimony does not contradict any of what I am telling you right now

 

Yes. Reckless, careless, foolhardy what have you.

What action taken was a violation of constitutional rights? Hint. It was not an illegal search.

 

It doesn't matter until you get spied on. But if it's someone like Tucker, Trump, or Sharyl Attkisson (a nonpartisan investigative journalist) or James Rosen (D.C. reporter for Fox News) then it's funny. It's not good for the country, period.

 

Yes, it was.

Unless you have definitive proof he was committing a crime.

 

Unmasking is after the spying began. How is that not obvious?

Besides being unconstitutional, the problem begins when there is no legitimate reason for the NSA to reveal your name to another entity.

They need a legitimate reason. Talking to a foreigner is not sufficient.

 

I hear you, but this is what FISA 702 allows them to do. This isn't a new thing, we've known about this sort of thing for quite some time. I can bring up reports from years ago from journalists and human rights groups reporting how this sort of thing is exactly what FISA 702 allows to happen. The FISA 702 isn't based on a court order, or criminal activity, or even counter terrorist.. but is based on gathering "foreign intelligence" which is an incredibly vague and broad term which allows the NSA to spy on Americans with very little requirements. Unmasking doesn't have much to do with it, they can begin spying on the individual before any unmasking. Also, the unmasking isn't determined by a court either, it can literally be an individual NSA official who approves the unmasking

 

NSA only generates signals intelligence reports when the information meets a specific intelligence requirement, regardless of whether the proposed report contains U.S. person information. Dissemination of information about U.S. persons in any NSA foreign intelligence report is expressly prohibited unless that information is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance, contains evidence of a crime, or indicates a threat of death or serious bodily injury.
https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/docu...reports/nsa_report_on_section_702_program.pdf

Outside the analyst that saw Tucker's name, nobody else should have been disseminating Tucker's email content or name.

(1) (U) Personnel will exercise reasonable judgment in determining whether information acquired must be minimized and will destroy information of or concerning a United States person at the earliest practicable point at which such information can be identified either: as clearly not relevant to the authorized purpose of the acquisition ( e.g., the communication does not contain foreign intelligence information); or, as not containing evidence of a crime which may be disseminated under these procedures. Except as provided for in subsection 3( c) below, such information of or concerning a United States person may be retained no longer than five years from the expiration date of the certification authorizing the collection in any event.
https://www.intelligence.gov/assets...019_702_Cert_NSA_Minimization_17Sep19_OCR.pdf

It's not just willie nillie authorization to spy on American citizens and leak gossip or email content because they were talking to a foreigner. They MUST have a legitimate reason to disseminate that information outside the analyst that saw the incidental information collected.

 

Without the actual context of the conversation being released, who do you know that the reason to unmask was illegal? Tucker could simply be playing victim as he knows the content and context will not be released.

 

That "legitimate" reason they need in order to spy on people is foreign intelligence, even the paragraph you just shared states

Note, it doesn't say foreign intelligence AND contains evidence of a crime, it says OR contains evidence of a crime. Which again, foreign intelligence is such a broad and vague term that they can use it against just about anyone. You can argue no that's not how it works, but that's literally how its been working, and how it is working right now. This isn't new information, this has been the concerns regarding FISA 702 for years, and has been the counter argument every time congress votes on reauthorizing it. It shouldn't be this way, but FISA 702 is written in a very irresponsible manner that doesn't limit spying to crimes or terrorism. The part of the law that says it can be used to gather foreign intelligence is pretty much a green light to spy on people.

 

The intent is clear. Carlson Tucker requesting an interview with Putin is not a national security matter warranting his being spied on. NBC had an interview with Putin. It's not illegal. Further, the NSA said Carlson wasn't the target, meaning his information was picked up incidentally. A plausible scenario would be his request was made to the Russian embassy in NY, which was then relayed through various channels to someone in Moscow who the NSA was monitoring. Carlson's collection - as admitted by the NSA - was incidental, and by their own procedures - he never should have been unmasked.

The leak is a separate, secondary crime, which is also serious. All unmasked NSA data is classified. Telling Carlson about it broke the law, as did leaking information to Axios, unless the leaker gets whistleblower protection.

 

I don't disagree with you on the intent, but again the problem is the language in FISA 702 doesn't require a crime, or an imminent threat. Instead the law requires that their surveillance they conduct is done under the purpose of gathering “foreign intelligence information”. All it takes for an American to be surveilled under FISA 702 is for them to contact a foreigner who us under surveillance. They can still spy on the American and say that they are not the intended target. This is all brought up every time congress has voted on reauthorizing FISA 702, it is a poorly written law that allows for blatant abuses of power without precautions. You may disagree with me, but I guarantee you that there will be no criminal charges issued over surveilling incident, and the legal defense (if necessary) will be that they were acting within the boundaries established in FISA 702.

If there are any criminal charges issued, it would mostly likely be against the person who leaked the information to Tucker Carlson, if it was in fact a leaker who informed him, and was not part of a defense briefing

 

NSA admitted to the unmasking. Now go away.

 

Link? Unmasking is legal, leaking is not.

 

If someone can’t handle google, maybe he should go back to school.

Unmasking is only legal if it serves a national security purpose.

 

It served a national security purpose hence it's legal, prove otherwise.