tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7603499.post5834810973362866258..comments2023-11-30T03:44:34.585-05:00Comments on Opinions Nobody Asked For: Tweedledee, Meet TweedledumJeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11683622475941901572noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7603499.post-64619067531424454192009-04-16T11:31:00.000-04:002009-04-16T11:31:00.000-04:00Since I wrote that post, the differences have inde...Since I wrote that post, the differences have indeed gotten smaller. Glen Greenwald and Bruce Fein, among others, have noted some extremely disturbing examples of Obama's DOJ making very broad claims of executive authority. I still stand by my analysis in the Guantanamo detainees case, but this isn't good.<br /><br />That said, I do find the "unintentional" thing plausible. As I understand it, they kind of have this "net" which is only supposed to capture communications which take place outside America. They used to need a warrant to look at the stuff caught in that "net." Now, Congress has said they only need a warrant if the communication in the "net" is exclusively domestic. As I understand it, they are having trouble figuring out which communications are exclusively domestic, and thus "overcollected". It strikes me as mostly a technical problem.<br /><br />What does NOT strike me as a mere technical problem is the aborted scheme to spy on a Congressman which is described late in that article. Like the DOJ filings, that is something intentional that can't be chalked up to technical issues. I'm glad someone higher up shot that one down (and I hope they actually DID shoot it down).Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15344649128973165027noreply@blogger.com