I was reading about the PRISM program and saw that it was covered under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that was passed as an amendment to its 1978 Predecessor.

Now, I was curious; so I looked up and read Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Here’s what struck me:

Subsection (b) (2) “may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;”.

I’m sure the same pattern popped out to you also: ‘reasonably believed to be located outside the United States"…..Reasonably…Reasonably…Reasonably believed. So who decides what is “Reasonable”? Well, lets take a look….

Still in Sec. 702:

(d) Targeting Procedures.–

“(1) Requirement to adopt.–The Attorney General, in

consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall

adopt targeting procedures that are reasonably designed to–

”(A) ensure that any acquisition authorized under

subsection (a) is limited to targeting persons

reasonably believed to be located outside the United

States; and

“(B) prevent the intentional acquisition of any

communication as to which the sender and all intended

recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to

be located in the United States.

”(2) Judicial review.–The procedures adopted in

accordance with paragraph (1) shall be subject to judicial

review pursuant to subsection (i).

So, What this says to me is, the people who order the surveillance (being the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence) are also the ones who decide what “Reasonably Believed to be located outside the United States” means.

Weird, right?

If I where and unbiased third party, I’d probably be scratching my chin thinking, “this seems an awful lot like a conflict of interest. Unless of course we can guarantee that the motives of the governing parties are pure”…lol…“or if they are in fact their own motives at all; after all, many much more terrible things have been done by fellows who where just following orders”. But, that is not all; Looking at (B), we see that its says its aim is to “prevent intentional acquisition of any communication”. So with a simple slip of the mouse…oops, we ordered the seizure of the wrong information. Any one who has dealt with government paperwork will know that this is, in fact, something that can be actually approved; even while maintaining “legality” under this section.

So Great! We are at least making the A.G. and the D.N.I. accountable! But this is where it gets scary:

“(g) Certification.–

”(1) In general.–

“(A) Requirement.–Subject to subparagraph (B),

prior to the implementation of an authorization under

subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director

of National Intelligence shall provide to the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Court a written certification

and any supporting affidavit, under oath and under

seal, in accordance with this subsection.

”(B) Exception.–If the Attorney General and the

Director of National Intelligence make a determination

under subsection ©(2) and time does not permit the

submission of a certification under this subsection

prior to the implementation of an authorization under

subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director

of National Intelligence shall submit to the Court a

certification for such authorization as soon as

practicable but in no event later than 7 days after

such determination is made.

Looking at (g) (1) (B) we see the word “Exception”…So here is the catch: The A.G. and D.N.I. can forego any and all accountability if they…they…deem it necessary. But Wait! They have to submit it within 7 days of the determination! This is a bit of legal humor. Again, anyone with any experience dealing with S.F. 158624521254125-WhatEver, knows that government paperwork is circular and messy. If you put enough stops on the paperwork’s trail, it becomes really easy to loose it.

But hey, that’s just me.