Straight Talk Rewind: The Reality of Section 702 Surveillance | Ep 66

In this intense March 5, 2024, episode, Sheriff David Clarke examines Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). He discusses Section 702, implemented after 9/11 to help the government monitor foreign threats, and how it may have violated American rights.

Sheriff Clarke used the Boston Bombing and other high-profile incidents to argue that significant terror activities persist notwithstanding Section 702. He highlights established system abuse and the absence of consequences for abusers.

The episode strongly condemns the intelligence community's use of national security to violate personal freedoms, using Benjamin Franklin's liberty and security statement. Clarke strongly opposes renewing Section 702 without considerable modification and asks for stricter constitutional safeguards against illegitimate searches.

Clarke encourages listeners to contact lawmakers with concerns about the US spying debate, which will be thoroughly examined. In this episode, the difficult balance between personal freedom and national security in modern America is examined.

SUPPORT THE PODCAST:

Straight Talk With America's Sheriff David Clarke | podcast | Patreon

https://www.patreon.com/straighttalkwithamericassheriffdavidclarke/membership?fan_landing=true

------------------------------------------

SPONSORS:

mypillow.com Promo Code: CLARKE

------------------------------------------

Purchase COP Under Fire Book by Sheriff David Clarke

Amazon:   https://a.co/d/2jPJXV0

JOIN OUR STRAIGHT SHOOTER'S VIP CLUB:

 Receive special gift and invitations to Private Podcast Events

 Straight Talk With America's Sheriff David Clarke | podcast | Patreon

-------------------------------------------------------

For Podcast Sponsorship, Partnership, And Endorsement Opportunities, Please Submit The Following Form: 

https://form.123formbuilder.com/6370448/podcast-sponsor-form

-----------------------------------------------------

Websites: https://americassheriff.com | https://badgeofhonorcruise.com

Host: Sheriff David Clarke, America's Sheriff

Executive Producer: Judy L. Wilkinson, JL Wilkinson Consulting, LLC 

Producer: Josh Wentz | josh@wentzcreative.com

Copyright 2024  Straight Talk Podcast With America's Sheriff David Clarke     

All Rights Reserved

Chapters

• 1:23 Unpacking Section 702: Surveillance, Security, and the Struggle for Accountability
• 2:37 The Reality of Terror Attacks and Surveillance Failures
• 4:42 The Debate Over Extending Section 702: Insights and Opinions
• 7:53 The Legal and Ethical Quandaries of Spying on Americans
• 11:00 The Push for Reform: Accountability and Oversight Challenges
• 13:37 Congressional Hearings and the Future of U.S. Surveillance Powers
• 23:14 Closing Thoughts: The Need for a Balanced Approach to National Security

Transcript

1:23

One of the big hearings going on in Washington, D. C. in the Congress has been about extending this Section 702 surveillance. What is Section 702? It's a segment of the FISA and the court, FISC, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a lot of this was put in after 9/11, the Section 702, which allows the government to spy. It's supposed to be to spy on foreigners and foreign nationals, not US citizens. But it's being abused, and Congress has been made aware of it, and everybody knows it, and nobody's held accountable. This is what happens when you expand government authority. Over American citizens. They abuse it. And then they come along with this crap that, well, national security's at stake, you know, and, and, and, you know, we're getting hit by a terrorist attack. You know what? All of the terrorist attacks that have happened from 9-11 forward have happened even with this crap in place. How about the Boston bombing? With these two, uh, Sarnaev, I think the name is brothers. We're traveling back and forth from the, from Russia and into the United States. They were in here on visas. They were informed, I think by MI6, the UK's intelligence, that these guys were visiting terror training camps. And they said, you know, we thought you might want to know. Do you think? The CIA and our intel agencies and the FBI open up an investigation to follow these guys? No, they were hiding in plain sight. Actually, they weren't hiding anything about what they were doing and what their intentions were. So even with 702 and all these other things, we still get these terror attacks. And so every time there's a threat to pull some of this stuff back in, we get the, well, you know, the national security's at risk here. It's sky falling rhetoric. It's not. Who was it? Ben Franklin said, you know, he who would sacrifice liberty for a little security deserves neither liberty nor security. And he's right. I'm not willing to give up my individual freedom and my individual protection under the Fourth Amendment to the government for a little security. These people wouldn't know security. If it fell on him, they just wouldn't. And every time there's a terror attack, yeah, he was on our radar screen. Well, what does that mean? Were you searching his social media and, and, and text messages and Emails? No. Because they didn't want to offend Muslims. So now this thing is set to expire, and you know, my position is, by the way, I have some knowledge of this process, I've said this before, I'll say it again, it doesn't make me a know it all, but I have an understanding deep inside the bowels of this stuff, and I can expose, and I can smell, and I can see. the rhetoric, the nonsense that they spew. I'm talking about these intel officials, including the FBI. They're not really an intelligence agency, but they are, um, involved in spying too. And I just bring it out. I go, don't hand me that crap. Name one. And when these guys come up to the Hill, let's use the guys, he's intel officials, FBI, Christopher Wray, and they testify. And that's what they say. Well, you know, national security, well, we got to, you know, really? Tell us how many terror incidents you have stopped since the implementation of 702 into the Pfizer Act. Because there is none, or very few, or they're meaningless. They'll find some low level idiot who, you know, they try to sell weapons to. It's basically entrapment. And then they go out and arrest him and say, hey, we stopped the terror incident. No, you didn't. You planted this idea in this goof's mind. He doesn't have the intellectual capacity. He doesn't have The capability of pulling it off. So here we are again. You know, the FBI wants 702 extended. And I say no. No, I'm willing to risk. Remember what I'd say about risk. There's high risk, medium risk, and low risk. There's no such thing as zero risk. So I would ask the FBI, what category would you put this in? The 702 high risk incidents, medium, or low? Of course, they'd probably lie. As you heard Wray a couple weeks ago, oh, I've never seen so bad since October 7th, I've never seen the threat. He hasn't ever seen anything. So the House is struggling with this or throwing it around. You know, the House has a bill, the Senate has a bill, the House has two bills. One from House Intelligence, one from House Judiciary. The Senate has a Senate Intel bill. And they're trying to like, Mold these things together to come out with something that they can both live with you have your critics on one side saying we've had Enough of spying and then you have your people in Congress on the other side who fall for the nonsense is oh my god Oh Canada terror attack. Oh, we're gonna get blamed Oh, I get sick of these people And like I said, they should call me in to help question these people because they don't know what questions to ask And the FBI and the CIA and all these other agents, they know, these people don't know what the hell's going on here. We can bamboozle them. Just tell them a terror attack might occur if you, if you end this. They'll all run like their hair's on fire, and they do. So here's a story, Washington Times, House showdown expected between rival bills to overhaul U. S. spy powers. It says critics say spying tools threaten the constitutional rights when FBI or U. S. Intel officials sift through the data without a warrant looking for dirt on Americans. This FISA Act is supposed to apply to foreign nationals. That's why it's called the Foreign Intelligence Security Act and the Foreign Intelligence Security Court. It's not supposed to be used. Warrantless aspect to spy on Americans. And if you think there's Americans involved in terror activities, you have to go get a warrant. And you know what the, these, these agencies, well, you know, we could have to go get a warrant. It slows the process down. No, it doesn't. I've obtained search warrants with today's capability, the electronics and stuff in place, you can get a search warrant and short order, and unless. These people can prove, as they're spying without a warrant on Americans, that this guy is going to do this tomorrow. That would be exigent. They can never do that. They just say that. Well, you know, it just slows things down. Good. That's what the Founding Fathers wanted. That's what they intended. Here's the process, the Fourth Amendment says. Get a warrant, with very few exceptions. So they come up with this FISA Act to, to, you know, after overcorrect it. And they come up with this FISA Act and, you know, oh, so it never happens again. How many times has it happened since 9/11? A lot. I just named the Boston bombing. I could name others, but in the essence of time here, you know what I'm talking about. Because when one happens, you know, it's, it's, it dominates the news and the FBI always, yeah, he was on a radar screen. How come you weren't spying on him? Instead, they're spying on Americans without a warrant. Just get the warrant. You want to spy on Americans. The Constitution is clear. Get a warrant. So it says, But national security advocates, as I said, stress the need for, in order to fend off potential global terrorist threats. Sky is falling rhetoric. It's BS. So it says, violations of section 702, which would sunset after three years, this is if they extend it again, would be punishable by up to eight years in prison. Which is a good step because currently there are no, there's no accountability for violating it. None. Nobody's ever held accountable when it's discovered. Nobody's punished. You know, they're discovered and then it's, uh, oops. And then, you know, uh, well, you know, we, we're trying to prevent terror attacks. You people aren't competent. So then it says here additionally intelligence committee legislation would create new criminal liability and administrative penalties and increase Existing penalties for government officials who engage in a range of intentional misconduct. Well, here's the thing the problem I have with that I said, you know criminal sanctions are a good thing to add to this because none of these people ever held accountable the FBI or the CIA or the Intel agencies would have to Approach the justice department with this and say hey, we want this guy prosecuted and they're not gonna do it. Oh, it was just a mistake. It was an oversight. That's what we always hear from Ray and all these other goofs. Well, it was just an oversight. He didn't mean to. She didn't mean to. I get sick of this. And these agents and these violators of this. Who are violating your individual right to be shielded from unlawful and unnecessary government intrusion into your lives? They know. Nothing's going to happen to me. In one hearing a couple weeks ago, Christopher Wray was asked, does anybody get, they're talking about the Catholic Church thing. Remember that? Got to go back to the last podcast, talked about that. Wray was asked, are those people going to be held accountable? You know what he said? He said this. They're Well, they might lose out on their next pay raise. That's the punishment. He said they could. He didn't say they would miss out on their pay raise. He said they could. And you know what that means. You have to, you have to listen critically to these people because the follow up questions should have been, like I said, these members of Congress with this oversight, they're the wrong people. They weren't interested in, you know, a weekend out in California at a fundraising event and living high off the hog. The question after he said could. Should have been a follow up. Director Ray, you said could, but will they? And have them answer that. And then you know what they'll do? Because these people know how to dance. Well, you know, I can't say right now I'll follow up and get back to you. And then they never do. Which is why all these hearings, it's all theater. It's all saber rattling. It's all it is. Makes Congress look tough. So here's further evidence that they need to just end Section 702, not reform it. It's been reformed before. It hasn't made a difference. When the Inspector General goes back and looks, and I've read reports on this podcast about this, When Inspector General finds continued violations of searching Americans without a warrant under this FISA thing, it just continues to go on. It doesn't stop. And it's not going to stop. It's part of the culture. They don't care. But how about the one where Lee was talking to Wray about this analyst who's spying? On his mother's husband who she suspects of cheating on her. And he's using this process to spy on her husband, his dad. Are you kidding me? And then of course, you know, Lee asked Wray, uh, anything happen to this guy? Well, uh, I don't know. I'll have to follow up. What do you mean? What do you know about what's going on in the FBI, Wray? When something like this of this magnitude is discovered and a memo didn't come to you up the chain of command Look, I was a sheriff. I would have expected this notification to come to me. Hey, here's what we found boss Here's what we discovered. Here's what we uncovered. You can only get away so long with well, I'm not sure I'm not aware of it. Well, then what do we need you for and what are you doing here? So anyway an opinion From the Wall Street Journal, how to fix Section 702 surveillance. Section 702 lets government monitor non U. S. citizens outside the U. S. to protect national security. Non U. S. citizens. But the authority has come under scrutiny after abuses by some FBI investigation agents who ran searches related to Black Lives Matter protesters and even members of Congress. Lawmakers want to reauthorize the program while protecting civil liberties, but some proposals are better than others, and they go through here talking about the two bills that are proposed. So it says here, again, this is the opinion, the opinion board, editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, it says, Our advice to Republicans, it's from the House obviously, is not to go on record gutting a crucial anti terror tool out of the peak With the FBI, the vote will haunt members if there's another attack. See that? How come it didn't haunt them after 9/11? How, how come it didn't haunt them before 9/11? They knew of the 9/11 hijackers. They were informed. There's documentation. Mossad and MI6, Mossad is the, uh, Israeli intelligence agency, told them, hey, these guys are flying, they're on a no fly list. And they knew they were using commercial airlines to fly back and forth. They're on a no fly list! And when they were informed, how come they didn't do anything? Hey, this guy just flew into the United States. Let's get over there. He's not supposed to be here. They just ignored it. The system was blinking red and it just ignored it. So it says here, renewing it through April is far more preferable to the potential disaster of letting it lapse. There's that sky is falling rhetoric again. Oh, the potential. See, that's why I said risk comes in three categories, high, medium, and low, not the zero risk. Not what's possible, what's probable. Congress can use the extra months to ensure that the FISA reforms thoughtful changes that won't hamper national security. I don't care about hampering national security. I didn't misspeak. They already have the tools. They don't need to spy on Americans and with no predicate crime. You can't spy hoping to find Evidence of a crime you have to have evidence of the crime and then you can move forward in other words You get a search warrant. You have to have probable cause That means there's evidence of criminal activity and we need a search warrant to further conduct this investigation. You can't snoop on a fishing expedition looking for possible criminal activity and it has nothing to do with terror. It says here section 702 has helped prevent another terrorist attack akin to 9/11. No it hasn't. Name it. Put it in here. Tell us when. Tell us which one. It's just platitudes. This is hyperbole. Oh, and it's helped prevent terror attacks. The FBI uses that. Well, this is preventative. Tell us which ones. You know what they'll go into? Well, we can't. It's an ongoing investigation. See, they run circles around these people. It says here, war in the Middle East has increased the threat. Oh, just war in the Middle East has increased it. Then why was this guy spying on his damn dad on behalf of his mom to see if he's fooling around on her? And not just that. There's this. I've talked about this story before. from Reuters. FBI misused intelligence database and 278, 000 searches, the court says. The U. S. federal court found that the FBI improperly searched for information on a U. S. database of foreign intelligence 278 times over several years, including on Americans suspected of crimes, according to a ruling released Friday. But it's not supposed to be used on that. You go the standard route. Of a search warrant. The decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The intelligence database stores digital and other information on individuals. The FISA Act allows the FBI to search without a warrant communications of foreigners abroad. Foreigners abroad. Not American citizens here at home. So this is a court ruling found the FBI violated rules around the use of the database created under section 702 of the FISA Act with its searches. Specifically, the court found the searches as part of probes into crimes between 2016 and 2020 violated the rules because there was No, this is what I just talked about. There's no reasonable basis to expect that they would return foreign intelligence or evidence of a crime Although the fbi believed that this was reasonably likely the decision says you can't have reasonable suspicion to violate the fourth amendment You cannot do it You have to have probable cause and you have to have a go you have to go to court You have to get a judge to sign off on it swear to an affidavit So it says here, the revelations came as U. S. President Joe Biden administration is trying to garner congressional support to keep surveillance powers under 702, which is set to expire later this year. So it says the ODNI, the Director of National Intelligence, said the FBI tightened its procedures. No, they didn't. This stuff's been going on forever, and it keeps being discovered, and then, well, we got safeguards in place. No, they don't. Nothing changes. It's a corrupt agency of the FBI who violates the constitutional and civil rights of American citizens with no accountability. None. And if they're so good, and if they need this stuff, then how did this happen? I talked about this in a previous podcast. Accused spy for Cuba lived the American dream. Remember they just found this, uh, Cuban spy living in, naturalized U. S. citizen, but Living in Florida, 42 years, undetected, 42. years acting as a spy. Yet they need the authority to spy on Americans here at home to prevent this type of activity. That's why I say no, uh, no, end it. Call your Congress member, both Senate and the House and tell them not worth it. And use that quote from Benjamin Franklin, because that's what you're going to get. Well, you know, we're doing everything to protect them. You're not protecting me. If you were a pressure cooker, wouldn't have been fashioned into a bomb by the Tsarnaev brothers, known to the intelligence community here, killing Maine people at the Boston Marathon. You aren't keeping me safe. What you're doing is you're trampling on my individual liberties, and I don't like it. Thanks for joining me.