Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

struggle4progress

(120,952 posts)
4. I suspect she's blowing smoke, like so many others. Chaffetz (R-Utah) insists a FISA warrant would
Mon Nov 19, 2012, 05:04 PM
Nov 2012

be required for the emails -- but the FISA warrants go back to at least the Clinton era. People are also noticing "Under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a 1986 law that Congress enacted to protect your privacy in electronic communications, a warrant is not required for e-mails six months old or older" -- a law that goes back to the middle of the Reagan-Bush era

See:
Rep. Chaffetz: Special Warrants Needed in Petraeus Probe Suggest FBI Found More Than Sex
http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/2012/11/rep-chaffetz-special-warrants-needed-in-petraeus-probe-suggests-fbi-found-more-than-sex/
Lee Davis: Petraeus Affair Raises Concerns About E-mail Privacy
Monday, November 19, 2012 - by Lee Davis
http://www.chattanoogan.com/2012/11/19/238906/Lee-Davis-Petraeus-Affair-Raises.aspx

Privacy concerns have been legitimate for years, of course; and the Patriot Act has always been disgusting IMO; but it's not at all clear to me that the Patriot Act has much (if anything at all) to do with the Petraeus affair, so it looks to me like Wolf is just winging it for attention

"What if the power regarding who tells you that your spouse has betrayed you, becomes not a private struggle in private life, but a matter for the state to decide?" Wolf says. Of course, there's nothing like that here: the story starts with an investigation into email threats and evidence that the sender knows at lot about the CIA chief's schedule, which reasonably set off alarm bells

Even more tasteless is Wolf's "We can be threatened with the Espionage Act. This is why Assange is hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. If Assange were convicted of receiving classified information, and extradited under the Espionage Act, he could theoretically be shipped to Guantanamo." But Assange fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy to avoid extradition from the UK to Sweden on rape charges, and the claims that he could be "shipped to Guantanamo" are so laughable that he lawyers finally decided to avoid that line of argument in the UK courts. As the column is allegedly devoted to the defense of sexual privacy against the government, it leaves us to wonder if she thinks that the rape accusations against Assange are somehow a violation of his sexual privacy, especially odd as she certainly does not believe rape victims are entitled to sexual privacy:

Naomi Wolf: Anonymity for rape accusers gives impunity to prosecutors
The Vagina author's odd comments on Newsnight
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/helen-lewis/2012/09/naomi-wolf

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Feminists»Naomi Wolf thinks the Pet...»Reply #4