Jane Harman Now Targeting Individual CyberTargets with Drone Court

Jane Harman’s advocacy for a drone court suffers from the same problem I touched on here (and will lay out at more length in the next day or so): before you can have a Drone and/or Targeted Killing Court, you need some law the court will apply. Harman seems to envision just applying the standards the Executive — not Congress — came up with, which isn’t how Schoolhouse Rock taught me the government is supposed to work.

Congress, in her model, would just be fully apprised of what goes on in the Drone and/or Targeted Killing Court, not write law to limit what can be approved.

But I’m more interested — alarmed, really — by the way Harman seamlessly adds cybertargeting to her advocacy.

The FISA court, renamed the CT Court, could also oversee drones and cyber. A FISA court application must show that specific individuals are connected to a foreign power – which is defined, in part, as a group engaged in international terrorism. Drone and cyber applications could (1) list the individual/cyber target against whom the lethal operation is directed and (2) submit a finding of probable cause that the individual/cyber target is connected to a foreign power, is in a senior operational capacity and poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.

Approved applications for drone strikes and cyberattacks would need to be renewed after a certain period, and discontinued if evidence is presented that the targets no longer meet the criteria. [my emphasis]

Granted, it would have been nice if the government had had to go to a court to explain why a publisher like WikiLeaks should be targeted with a persistent DNS attack, assuming that’s what happened. But given that both our FISA targeting and our targeting killing targeting probably allow for far too much abuse of the First Amendment, I’m not convinced the FISA Court would have noted the problem with that incident of prior restraint.

More generally, though, isn’t Harman’s neat inclusion of cyber targeting here a hint that our cyberattacks have gone beyond just Iran and WikiLeaks?

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+1Email to someone

15 Responses to Jane Harman Now Targeting Individual CyberTargets with Drone Court

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @astepanovich Sharknado was an instant classic too you know. (And no, I'm not watching.)
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @CUEwindsearch No. You sign NDAs when you work w/govt. Snowden did. That's why he's being prosecuted. @korch
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @SusieMadrak Does that mean you're feeling better yet? @Johngcole
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @SusieMadrak And he can shrink wrap ANYTHING! (Sung to the tune of the UPS logistics ad) http://t.co/Xo3pfJnQ1t @Johngcole
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @SusieMadrak Bestest general since Washington. Them's some superlativing. @Johngcole
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @CUEwindsearch No. It's that you are (I'm assuming) not some who has been entrusted w/secrets under NDA. @korch
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel How long until that cop fired from Ferguson PD is beating up black kids as a mall security guard in a parking lot?
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @SusieMadrak Just read Michael O'Hanlon's Petraeus smooch. it'll make you pee your pants. http://t.co/2uZaP8gvwj @Johngcole
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @CUEwindsearch If you were running a Tor server govt believed someone used to leak to WL, they would raid & charge you w/kiddie porn @korch
5hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @CJonesScout: Harrison Bader in eight plate appearances this week against UCF: 2-2, 1 HR, 6 BB, 4 R, 2 SB.
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @CUEwindsearch In short, there are laws. They apply to people who sign NDAs but have never been w/people who haven't. @korch
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @CUEwindsearch S Kim had an NDA. GG/BG/LP do not. No one is being charged w/possessing docs bc that is legally problematic in US. @korch
6hreplyretweetfavorite
February 2013
S M T W T F S
« Jan   Mar »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728