So, after thus far providing no actual evidence of the claim that the current NSA programs are easily and commonly abused without consequence -- that is (as claimed by Snowden and Greenwald), that "any analyst" can easily and brazenly eavesdrop on the calls and emails of any American without a warrant, without authorization, and without consequence -- the focus of the Greenwaldian narrative seems to be shifting to a 2011 ruling from the FISC which allegedly found certain illegalities and ordered their cessation. Putting aside any disputed matters related to when the ruling might be released, the focus on the purported ruling against the NSA raises an interesting question.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it's the worst-case scenario as suggested by Greenwald; that is, that the FISC found that the NSA was overstepping its bounds and doing something it's not supposed to do, and ordered them to stop.
Which leads an the interesting question regarding Greenwald's logic:
Assuming the FISC did what Greenwald claims and found certain NSA activity illegal/unconstitutional, far from supporting his claims about how easy, common, and consequence-free surveillance of Americans is, wouldn't such a ruling, in fact, prove just the opposite? Wouldn't that ruling prove that the safeguards and barriers, including the FISC, work? Wouldn't it prove that the FISC is doing its job properly and is not a rubber-stamp for the NSA? Wouldn't it prove that the FISC steps in and stops the NSA when it oversteps its authority?
I mean, assuming that the ruling says what Greenwald suggests, how would the FISC ordering a stop to a particular program, and issuing that order long before anyone ever heard of Snowden, do anything to support his claims? What would some prior example of the NSA overstepping its bounds and being STOPPED have to do with the claim that the current systems are easily and commonly abused without consequence? Wouldn't the ruling -- even if it says what Greenwald claims it does -- prove just the opposite?
Let's be honest -- one can hardly even count the number of times the anti-NSA or pro-Greenwald crowd has repeated the mantra that the "FISC is a rubber-stamp for the NSA." There have been hundreds of comments suggesting this, and even a few diaries dedicated almost exclusively to this claim.
But wouldn't a ruling from the FISC which stopped the NSA completely undermine that proposition? It could hardly be a rubber-stamp if it rebuked the NSA as clearly and strongly as Greenwald suggests, could it? So, which is it? Is the FISC a joke, as many here have repeatedly claimed, or has it been duly serving its designated purpose in upholding Americans' privacy rights against improper intrusions?
Further, the timing of the ruling undermines Greenwald's claims. Again, this is a ruling from 2011, two years before Snowden even began his caper. So how on earth does a court ruling against certain NSA activity two years ago have anything to do with the Snowden/Greenwald claims about what is happening now? And when was the case that spawned the ruling initiated? 2011? 2010? 2009? Earlier? The earlier the case, the more Greenwald's claims are undermined. [I wonder what the likelihood is that the ruling stems from activity from the Bush years.] And what if it turns out that the case was essentially the NSA or the administration seeking what amounts to an advisory opinion? That is, what if the genesis of the case was essentially, "Here's what's happening; is this okay?" That would certainly change the context entirely -- although somehow I doubt it would change Greenwald's narrative.
Ultimately, then, even if it says what Greenwald claims it says, the 2011 FISC ruling has nothing to do with his and Snowden's claims about common, on-going abuse, except to undermine the suggestion that there are insufficient safeguards. Just something to keep in mind when the Greenwaldians inevitably try to confuse matters by conflating the 2011 ruling with Snowden's much later, unrelated, and unsupported claims. [We all know what's coming, don't we?: "See -- this ruling about unrelated conduct years ago proves . . . something, something, argle, bargle."] Sadly, the hysteria and mischaracterizations will no doubt overwhelm the logic.