FISA Judges Oppose Intelligence Reform Proposals Aimed At Court 187
cold fjord writes "The LA Times reports, 'Judges on the ... surveillance court have strongly rejected any proposed changes to their review process ... In a blunt letter to the House and Senate intelligence and judiciary committees, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates made it clear that the 11 judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court are united in opposition to key recommendations by a presidential task force last month ... their skepticism adds to a list of hurdles for those advocating significant reforms following former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden's massive disclosures of domestic and foreign surveillance programs. ... Obama and some intelligence officials have publicly signaled support for creating an adversarial legal process in the court ... and aides have suggested the president will create an advocate's position or call for legislation to do so ... But Bates disagreed sharply, arguing that "the participation of an advocate would neither create a truly adversarial process nor constructively assist the courts in assessing the facts, as the advocate would be unable to communicate with the target or conduct an independent investigation." Adding an advocate to "run-of-the-mill FISA matters would substantially hamper the work of the courts without providing any countervailing benefit in terms of privacy protection," he added.' — The Hill adds that Bates, "... recommended an advocate chosen by the court, rather than an independent authority, for only a limited number of cases. " — More at Computerworld and NPR."
EMBRACE YOUR SURVEILLANCE! (Score:4, Insightful)
You'll be crushed, either way. The ratchet turns only one way.
From the article... (Score:3)
Hey...it's a start.
Re:From the article... (Score:4, Informative)
Correct. These are the same corrupt judges that granted the wide open warrants. Warrants that are exactly what the bill of rights was meant to prohibit. These judges have no respect for the constitution and they haven't had for a long time.
It's not just that their opinion doesn't count. It's that there are strong reasons to believe that their opinions are diametrically opposed to the correct ones.
Re:From the article... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Secret court wants to remain secret.". Film at 11.
The judges were originally placed there to prevent abuse, and protect the public from abuses, and in short, to serve as an advocate for the citizens. Now, when they have been hopelessly co-opted by the intelligence community, they argue that this very role has no validity, and the vehemently object to any watch dog looking over their sholders.
While I agree with the judges that
" Adding an advocate to "run-of-the-mill FISA matters would substantially hamper the work of the courts without providing any countervailing benefit in terms of privacy protection," its clear that this would ONLY be true because they, and the spy agencies they serve, would see to it that it was true.
These guys aren't interested in protecting the citizens or the constitution. They are interested in protecting their asses, because they have authorized so many illegal acts on a routine basis that they fear serious jail time.
Start with impeaching these judges. Then work your way down.
Re: (Score:2)
Start with impeaching these judges. Then work your way down.
Unfortunately we will have to work our way up the chain as well, not to mention horizontally... corruption of purpose appears endemic across institutions, failing in their democratic function.
Secret courts are an affront to America (Score:2)
Impeach? No, these tools should be dragged from their courts, horse whipped, and thrown in the deepest darkest prison cell we can find on charges of treason. The lack of immediate action against the NSA, the secret courts, and all the affiliated lackeys that help set up this system is shocking. And I say treason, because these people have done more to damage and weaken the United States than any soviet spy ever did. They have systematically and
Re: (Score:3)
I can't blame them for coming out against the suggestions. It's a simple situation where self-preservation/job security is at risk. Would one expect them to suggest that their jobs are not important and required (or inherently illegal being in violation to the Constitution to the United States)?
I'm sure the legality of their actions and their interpretation of the Constitution to the United States is something they consider. At the same time they don't want to voluntarily tarnish or ruin their careers or
Re:From the article... (Score:5, Informative)
I know and agree, but human nature trumps honor almost every time.
Not going Godwin I believe, but Nazi Germany is a terrible, but very valid, example of this. The need for self-preservation kept those against the atrocities from revolting, to their benefit (equation, keeping quiet or escaping to the US from Europe = LIFE, anything else = DEATH).
Realizing that this is rational, regardless of ethics or actual understanding, exposes a core fault in human evolution, if we expect everyone to act in the best interest of those around us (society).
We may know that something is wrong, but we would probably support it if it is to our benefit; shoot, we would support it even if there is just the perception of a benefit (this perception comment explains Republican/Democrat lifetime supporters, eyes closed, perceiving something better, but never tired of getting let down...).
Fact: Perception = Truth, unless one is doing a physics experiment.
I'm positive the judges in question didn't plan, early in their careers as lawyers, to eventually betray the ultimate law of the land. But years and decades of "this is how it works" twists one perception of how things should be, and then they were presented with a "fantastic opportunity to support National Security". Consider the Commerce Clause, one of the most abused sections of the Constitution (not relevant to current discussion, but the perfect example of where the Supreme Court fails consistently).
It comes down to: No one involved in the Status Quo wants it to change. They are used to it and/or enjoy the benefit so of it. It is their reality.
Again, it is human nature. But I also agree, those involved do not deserve the title of "Judge".
As you do, I find the mod point requirements a bit tedious (preventing mod points on any thread one is involved with would seem sufficient...).
Re: (Score:2)
So you are advocating that a bad law, a corrupt court system, and black budget surveillance of the american people that costs the US taxpayers billions of dollars annually, should be stopped by paying tens of millions of dollars for a very specialized group of lawyers, and assistants. (as proposed by the guy who wrote the patriot act and is mad it is being used beyond his limited imagination)
Why not repeal the law, and literally save billions of dollars..
of course that would be fiscally conservative and th
Re: (Score:2)
Stop putting your hand between the rubber stamp and the warrant!
Really! I can only stamp so many between the hours of 9 and 12 before I leave for golf, and you are just slowing me down.
The solution (Score:2)
The whole solution is to slash the NSA budget and let them figure out where to get the most bang for their buck. They'll never tell you the truth about what they're up to and the "secret" courts are a joke. Cut their budget in half and they may have to choose between spying on their citizens and spying on foreign nationals.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole solution is to slash the NSA budget and let them figure out where to get the most bang for their buck. They'll never tell you the truth about what they're up to and the "secret" courts are a joke. Cut their budget in half and they may have to choose between spying on their citizens and spying on foreign nationals.
Have you investigated things like "Pentagon audit" or "Black budget"?
NSA operates under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense and reports to the Director of National Intelligence.
Congress will not ever touch "defense" appropriations, and were they to do so the DoD "dark matter" will just funnel here. If the agency PR is so very bad, then the real functions function will just move to different sponsorship, under DISA or something.
You have no Republic.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I don't find her that attractive. Something about the collars and cuffs not matching, perhaps. So far her character has been rather 2 dimensional and annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easier just to submit. Double plus good, it is!
Re: (Score:2)
Epicycles. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL
Indeed (Score:2)
And we should trust them why, exactly? Because they were on top of this stuff before? Sure doesn't seem that way to me.
It's rigged (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm suspicious of an advocate chosen by the court. Fox guarding the henhouse?
Then again, I'm also suspicious of secret court proceedings.
Re:It's rigged (Score:5, Insightful)
They're judges. It's not their job to make policy. If they're all united against reform, then they all need to be removed from the court. Then again, the FISA court should be disbanded anyway. I can hardly think of anything more un-American than secret courts.
What I'd like (Score:2)
Is someone to identify all these FISA judges and get their personal information out there. Kind of like the documentary about the people on the secret MPAA ratings board (which is a brilliant documentary).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't opposed to reform. They are opposed to reforms that pretend they are doing something but actually aren't. Instituting an "adversarial" process where the person opposing has no facts or information, can't speak to witness, clients or evidence isn't an adversarial process. It's a fake change to pretend it's adversarial in an attempt to claim that it's "fair" when it's anything but.
The judges are actually defending liberty by saying in one voice that wasting everyone's time with a pretend process d
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is that the FISA judges know they're not doing a professional job to uphold the law, and don't want someone else to point out their deliberate shortcomings.
Re: (Score:2)
Rubbish! (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is, the court does not have to reveal names to have public monitoring. Claiming that names of suspects are required, as you have shilled in the past, is irrational and illogical. Every person in court could be named "John Doe" for the proceedings, and every privacy and liberty advocate would be fine with that method.
What people want made public is the proceedings themselves. How are they ruling that John Doe is worthy of surveillance? Is the evidence being presented gathered legally and ethically? Is there even evidence presented to the courts, or is this simply a rubber stamp? What methods rulings are the judges giving and what powers are they granting to these agencies? Are the rulings and powers being granted legal?
Your point is not just irrational, it evades the reason people are demanding either these courts become open or we shut them down. Perhaps you should read what Due Process is, and what the Constitution states regarding the Justice system and your Liberty. You won't, because you are a habitual shill for a pro authoritarian state and it's agencies.
Re:It's rigged (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're against an adversarial process, that suggests that the FISA court is not a neutral party.
You didn't read the summary. They aren't against "an adversarial process", they're against a process that won't actually create the adversarial process that the proponents intend it to.
As it says in the summary, the judges believe that adding an "advocate" won't create an adversarial process and won't add any significant amount of information to be useful in the judicial process, because the person appointed to that role won't be able to do any investigations or even contact the suspect.
Here's a car analogy: you take your car into the shop because the brakes aren't working well. The mechanic says "your brakes aren't working well, I need to change your air filter and add a speed governor to your car so you can't go faster than 45 MPH". You say "no". What, are you against having working brakes? Of course not, you're against paying for "fixes" that don't fix the brakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, the judge is saying that what is being recommended is not an adversarial process, and he's right.
I don't have any better suggestions though.
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution has an answer for you: since the FISA court does not have an adversarial process, there are no controversies, so the FISA court simply should not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the judge is saying that what is being recommended is not an adversarial process, and he's right.
I don't have any better suggestions though.
It should't be that hard to com up with some better suggestions. In descending order of desirability
1 Get rid of unconstitutional secret courts. Prosecute judges that volunteered to participate in this charade for having violate their oath to uphold the constitution.
2 Require that EACH US citizen who's data was intercepted (via any means) must be be notified no later than 6 months from the first intercept date, unless an arrest warrant is issued, or investigation is continuing. but no investigation may co
Re: (Score:3)
They bring up good points. But their solution, to do nothing at all, is unacceptable. Would they perhaps prefer to outright dissolve the secret nature of the court, seeing as that would be the only solution to their concerns? Perhaps they should rule that secret proceedings where the accused is unable to face his/her accusers are outright unconstitutional, that the existing warrant-granting procedure is more than sufficiently secretive in nature that the FISA courts provide no additional benefits, but incur
Re: (Score:2)
But their solution, to do nothing at all, is unacceptable.
If you read all the way to then end of the summary, you'll notice:
The Hill adds that Bates, "... recommended an advocate chosen by the court, rather than an independent authority, for only a limited number of cases.
That's not "do nothing" by a long shot. It's not what you want them to do, but to call it "nothing" is dishonest.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, it's not nothing. It's a fig leaf.
Because obviously, if they can figure out which of these limited cases are so special, they could give those cases extra thought today, without any changes.
The FISA judges judgement is suspect. Putting anything under their discretion is NOT an improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually worse than do nothing.
It's get policed by people we choose.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they should rule that secret proceedings where the accused is unable to face his/her accusers are outright unconstitutional,
The accused is OFTEN not able to face the accuser prior to warranted searches and seizures. Only when charges are brought in a court of law do you have the right to confront your accusers.
You don't get advanced notice of a search warrant. That would be counter productive. What you do get is SERVED with the warrant at the time of the search or shortly there after.
I could see people getting a warrant delivered some time ( weeks or perhaps a few months) after one of these warranted (of FISA letter) searches
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they're against an adversarial process, that suggests that the FISA court is not a neutral party. While I agree that it is inadequate, a third-party advocate for civil liberties would be better than the nothing that we have at the moment.
I'm suspicious of an advocate chosen by the court. Fox guarding the henhouse?
Then again, I'm also suspicious of secret court proceedings.
I think of it this way:
The Constitution, which cannot be superseded by anything other than a Constitutional Amendment, states in her Fifth Amendment [emphasis added]:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
As well as in the Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Therefore, as no Constitutional Amendment has thus far been passed that would negate the Fifth and Sixth, then the FISA court and all its decisions are de facto unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The FISA court isn't a trial court. Nobody is being "held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime." It is letting investigators investigate by issuing warrants.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The FISA court isn't a trial court. Nobody is being "held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime." It is letting investigators investigate by issuing warrants.
Without justification based upon probable cause.
Which is still unconstitutional, but in a different way I mentioned.
FYI - the fact that America has a "court" that is not open to public scrutiny is blatantly unconstitutional, no matter what rationale you try to use to justify it.
Re: (Score:3)
FYI - the fact that America has a "court" that is not open to public scrutiny is blatantly unconstitutional, no matter what rationale you try to use to justify it.
Citation required. It may not fit your patriotic--don't tread on me, wave my flag in one, Constitution in the other--definition of "American" but I certainly do not see how a closed court is unconstitutional. For that matter closed proceedings are actually quite common. For instance when was the last time you got to sit in on a case where a juvenile is the accused?
Re: (Score:2)
Court cases where the accused is a juvenile are automatically closed in the States? Here they usually have a publication ban on things like the juveniles name but the court is usually open. The press reports on cases involving juveniles all the time, they just call the accused X or whatever and say how they can not report any identifying information due to publication ban or the juvenile being a juvenile.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI - the fact that America has a "court" that is not open to public scrutiny is blatantly unconstitutional, no matter what rationale you try to use to justify it.
Citation required
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html [archives.gov]
The document does not specifically give the federal government power to create secret courts. Per the 10th Amendment, any power the Constitution does not directly assign to the feds is not a power they have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FYI - the fact that America has a "court" that is not open to public scrutiny is blatantly unconstitutional, no matter what rationale you try to use to justify it.
Much as I agree with the sentiment, I can't find anything in the constitution that forbids such a court.
You don't get to sit in while your local judge or magistrate issues search warrants either. If you could people would do it
as a service and post it on line and advertise as warrantsRus.
Trials yes. Warrants, Grand Jury proceedings, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
You have it backwards. The Federal Government may only do what is specifically ALLOWED in the Constitution; it is not allowed to do anything not PROHIBITED by the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Therefore, as no Constitutional Amendment has thus far been passed that would negate the Fifth and Sixth, then the FISA court and all its decisions are de facto unconstitutional.
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!
The fifth and sixth are not relevant since the FISA court isn't holding anyone "to answer" or creating "double jeopardy", nor is it dealing with any criminal prosecution. Their decisions are not, thus, defacto unconstitutional based on the fifth or sixth amendments.
What the FISA courts do is issue warrants, so if you want to argue fourth amendment issues, ok.
As for the GP saying he's skeptical of court appointed advocates, well, the courts have a long history of
Re: (Score:3)
What are they issuing warrants on, if no one has been charged with a crime? That in itself is a Constitutional violation.
No, it's not. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires someone be charged with a crime to issue a warrant. It just requires probable cause and the place/thing s to be searched or seized.
I don't think most people here necessarily disagree with your outrage, but none of your points have had any significant basis in Constitutional law so far. Less emotion and more logic required to win over this crowd :)
And before you mention probably cause again the real issue is NOT that there is no probable cau
To Rephrase (Score:2)
I may have gone off on a tangent and lost my original intent, so let me try again:
As the Constitution does not specifically grant the federal government power to create secret courts, the existence of secret courts (and thus, all decisions handed down by them) are de facto unconstitutional, per the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
Look to the 4th & end the State Secrets Doctri (Score:2)
You have the wrong amendments. The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply here because the surveyed targets are not yet being held to answer for any crime and are not being deprived of "liberty" in the sense that the amendment means (i.e. put in jail). The Sixth similarly doesn't apply because there is no prosecution here yet.
The Fourth is more relevant because it governs searches, which is what FISA is all about. The Fourth requires warrants for searches and requires that they be (a) supported by probably cause
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What needs to happen is that there needs to be an in-depth and independent review of the effectiveness of the information gathering activity after the fact by a party other than the FISA court and security establishment.
What schema would you propose that differs from my own? You'd need someone with an understanding of probable cause (i.e. a court of some sort). You'd need someone with a reason to challenge it, so that an adversarial process is kept up, and it's not some sort of intra-government drum circle. You'd need some kind of security clearance to prevent data from leaking to the public if it turns out that it *is* good and useful (or that revealing it would put agents in harms way or undermine other good programs)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe I am lacking insight because for the life of me I cannot grasp how you are being modded "insightful". You're just waving about the Constitution, pointing at unrelated articles. With respect to the FISA court and its proceedings, no person is being held for crimes, no person is being placed in double-jeopardy as by reason of the previous, no person is being compelled to confess to a crime, no person is being executed, neither constrained, nor subject to forfeiture of property. There are no criminal
Re:It's rigged (Score:5, Informative)
Considering the court rubber stamps 99+% of garbage put in front of them it's pretty obvious that their oversight is inadequate, even the most tough on crime judges in general criminal courts don't approve that high a percent of warrant requests.
Re: (Score:2)
It's theoretically possible that they don't bother submitting requests unless they are highly confident it will be accepted. I don't believe that, but it's at least possible. We need to know more about the process and the types of requests--unfortunately that's difficult with a secret court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds to me that judges in this case...and ergo secret courts contribute to creating and adversarial system so the whole lot should be unnecessary.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm suspicious of an advocate chosen by anyone connected to the US Federal government. However, I agree that one chosen by the court itself would be particularly bad.
Re:It's rigged (Score:5, Insightful)
Fire them and throw them into jail.
A federal judge will never go to prison for rendering judgments favorable to the administration.
Soap box, ballot box, jury box... all have been subverted or suppressed to the point of failure. Massive protests? We had some a couple years ago, they were shut down by riot police. Elections are subverted by the money and connections necessary to get your name on a ballot. The jury box is of little utility. The role of a jury today is lessened from what it once was. The DoJ is more interested in prosecuting whistle-blowers while declining to prosecute bankers or even investigate documented illegal acts within the Executive branch, past and present. Hell, Holder even thinks he can justify extra-judicial killings of Americans.
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe
The "awkward stage" ends when the populace is more concerned with civil rights than American Idol. I don't see that happening yet. It might be possible to reign in some abusive practices without violence, but the more time passes the more difficult that will be.
Shocking (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps we should just remove the defense attorney from criminal proceedings as well. That should clear out the case backlog,
Something like 80%~97% [nytimes.com] of ALL criminal cases are settled by plea agreement.
(Depending on the jurisdiction and specific court)
Traffic and misdemeanor courts have similarly high rates of plea bargains or guilty pleas.
If there's a backlog in the court system, it's entirely because of underfunding.
Re: (Score:2)
A government relinquishing even a little power? (Score:1)
Few men in the history of the world gave up power after taking it: Cincinnatus and George Washington are the most recent examples, and they died hundreds of years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Vaclav Havel?
Nelson Mandela?
I agree (Score:1)
I agree with the judges, based on where they currently sit. An advocate or any type of ancillary support for this stuff will just provide the illusion of a counter-argument.
However, I don't believe they should be sitting there in the first place. I bet if you asked their private opinions, they'd say the laws being enacted are what hampers their ability to protect freedom of speech and privacy, not the method by which they make their discussions.
It's basically that congress is trying to blame the problem on
Zero sympathy (Score:5, Insightful)
So an advocate would not benefit the process? Then the process is broken. In the interests of protecting innocents from government overreach, dissolve the FISA court.
I'd like my rights, freedoms, and liberties back please. I don't need or want you or your 'protection.'
Re: (Score:2)
So an advocate would not benefit the process? Then the process is broken.
As it reports in the summary, adding an advocate that cannot do more than say "you shouldn't do this" would not benefit the process. It would be like having a defense attorney that couldn't speak to the defendent and couldn't investigate the alleged crimes. All he'd have to look at is the filing from the government, and the judges can already read that.
Re: (Score:3)
That's right. So, it's useless, and the FISA court is useless.
Your first claim is correct. Your second claim is not supported by the first. The idea that an advocate who can do nothing substantial to advocate making his appointment useless doesn't make the entire court useless.
Sane justice includes representation by all parties involved being present and publicly accountable.
The court being discussed is the FISA court. It's not a court where people stand accused of a crime or seek "justice". It's a court where the government gets search warrant requests approved.
If you think all parties are involved, present and accountable, whenever a regular search warrant is i
Re: (Score:2)
So an advocate would not benefit the process? Then the process is broken. In the interests of protecting innocents from government overreach, dissolve the FISA court.
Issuing investigative warrants generally isn't an adversarial process even in ordinary courts. An ordinary court handling the warrant requests would still apply the same standards, and would be burdened by the confidentiality requirements. Dissolving the FISA court doesn't get you anything.
Who needs due diligence... (Score:2)
... When you have a box full of rubber stamps and barrels of ink?
Hold on there... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyones screaming at the Judges, but read what they're saying:
"the participation of an advocate would neither create a truly adversarial process nor constructively assist the courts in assessing the facts, as the advocate would be unable to communicate with the target or conduct an independent investigation."
REALLY read that. I read it as saying "You're trying to send an advocate to make this appear like it's an adversarial process. But it's not. This will still be a rubber stamping process until you send in a REAL advocate."
i.e. If there are going to be reforms, then they need to be real. Reforms like this (that achieve nothing but make the people think somethings been done) will only increase their workload. With no added benefit to the target of the NSA.
Re:Hold on there... (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the full quote: "The participation of a privacy advocate is unnecessary and could prove counterproductive in the vast majority of FISA matters, which involve the application of a probable cause or other factual standard to case-specific facts and typically implicate the privacy interests of few persons other than the specific target. Given the nature of FISA proceedings, the participation of an advocate would neither create a truly adversarial process nor constructively assist the Court in assessing the facts, as the advocate would be unable to communicate with the target or conduct an independent investigation. Advocate involvement in run-of-the-mill FISA matters would substantially hamper the work of the Courts without providing any commensurate benefit in terms of privacy protection or otherwise; indeed, such pervasive participation could actually undermine the Courts' ability to receive complete and accurate information on the matters before them."
Of course, we already know the courts are not getting complete and accurate information, and they rubber-stamp orders anyway.
Your rights vs a 'component' and 'seam' (Score:3)
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/19/21975158-nsa-program-stopped-no-terror-attacks-says-white-house-panel-member?lite [nbcnews.com]
"“...there has been no instance in which NSA could say with confidence that the outcome [of a terror investigation] would have been any different” without the program."
Welcome to a world where a vast domestic surveillance system is rubber stamped and oversight is tame.
must be a good idea (Score:1)
No collection on Americans without a warrant ! (Score:1)
All this FISA advocate stuff, and Obama rhetoric is a distraction, tinkering around the edges.
There should be NO collection of phone calls, e-mails, meta data, cell phone locations of Americans without a warrant from a judge, based on evidence. The fourth amendment is very clear on how warrants are to be justified. They must be specific against a person or thing to be investigated, not general warrants that the founders fought against King George to ban.
If these dam NSA snoopers would spend their billions
Why have FISA court at all (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was to be oversight and reviews... but that just turned into a sealed show and tell show on any politicians 'hot' topics.
Now we have the sock puppets needing many new color of law paragraphs to try to legally fake past The Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their pers
Disagree, but they have a point (Score:5, Insightful)
While the judges are clearly biased, there is value in their point:
the participation of an advocate would neither create a truly adversarial process nor constructively assist the courts in assessing the facts
This is true: How can you have an adversarial process when the adversary isn't allowed to know that anything is happening? But there still needs to be some adversary. The problem is bigger than this though.
Ultimately, this court isn't even a court by any modern definition. No adversarial process. The judges are appointed without any confirmation or oversight [wikipedia.org]. There is no appeals court. [slashdot.org] The NSA lies to the judges anyway. [slashdot.org] And the department that oversees them ignores complaints by the judges. [usatoday.com]
How is this a court at all?
Re: (Score:3)
How is this a court at all?
By the power of the large, hopping marsupials imported from our good allies in Australia!
Why do they need 11 judges? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S.A. Patriot Act (section 208) changed it to eleven and added "of whom no fewer than 3 shall reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbia"
Snowden for President! (Score:5, Insightful)
Snowden for President!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Putin will step aside.
Re: (Score:2)
Insignificant (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares what the FISA judges think about the reforms? I mean, they're not the boss of the government.
This notion that there is some widespread fear in the government of how agencies and entities will react to changes in he surveillance regime are starting to get a little alarming. If you look at the NYTimes story here: http://t.co/lSEb6vWXSi [t.co], you will see the phrase, "backlash from national security agencies" in regard to reforms to surveillance. Who are they that now elected officials, who are charged with oversight over these agencies, have to worry about intelligence agencies' "backlash"? There have been several other stories recently that have mentioned similar "consequences" from the agencies if the scope or powers of those agencies were to be limited in any way.
I guess that tells us who's really in charge.
I'm telling you, unless we can figure out a way to chop this surveillance regime down to size, and quick, there is absolutely no chance that any other national problem can ever be fixed in any significant way. Not the economy, not security, not social problems, not anything. When Americans finally internalize the fact that they are always being watched and that our own security agencies view them as a threat, there will be a sickness over the American people like none we have ever seen before.
To this day, people from places like East Germany and other surveillance states have it in the back of their heads that there is always someone watching. As the husband of a woman from Eastern Europe, I know this to be true from my experience with family and friends. Once you have Big Brother in your head, he never goes away, maybe not for generations.
I would absolutely rather take my chances with the terrorists than see the US go on this way much longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares what the FISA judges think about the reforms? I mean, they're not the boss of the government.
This notion that there is some widespread fear in the government of how agencies and entities will react to changes in he surveillance regime are starting to get a little alarming. If you look at the NYTimes story here: http://t.co/lSEb6vWXSi [t.co] [t.co], you will see the phrase, "backlash from national security agencies" in regard to reforms to surveillance. Who are they that now elected officials, who are charged with oversight over these agencies, have to worry about intelligence agencies' "backlash"? There have been several other stories recently that have mentioned similar "consequences" from the agencies if the scope or powers of those agencies were to be limited in any way.
I guess that tells us who's really in charge.
I'm telling you, unless we can figure out a way to chop this surveillance regime down to size, and quick, there is absolutely no chance that any other national problem can ever be fixed in any significant way. Not the economy, not security, not social problems, not anything. When Americans finally internalize the fact that they are always being watched and that our own security agencies view them as a threat, there will be a sickness over the American people like none we have ever seen before.
To this day, people from places like East Germany and other surveillance states have it in the back of their heads that there is always someone watching. As the husband of a woman from Eastern Europe, I know this to be true from my experience with family and friends. Once you have Big Brother in your head, he never goes away, maybe not for generations.
I would absolutely rather take my chances with the terrorists than see the US go on this way much longer.
Spot on.
You and I have had heated disagreements in the past, but on this we agree fully.
This is not a Conservative/Liberal, Left/Right, (R)/(D) issue of a political nature at all.
This is a matter of basic human rights, both as the rights of nature's law and the laws of man as set forth in the US Constitution. They are our most basic civil rights.
There was a struggle in the 1960s for civil rights for minorities of US citizens against government bullying, infringements of rights & liberties, and racial d
Re: (Score:2)
It's not. At all.
Wouldn't it be funny if Barack Obama really turned out to be a "uniter" after all? He'll unite Left and Right against a common corporate/government surveillance regime. Left and Right will realize that the people in power, private and public sector alike, are a real and present danger.
It won't be what he had in mind of course, but at this point, he'd probably take it.
politics vs politicians (Score:2)
Don't be worried folks, this shit'll be over before you know it.
Kangaroo rubber stamp-court (Score:3)
They are a kangaroo rubber-stamp court objecting to doing other than what they were appointed to do, which is to unthinkingly say yes. I can't imagine anyone with any pride in their country feeling anything other than overwhelming shame and disgust for their role in this banana-republic activity. Except self-interested cronies.
Since they could be replaced by a rubber stamp that said "Yes" with nearly no change to what the court does except to save probably tens of millions of dollars per year, they're probably concerned about losing their jobs.
Can you imagine what Jefferson or John Adams would say about this possibly unconstitutional corruption of justice? This court could scarcely be farther from their ideals. Of course they're united in opposition. They're united because their bosses gave them all the same instructions. Why would we expect any one of them to say or act independently of anyone else?
In other news... (Score:2)
Babies are united in the idea that once they get a lollypop, that lollypop should not be taken away from them. Try and there will be screaming.
Remember: ever time a baby looses a lollypop, the terrorists win.
Who Are The FISA Judges? (Score:2)
They are all picked by one man - Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/chief-justice-john-roberts-appointed-every-judge-on-the-fisa-court-20130812 [nationaljournal.com]
This was meant to be a body of jurists to check the validity of search warrants, but it developed its own body of case law. With no check on its power. None.
The NY Times notes "In making assignments to the court, Chief Justice Roberts, more than his predecessors, has chosen judges with conservative and executive bran
Re: (Score:2)
The FISA court judges are already judges on the Federal bench.
Once selected to serve on the FISA court they rotate through the assignment to that court, and then return to another court.
The FISA court is subject to both the Intelligence review court and the Supreme Court, just like any other court.
The judges on the FISA court can be removed by Congress, just like any other judge.
The FISA courts primary job is to approve warrants for surveillance. It doesn't conduct trials.
If the judges assigned to FISA cou
Re: (Score:2)
Actually yes, the FISA court is ultimately responsible to the Supreme Court, just like other courts. There is an intelligence review court that is designated for the appeals process, and the Supreme Court is over that.
Data Sec. & Privacy Law 6:67 (2013) [upenn.edu]
In 1978, Congress passed the original version of FISA, which for the first time established a procedure by which the executive branch was required to seek authorization to conduct foreign surveillance activities. 4 FISA also created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISA Court of Review). 5 These courts are staffed by federal court judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the decisions of the FISA Court of Review are reviewable by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Newsflash: nobody likes his/her power taken away (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That secret court, the Star Chamber, was a trial court. The FISA court isn't a trial court. It's main function is to issue warrants for investigation. Trials occur in other courts.
Re: (Score:2)
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber [wikipedia.org] was well understood wrt the Fifth Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
The FISA court operates under the laws passed by Congress, the same as any other court would.
Re: (Score:1)
I can't imagine how allowing the collection of metadata on just about everyone means that someone is "unnaturally focused on citizens rights." It's just the opposite, and you're a naive fool.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, perhaps not naive.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we are seeing a concerted sock puppet effort to turn what was never more than cleared oversight and review into some domestic US legal justification for endless domestic surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
The advocate wouldn't be a check and balance against the judge / court / judiciary, but against the executive branch agency - the NSA. The purpose is to provide a permanent opposition to the NSA before the court, not some sort of advocate against the court. Given the process in question it isn't especially useful as proposed.