Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Privacy United States

White House Asks FISA Court To Ignore 2nd Circuit's Decision On Bulk Surveillance 165

Posted by Soulskill from the putting-wrong-what-once-went-right dept.
schwit1 sends news that the Obama Administration has made a legal request to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court to ignore a ruling from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals making bulk surveillance illegal. The government says it's doing so to create an "orderly transition" between now and the beginning of USA Freedom Act provisions in six months. Their legal argument is that the Circuit Court's rulings are only binding for lower courts — the FISA court is secretive and separated from the normal legal process, so it doesn't necessarily fit in the normal court hierarchy.

ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer said, "While the FISA court isn’t formally bound by the second circuit’s ruling, it will certainly have to grapple with the second circuit’s interpretation of the ‘relevance’ requirement. The [court] will also have to consider whether Congress effectively adopted the second circuit’s interpretation of the relevance requirement when it passed the USA Freedom Act." The issue is further complicated because the Circuit Court did not actually issue an injunction against bulk surveillance, deferring instead to the congressional debate already underway about the Patriot Act and USA Freedom Act.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House Asks FISA Court To Ignore 2nd Circuit's Decision On Bulk Surveillance More

White House Asks FISA Court To Ignore 2nd Circuit's Decision On Bulk Surveillance

Comments Filter:

  • To all you Obama supporters (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DoofusOfDeath ( 636671 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2015 @05:20PM (#49879579)

    Go Fuck. Yourselves.

    • Re:To all you Obama supporters (Score:5, Funny)

      by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2015 @05:26PM (#49879615)

      Go Fuck. Yourselves.

      Ah, tread carefully here.

      That particular combination of words is trademarked and copyrighted by the Obama administration.

      After all, it is their official motto.

      • I thought they had trademarked BFYTW.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          Isn't DMS the most significant message of the Obama administration along with what collateral damage, there was no collateral damage, we intended every to be a recipient of the DMS message. DMS being of course https://www.thebureauinvestiga... [thebureaui...igates.com]. It seems that the very first DMS sent by Obama three days into his control, created the first nine non-collateral damage victims and the numbers of victims only grew from there, along with the number of terrorists needed to be targeted by DMS messages. So no BFYTW

          • Now why is Obama coming off like a puppet in these discussion and exactly how much dirt does the NSA and CIA have on him, to keep him so tightly on the leash from day one or is that day three

            What the hell is wrong with you guys??

            Obama has shown his true color to all of us, not one day, not one year, but for more than FIVE MOTHERFUCKING YEARS ALREADY and you guys STILL having that faint hope that, deep inside, Obama has a conscience?

            Obama needs no leash from NSA / CIA / FBI, Obama is *ONE OF THEM*, and has been their *MOST VALUED SUPPORTER* all the while!!

            Obama doesn't have even one single iota of conscience in him. The guy is a egoistical maniac. All he wants is POWER, and he intends to RULE OV

            • OK, I'll give you an answer to your implied question -- it's "the boy who cried wolf syndrome". Considering that he was "a kenyan, muslim, socialist" who famously "palled around with terrorists" and was bent on destroying America from the day he was inaugurated (actually the day it started looking like he would win the election), I have to examine the criticisms of the man with a skeptical eye and deeply consider the source as to whether there is a trace of truth in any accusations as most of the time ther

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by rtb61 ( 674572 )

              I don't get, what you don't get about the idea of extortion and it's basis and, that it implies corruption. It just seems that many statements seem to have very little political benefit for him and just make him look publicly much worse and should ego be the driver for the original corruption as it normally is, then ego will also seek to not damage the public image of the egoist. So less likely to be one of them and more likely to be controlled by them but inherently that control by others was accepted in

            • Obama is bad, true.

              But every single candidate from the Republican and Libertarian parties are worse. Which is scares the shit out of me.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Holi ( 250190 )
        I thought that was the official White House motto regardless who's residing there.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Like you have anything better to offer--and no Rand Paul with his: "Lets try the terrorists in absentee" grandstanding filibuster is not better.

    • Re:To all you Obama supporters (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09, 2015 @05:34PM (#49879651)

      Oh, was a magical third Bush term going to make this any better? Or a McCain or Romney administration? Why don't you address the actual problem instead of a symptom: our entire federal political machine. It only makes you look like a child when you just blame individuals in a system so hopelessly corrupt that the only presidential candidates presented in a general election anymore are already sold to the highest donors.

      Disclosure: I think Obama has been a massive failure.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Oh, was a magical third Bush term going to make this any better? Or a McCain or Romney administration?

        Considering that R-Money recognized the difference between a state-run healthcare law and a federal-run healthcare law as a constitutional issue, I think he would have done much better in respecting the balance of power, rather than Barrack "Fuck the Constitution, Fuck the legislature, Fuck the courts, I'm in charge here, eat my shit in the form of Executive Orders" Obama.

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by NicBenjamin ( 2124018 )

          Oh, was a magical third Bush term going to make this any better? Or a McCain or Romney administration?

          Considering that R-Money recognized the difference between a state-run healthcare law and a federal-run healthcare law as a constitutional issue, I think he would have done much better in respecting the balance of power, rather than Barrack "Fuck the Constitution, Fuck the legislature, Fuck the courts, I'm in charge here, eat my shit in the form of Executive Orders" Obama.

          When has he said fuck the courts?

          As far as I can tell he's yet to disobey a single Court Order. He's certainly better then Bush. Most of the problems folks on Slashdot have with him come from him obeying the FISA Court, which is a real Court.

          When he says "fuck the Legislature," it's typically after several years of Congress saying "We really need to get something done," but then failing to pass a bill.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by sycodon ( 149926 )

            I guess you haven't been paying fucking attention [theguardian.com]

            God Damned Face Painting Homer.

            • Re:To all you Obama supporters (Score:5, Interesting)

              by NicBenjamin ( 2124018 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2015 @08:01PM (#49880279)

              And you didn't pay very careful attention to my post.

              I very carefully used the words "Court Order," because (as the summary points out) there is no Second Circuit order for him to disobey. There's a ruling, but rulings are where the Courts explains why it told you to do something, not where they tell you to do something. It is literally impossible to disobey a ruling that does not have an order attached because there's nothing in a ruling to disobey.

              Why would the Second Circuit issue a ruling (likely to get a lot of press), but no order (rendering the ruling a prestigious op-ed)? Because they wanted to a) force Congress to act while b) putting Obama on notice that if something wasn't done they'd give him an order.

              Since he and Congress did something they're not very likely to issue that order, and his request to the FISA Court for six more months is not a fuck you.

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by Teancum ( 67324 )

                The net result of appealing to the FISA Court in this situation more or less means that the issue will be forced into the U.S. Supreme Court. That is one place where even the FISA Court must follow precedent, or else be taken for what it has become as an extra branch of the government answerable to nobody.

                To me, that even risks the potential of having the FISA Court itself ruled unconstitutional and a whole can of worms that the Obama administration really doesn't want opened. While I think it is unlikely

                • Dude, in six months it will be illegal for them to rule on this because the program the Second Circuit ruled against will be replaced. The EFF/ACLU can't appeal to the Supremes because they won, so they have to ask the Second Circuit to amend it's ruling to include an Order. They can appeal that ruling to the Supremes. That's a three-step process. Each individual step would take six months unless some Judge was so worked up that he said "ok we'll rule next week." And you'd need that to happen three times. T

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Merk42 ( 1906718 )

          Oh, was a magical third Bush term going to make this any better? Or a McCain or Romney administration?

          Considering that R-Money recognized the difference between a state-run healthcare law and a federal-run healthcare law as a constitutional issue, I think he would have done much better in respecting the balance of power, rather than Barrack "Fuck the Constitution, Fuck the legislature, Fuck the courts, I'm in charge here, eat my shit in the form of Executive Orders" Obama.

          R-Money recognized that before becoming President.

          The bigger issue that GP is pointing out is that candidates (of any party) say one thing while running, then do something different once in office.

      • What about Ron Paul? Did you let the media decide for you that there was a choice only between Romney or Obama?

    • Re:To all you Obama supporters (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Grog6 ( 85859 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2015 @05:39PM (#49879675)

      It seems we already are; with no reach-around...

      He ran on the proviso that all the illegal BS we were doing would be shut down. (as well as the billion-dollar-a-day wars we were fighting...)

      Instead, it's way beyond what was left to him by Bush.

      Now he's Asking a Secret Court to allow the Government to Break a Lawful Ruling that basically Affirmed that the Program was Unconstitutional.

      WTF?

      • Re:To all you Obama supporters (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Chris Katko ( 2923353 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2015 @06:09PM (#49879791)
        Dude, you realize half the people that voted for Obama did so to keep Sarah Palin out of office? What alternative did you think we had? A race between Obama VS a clone of George Washington, and we chose Obama because he's black?

        • The funny thing is, Hillary is the same age as McCaine was when the Democrats were talking about how old he was and we were a heartbeat away from Palin.

          I personally would have preferred Palin than Obama, at least she is patriotic. She is also pretty smart, which makes all the smear campaigns of the press pretty funny. But if you prefer a liberal, she obviously isn't the one for you.

          • The funny thing is, Hillary is the same age as McCaine was when the Democrats were talking about how old he was and we were a heartbeat away from Palin.

            I personally would have preferred Palin than Obama, at least she is patriotic. She is also pretty smart, which makes all the smear campaigns of the press pretty funny. But if you prefer a liberal, she obviously isn't the one for you.

            See, you can't tip you trolling hand by calling Palin smart...

            • Link me a single instance of her actually being dumb. Not saying something that was later proven to actually be correct, and not a Saturday Night Live joke about her (I can see Russia from my house).

              • Single? But there are so many instances of ignorance and lies to choose from.

                http://www.politifact.com/pers... [politifact.com]

                • It seems that many of those statements are possibly true, but are so chopped down it is very hard to even tell, looking through without even checking any I see:

                  SARAH PALIN
                  Says Attorney General Eric Holder recently revealed "this idea to have government have gun owners wear special bracelets that would identify you as a gun owner."

                  It looks like, OMG, he really did say that.

                  http://www.breitbart.com/big-g... [breitbart.com]

                  Or do you have some kind of proof he didn't say that to the house committee?
                  He was talking about requiring guns to have fingerprint readers (which are terrible if you have ever actually used one) or bracelets so that they would only fire for the authorized user. How was she

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Grog6 ( 85859 )

          I agree we had few choices there; but Obama's blackness wasn't why I voted for him. :)

          Sarah Palin's votes were proportional to boob size, not intellect.

          I have to admit: I Really thought he would be different.

          WTF was I thinking, lol.

          They're only in office because enough of us bought their BS.

          Think we'll do better next time? :)

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        stating the obvious is now "insightful"

      • Re:To all you Obama supporters (Score:5, Informative)

        by dunkindave ( 1801608 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2015 @06:37PM (#49879955)

        Now he's Asking a Secret Court to allow the Government to Break a Lawful Ruling that basically Affirmed that the Program was Unconstitutional.

        WTF?

        Not really break since the ruling is only binding on actions performed within the jurisdiction of that court's circuit, so legally the FISA court doesn't have to follow it, but each court tries to follow rulings by other courts unless they disagree with it. Obama is trying to convince them to disagree with it.

      • it's change you can believe in!

        Get ready for version 2.0 when Hillary gets elected.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Mashiki ( 184564 )

          The chance of Hillary getting elected is about as good as me becoming a US citizen in the next 8 seconds.

          • I would say it is considerably more likely. The stupidity of the American voter continues to astound me. I'd be willing to put money on it. Maybe not too much, but perhaps enough for a 4-pack of St. Bernardus, for instance.

      • Court Rulings are symbolic unless they're also accompanied by orders. Which means they're almost all accompanied by a specific set of orders at the very end. Except this decision, which seems mostly intended to influence Congressional debate on the issue and put Obama on notice that if Congress failed to act he'd have a Second Circuit Order to deal with. Which, given that the Second Circuit rulings apply only within three states, would have brought up some interesting arguments about whether the decision ap

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by daviskw ( 32827 )

      How does this particular eloquent insulting flame bait get Scored all the way up to Insightful? What a dipshit.

  • Typical (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I know Obama is quite used to ignoring the law, but that's not how things work. Fuck off.

  • How can these judge assholes accept this? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    How can a judge accept the president asking him to ignore the law?
    Why isn't this guy in prison yet?

    • How can a judge accept the president asking him to ignore the law?

      Because it is not "the law". A second circuit decision is only binding on the second circuit. Judges in other districts may take notice of such a decision, but they are not bound by it. If the Supreme Court had reviewed the decision and either ruled on it or declined to review it, then it would be binding on the whole country.

  • that's a nice 2nd Circuit you got there.... (Score:3)

    by turkeydance ( 1266624 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2015 @05:27PM (#49879617)
    it would be a shame if something....

  • Just because a lawyer asks you to do something (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2015 @05:39PM (#49879677) Homepage Journal

    Doesn't mean it's right.

    Or legal.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jopsen ( 885607 )

      Doesn't mean it's right.

      Or legal.

      I know the US is an adversarial system (crazy), but when your own govt plays tricks it's not super cool...

    • Well, in this case, I think that it's 1) wrong but 2) legal. 2nd Circuit decisions are not, in fact, binding on the FISA court.

      Even so...I don't think the 2nd Circuit decision really binds anything, anyway. They didn't decide if bulk collection itself was illegal or unconstitutional. Only that section 215 of the Patriot Act didn't authorize it. Section 215 of the Patriot Act doesn't authorize NSA agents to eat bagels, either, but that doesn't mean it's illegal for NSA agents to eat bagels. Even if the NSA a

  • Technically, they are correct. (Score:5, Informative)

    by BitterOak ( 537666 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2015 @05:41PM (#49879681)

    The FISA Court is not under the jurisdiction of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal. In the Federal Court system, the Supreme Court is at the top. Immediately below the Supreme Court are the Courts of Appeal for the different circuits which cover different geographical regions of the country. Also sitting directly below the Supreme Court are the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal which handles specialized cases like patent cases, and the FISA court, which handles cases whose national security implications require secrecy. Below the various Circuit Courts of Appeal are the district courts, which are the lowest courts in the federal system.

    So, the FISA court, sort of sits beside the 2nd Circuit court, not below or above it. Only the Supreme Court can direct how the FISA court must interpret the law. That's not to say that the FISA court can't be guided by opinions in other circuits. Courts of appeal frequently look to opinions in other Circuit courts of Appeal for guidance on cases involving issues they haven't decided before, but they are not bound to follow opinions in other Circuits.

    • Re:Technically, they are correct. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Joe Gillian ( 3683399 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2015 @05:58PM (#49879749)

      This is true, but there would still be a huge contradiction in the law if the FISA courts ignore the Second Circuit. You'd have the FISA courts saying "Bulk surveillance is authorized under the USA Freedom Act for six months in the entire United States" versus the Second Circuit saying "Bulk surveillance is unconstitutional and any law authorizing it within the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit is void for that reason."

      My guess is, if the FISA courts ignore the Second Circuit there will be a Supreme Court case on this, as tends to happen when you have conflicting authority at the appeals court level.

      • Re:Technically, they are correct. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09, 2015 @06:31PM (#49879925)

        You are wrong on a number of counts.

        Circuit splits do occur and it's not a huge contradiction in the law. Every court in the country will have an opportunity to follow it or decide otherwise, if that issue pops up. The district courts in the 2nd circuit will have to follow 2nd Circuit law. Not a biggie, the Federal Circuit has done that time and again when they are given an opportunity to hear a copyright complaint like in the case of Google v. Oracle. They are happy to ignore other circuit law and create abominations in legal interpretation.

        If there is a split in legal reasoning the Supreme Court *may* take up the issue.(The US supreme court is the "laziest court" in the entire world, they choose what they want to rule on and even then, they can decide not to rule on it or rule on issues not presented and so on ...) Even if the FISA and Second Circuit decisions diverge, the SC may not take up the issue. Even if they did take up the issue it will be moot when they finally hear it, so they probably won't take it up, because it will become moot in six months.

        So, really the administration is arguing that FISA should ignore the second circuit as a circuit split will be moot before there is time to run up to the supreme court. However, what they don't count on is that mootness will not bar an action if there is a possibility that someone might use mootness to repeat an unlawful act. Now arguing that its an exception to mootness is difficult to pull off without diluting the strength of your appeal brief. So, for all intends and purposes the issue is moot if FISA agrees with the administration.

      • Dude, it's six months. By the time the Supremes get around to hearing it there won't be a case anymore because the program will have ended.

        Moreover there's no Court Order involved from the Second Circuit here. A ruling is analogous to the documentation a programmer writes explaining why his code is set up the way it is. The actual code would be analogous to an Order, and the Second Circuit decided not to write an Order because they figured Congress might do something, and if Congress failed to act they coul

        • Dude, it's six months. By the time the Supremes get around to hearing it there won't be a case anymore because the program will have ended.

          Democracy theater. All the hardware and software spying on us is going *nowhere*.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by swb ( 14022 )

            And here I thought there would be a fire sale on storage systems and racks of CPU because they were literally powering it off and getting rid of the equipment.

        • Dude, it's six months. By the time the Supremes get around to hearing it there won't be a case anymore because the program will have ended.

          Would you care to make book on that? "That" being defined as "the program will have ended", NOT "the Supremes get around to hearing it"....

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Zordak ( 123132 )

        This is true, but there would still be a huge contradiction in the law if the FISA courts ignore the Second Circuit. You'd have the FISA courts saying "Bulk surveillance is authorized under the USA Freedom Act for six months in the entire United States" versus the Second Circuit saying "Bulk surveillance is unconstitutional and any law authorizing it within the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit is void for that reason."

        My guess is, if the FISA courts ignore the Second Circuit there will be a Supreme Court case on this, as tends to happen when you have conflicting authority at the appeals court level.

        While I don't remotely agree with the NSA's bulk surveillance program, what you describe is called a "circuit split," and it happens all the time. In fact, it's one of the best indicators that the Supreme Court will take up a case.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I still don't understand how a secret court can ever work.
      How does a legal system work with only one actor? Is the Judge considered the opposing party? (seems blatantly conflicting)
      Any secret court basically amounts to legalized mafia. The USA is just a very, very big and very powerful mafia.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      ... the FISA court, sort of sits beside the 2nd Circuit court ...

      "Respect for, and adherence to the rule of law is the premise upon which the United States was founded, and it has been a cornerstone of my Presidency."
      - Barack H Obama, President of the USA, 2015-04-30

      So a secret court that denies a defendant representation, is sort-of the same as one that does. Those sort-of weasel words allow the US President to preach the law, then ignore it later, because that law doesn't really apply. It's like when he shutdown wire-tapping then expanded meta

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Livius ( 318358 )

        The US started with a rebellion.

        Which pretty much sums up his attitude about the rule of law.

      • "Respect for, and adherence to the rule of law is the premise upon which the United States was founded, and it has been a cornerstone of my Presidency."

              - Barack H Obama, President of the USA, 2015-04-30

        The Dear Leader is a great comedian too! All Hail The One!

    • Re:Technically, they are correct. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tokolosh ( 1256448 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2015 @06:28PM (#49879909)

      What you say may be technically correct, but it is impossible for the Supreme Court to consider the case. Because that would first require someone to have "standing" and the secret FISA system does not permit that. So our Kafkaesque so-called adversarial system has negated any possibility of reining in these star chambers and we no longer have rule of law and a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

      Our rulers are so far over to the dark side that reclaiming our freedoms will be more difficult that blowing up a death star.

      Note well, Republicans and Democrats are only slight variations on this odious evil.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Genuinely curious here, what place do secret courts operated by secret police and underground judges have in a free, democratic society? Why are the Schutzstaffel enforcing secret laws in the "Land of the Free" and who gave them the right to trump everyone else's rights?

      • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

        by NicBenjamin ( 2124018 )

        Genuinely curious here, what place do secret courts operated by secret police and underground judges have in a free, democratic society? Why are the Schutzstaffel enforcing secret laws in the "Land of the Free" and who gave them the right to trump everyone else's rights?

        Your analogy is flawed.

        The FISA Court does not convict anyone of crimes. Very little of what it does involves law enforcement. It it intended to ride herd on the Military's non-law enforcement data gathering so it can't do anything involving police.

        That means there are no defendants. It's a military operation. It's designed to be extremely unfair to the targets because the ultimate goal is to kill the targets with as little loss of American life as physically possible.

        Information can be turned over to the p

      • Genuinely curious here, what place do secret courts operated by secret police and underground judges have in a free, democratic society?

        Democracy theater. "Oh yeah, it's all above board, see, we've got a Judge signing off on it."

      • AFAIK, the sole purpose of FISA is to grant search warrants based on probable cause. This is normally not a public operation, since law enforcement officers normally don't want to advertise their search warrants, and so a normal court would operate secretly when granting such a warrant.

        FISA is not going to hear any criminal cases. They are pretty much incapable of making law (in the US, court decisions are precedents, and make case law), and apply existing laws that anybody can read. FISA judges are a

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Technically FISA is not a court. No adversarial process, secret laws and rulings, etc. It's a star chamber rubber stamp mess of a situation. however a court it is most certainly not.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Livius ( 318358 )

      Yes, but the Executive telling the Judiciary what the law is is completely backwards in the first place.

  • Next time the courts decide against me I can just go and ask them to ignore their ruling. Heh. Who'd have thought it's that easy, I didn't even get the idea!

    • You can ask the court to ignore a precedent, particularly if it isn't from a court superior to the one you're in. You might not get the court to do so.

  • Flashbacks (Score:2, Informative)

    by Chris Katko ( 2923353 )
    Remember when Dick Cheney declared himself to be his own branch of government so he wasn't subject to law?

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2015 @06:47PM (#49880013)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Wyzard ( 110714 )

      In a court of law, issues are argued by two sides before a neutral magistrate.

      I've seen this same point made in a few other places too. Maybe I'm missing something, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I don't think it holds water.

      In a trial, the case is argued by two sides. But other things happen in courts besides trials — such as warrant requests. Those don't use the adversarial process AFAIK.

      FISA aside: if the police suspect you have stolen property in your house and want to search your house

      • The thing that sets the FISA court apart from any other judge issuing warrants is that the evidence shows they act purely as a rubber stamp. Any court or judge who has never denied a warrant after having seen thousands of them is suspect. On top of that they've made their own secret interpretations of law that further show that their sole purpose is to rubber stamp the feds doing essentially whatever they want.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Wyzard ( 110714 )

          The thing that sets the FISA court apart from any other judge issuing warrants is that the evidence shows they act purely as a rubber stamp. Any court or judge who has never denied a warrant after having seen thousands of them is suspect.

          "Never denied a warrant" is hyperbole, but the court does have a very high acceptance rate. That's a little misleading, though: the Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] mentions that the 99% acceptance rate only reflects "final" submissions, and that many requests have been changed or dropped

          • Cops and DA's know what the rules are for getting a warrant also. And guess what, they still don't get anywhere near that kind of approval success. I might be willing to accept that the NSA has smarter than the average bears working for it, but enough to account for a better than 99% success rate? I doubt it.

  • The perplexing thing about all of this "Obama == Hitler" spin is that (1) his main field before he got into politics was constitutional law (he taught it at the U. of Chicago), and (2) he's only got about 18 months left on his term of office. Does it make sense that he would push for greater domestic spying powers for the waning months of his own administration, when those same powers will accrue to whomever succeeds him for their full 4 or 8 years? Could there be something else going on?

    • That would only be perplexing were he to come from a conservative / constructionist background. The progressive perspective is that the constitution is a living document and subject to whatever interpretation a given generation chooses apply to it.

  • Their legal argument is that the Circuit Court's rulings are only binding for lower courts â" the FISA court is secretive and separated from the normal legal process, so it doesn't necessarily fit in the normal court hierarchy.

    If it's not part of the judiciary, it's not really part of the government then, right?

  • Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me ... you can't get fooled again!

    YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

  • "No more warrantless wiretaps if you element me." -Barrack Obama, 2008
    "Fuck off, I'm president and I do what I want!" -Barrack Obama, 2015

    • Wiretaps based on FISA-issued search warrants are not warrantless. Nor is a request to ignore a ruling from a court the FISA court is not subordinate to out of line, although I disagree with this particular request.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close