Surveillance court gets rare scrutiny

Surveillance court gets rare scrutiny

There are 51 comments on the The Washington Post story from Jun 22, 2013, titled Surveillance court gets rare scrutiny. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

Wedged into a secure, windowless basement room deep below the Capitol Visitors Center, U.S. District Court Judge John Bates appeared before dozens of senators earlier this month for a highly unusual, top-secret briefing.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Storm Warning

De Forest, WI

#1 Jun 23, 2013
this court violates the us constitution
Storm Warning

De Forest, WI

#2 Jun 23, 2013
Obama is Unamerican
The Phony President

West Sayville, NY

#3 Jun 23, 2013
Storm Warning wrote:
Obama is Unamerican
Obama is Nonamerican

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

#5 Jun 23, 2013
Storm Warning wrote:
Obama is Unamerican
Obama is Anti-American
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6 Jun 24, 2013
Bush is a true American because he is the person who created the policy.

Teabaggers are true Americans because they loved and defended the policy for a decade.

Obama is the anti- American because he continued the policy.

Poor teabaggers.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7 Jun 24, 2013
Storm Warning wrote:
this court violates the us constitution
in what way? which particular part of the US constitution does it violate?
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#8 Jun 24, 2013
ALL of it.

Remember:

Supreme court deciding George Bush won the 2000 election?

CONSTITUTIONAL.

Supreme court deciding AHCA is lawful?

UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Poor teabaggers.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9 Jun 24, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
ALL of it.
Remember:
Supreme court deciding George Bush won the 2000 election?
CONSTITUTIONAL.
Supreme court deciding AHCA is lawful?
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Poor teabaggers.
was that in response to my post? the Supreme Court did not rule over the meta data gathering. the cases you cited were in front of the Supreme court, not the FISA court.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#10 Jun 24, 2013
Correct.

My apologies.

The FISA court determines whether the government’s intelligence-gathering tactics are legal under the surveillance act. It also evaluates the efforts to protect the privacy of U.S. citizens.

The court consists of a federal judge who hears government requests to conduct surveillance. Appeals are heard by a panel of judges called the FISA Court of Review.

Three years ago, U.S. officials launched a review of significant classified rulings by a federal intelligence court to see which could be redacted sufficiently for public release. To date, none have.

Correction noted.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#11 Jun 24, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
Correct.
My apologies.
The FISA court determines whether the government’s intelligence-gathering tactics are legal under the surveillance act. It also evaluates the efforts to protect the privacy of U.S. citizens.
The court consists of a federal judge who hears government requests to conduct surveillance. Appeals are heard by a panel of judges called the FISA Court of Review.
Three years ago, U.S. officials launched a review of significant classified rulings by a federal intelligence court to see which could be redacted sufficiently for public release. To date, none have.
Correction noted.
since the cases brought to the FISA court ALL deal with national security, how many would you expect to be open for public scrutiny?
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#12 Jun 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>since the cases brought to the FISA court ALL deal with national security, how many would you expect to be open for public scrutiny?
The ones that were turned down.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#13 Jun 24, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
The ones that were turned down.
why? they still deal with classified intelligence do you even know what the FISA court is? it would be best if you researched this fully then commented on it...
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#14 Jun 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>why? they still deal with classified intelligence do you even know what the FISA court is? it would be best if you researched this fully then commented on it...
Evidently you don't.

The records are classified until the government deems them so, not the court.

The United States did not appeal any of the Court's four denials. However, the 2003 FISA report provides additional information about two of the four FISA applications denied:

(1) In one case, the Court issued supplemental orders with respect to its denial, and the Government filed with the Court a motion for reconsideration of its rulings. The Court subsequently vacated its earlier orders and granted in part and denied in part the Government's motion for reconsideration. The Government has not appealed that ruling. In 2004, the Court approved a revised application regarding this target that incorporated modifications consistent with the Court's prior order with respect to the motion for reconsideration.

The United States withdrew two of its FISA applications before the Court ruled on them. The United States then resubmitted one of these applications, which was approved by the Court as a new application. In 2005, the Court made substantive modifications to the United States' proposed orders in 61 FISA applications.

In 2007 the Court denied 3 FISA applications and one FISA application in part. Two FISA applications filed in 2006 were not approved until 2007. During 2007 the Court made substantive modifications to proposed orders in 86 FISA applications.

Eight FISA applications were withdrawn by the government prior to a decision. One FISA application was denied in whole, one FISA application was denied in part. Modifications were made to 14 FISA applications prior to approval.

Yes.

Research?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#15 Jun 24, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidently you don't.
The records are classified until the government deems them so, not the court.
The United States did not appeal any of the Court's four denials. However, the 2003 FISA report provides additional information about two of the four FISA applications denied:
(1) In one case, the Court issued supplemental orders with respect to its denial, and the Government filed with the Court a motion for reconsideration of its rulings. The Court subsequently vacated its earlier orders and granted in part and denied in part the Government's motion for reconsideration. The Government has not appealed that ruling. In 2004, the Court approved a revised application regarding this target that incorporated modifications consistent with the Court's prior order with respect to the motion for reconsideration.
The United States withdrew two of its FISA applications before the Court ruled on them. The United States then resubmitted one of these applications, which was approved by the Court as a new application. In 2005, the Court made substantive modifications to the United States' proposed orders in 61 FISA applications.
In 2007 the Court denied 3 FISA applications and one FISA application in part. Two FISA applications filed in 2006 were not approved until 2007. During 2007 the Court made substantive modifications to proposed orders in 86 FISA applications.
Eight FISA applications were withdrawn by the government prior to a decision. One FISA application was denied in whole, one FISA application was denied in part. Modifications were made to 14 FISA applications prior to approval.
Yes.
Research?
no, not research, you gooogled some shit to try to back up your failed assertion.

even the turned down requests can't be made public because they deal with classified information. that is the entire point of the FISA court (the point you don't seem to be able to grasp...) it was set up to deal only with classified information requests. ones that cannot be brought to a public court or judges that do not have this level security clearance.

if you actually understood the issues you are attempting to comment about, you wouldn't look like such a fool.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#16 Jun 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no, not research, you gooogled some shit to try to back up your failed assertion.
even the turned down requests can't be made public because they deal with classified information. that is the entire point of the FISA court (the point you don't seem to be able to grasp...) it was set up to deal only with classified information requests. ones that cannot be brought to a public court or judges that do not have this level security clearance.
if you actually understood the issues you are attempting to comment about, you wouldn't look like such a fool.
Well then, YOU look it up.

The point you don't grasp is the FISA court only gives permission for a search or records request.

Microsoft, Facebook and Yahoo in recent days have won federal government permission to include requests from the court as part of the overall number of data requests they receive from federal, state and local officials. Google has rejected that approach as too imprecise to help users understand the scope of its cooperation with federal surveillance.

“Google’s users are concerned about the allegations. Google must respond to such claims with more than generalities,” it said.

In a statement also issued Tuesday, the company said,“Lumping national security requests together with criminal requests — as some companies have been permitted to do — would be a backward step for our users.”

The Justice Department did not immediately reply to a request for comment Tuesday night.

Surveillance court requests typically are known only to small numbers of a company’s employees. Discussing the requests openly, either within or beyond the walls of the company, can violate federal law.

Twitter, which has a reputation of taking a hard line against government data requests, endorsed Google’s position, with its legal counsel, Benjamin Lee, tweeting,“We agree with @Google: It’s important to be able to publish numbers of national security requests — including FISA disclosures — separately.”

Now if ALL of it were "classified" why would the companies want the request separated?

State and local request?

"if you actually understood the issues you are attempting to comment about, you wouldn't look like such a fool".

Yes, indeed.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#17 Jun 24, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then, YOU look it up.
The point you don't grasp is the FISA court only gives permission for a search or records request.
Microsoft, Facebook and Yahoo in recent days have won federal government permission to include requests from the court as part of the overall number of data requests they receive from federal, state and local officials. Google has rejected that approach as too imprecise to help users understand the scope of its cooperation with federal surveillance.
“Google’s users are concerned about the allegations. Google must respond to such claims with more than generalities,” it said.
In a statement also issued Tuesday, the company said,“Lumping national security requests together with criminal requests — as some companies have been permitted to do — would be a backward step for our users.”
The Justice Department did not immediately reply to a request for comment Tuesday night.
Surveillance court requests typically are known only to small numbers of a company’s employees. Discussing the requests openly, either within or beyond the walls of the company, can violate federal law.
Twitter, which has a reputation of taking a hard line against government data requests, endorsed Google’s position, with its legal counsel, Benjamin Lee, tweeting,“We agree with @Google: It’s important to be able to publish numbers of national security requests — including FISA disclosures — separately.”
Now if ALL of it were "classified" why would the companies want the request separated?
State and local request?
"if you actually understood the issues you are attempting to comment about, you wouldn't look like such a fool".
Yes, indeed.
you are just not grasping this concept. it is the reasons they have for asking FISA for the warrant or search that are classified. you know, intelligence gathered about possible terrorist activities and such?

how is this so hard for you to grasp?

it has absolutely nothing to do with the companies they request the info from.

sheesh!
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#18 Jun 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you are just not grasping this concept. it is the reasons they have for asking FISA for the warrant or search that are classified. you know, intelligence gathered about possible terrorist activities and such?
how is this so hard for you to grasp?
it has absolutely nothing to do with the companies they request the info from.
sheesh!
I know that.

In national security issues, they are but they are using FISA for matters other than that.

If you think they only use it for national "security" you're mistaken.

Those are the ones I was referring to.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#19 Jun 24, 2013
The significant purpose and coordination amendments together restore FISA to its original meaning and function. Especially given the context surrounding their enactment, the two amendments represent a sensible response to the situation Congress confronted in September 2001: A statute whose plain language rejects the dichotomy between foreign intelligence and law enforcement, but a FISC (and other courts) that had ignored that language and adopted the dichotomy.

Faced with that gap between FISA's original meaning and its judicial interpretation, Congress was not required to adopt one approach or the other - i.e., it was not required to choose between (1) abandoning its original intent in enacting FISA, or (2) proceeding as if the intervening cases were never decided. Instead, Congress wisely pursued both approaches to the problem, reaffirming the original intent of the statute but also dealing pragmatically with the reality that the courts had misinterpreted it.

By enacting both amendments Congress doubled the chances that its intent would be carried out. See 50 U.S.C. &#65533;&#65533; 1804(a)(7)(B), 1806(k).

Thus, the coordination amendment was designed to force the courts to abandon the false dichotomy between foreign intelligence and law enforcement. But even if that effort failed, and courts maintained the false dichotomy, the significant purpose amendment would still grant the government substantial relief by increasing the allowable amount of law enforcement purpose.

Moreover, enacting two amendments also provided insurance against any constitutional problems that courts might find with either amendment. In the face of a national crisis of the first order, and an extremely compressed legislative schedule, Congress chose an eminently reasonable approach.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#20 Jun 24, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that.
In national security issues, they are but they are using FISA for matters other than that.
If you think they only use it for national "security" you're mistaken.
Those are the ones I was referring to.
please cite the cases where they did that.

how would you know about them?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#21 Jun 24, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
The significant purpose and coordination amendments together restore FISA to its original meaning and function. Especially given the context surrounding their enactment, the two amendments represent a sensible response to the situation Congress confronted in September 2001: A statute whose plain language rejects the dichotomy between foreign intelligence and law enforcement, but a FISC (and other courts) that had ignored that language and adopted the dichotomy.
Faced with that gap between FISA's original meaning and its judicial interpretation, Congress was not required to adopt one approach or the other - i.e., it was not required to choose between (1) abandoning its original intent in enacting FISA, or (2) proceeding as if the intervening cases were never decided. Instead, Congress wisely pursued both approaches to the problem, reaffirming the original intent of the statute but also dealing pragmatically with the reality that the courts had misinterpreted it.
By enacting both amendments Congress doubled the chances that its intent would be carried out. See 50 U.S.C. &#65533;&#65533; 1804(a)(7)(B), 1806(k).
Thus, the coordination amendment was designed to force the courts to abandon the false dichotomy between foreign intelligence and law enforcement. But even if that effort failed, and courts maintained the false dichotomy, the significant purpose amendment would still grant the government substantial relief by increasing the allowable amount of law enforcement purpose.
Moreover, enacting two amendments also provided insurance against any constitutional problems that courts might find with either amendment. In the face of a national crisis of the first order, and an extremely compressed legislative schedule, Congress chose an eminently reasonable approach.
what is it you are attempting to do with all this cut and pasting of things you don't seem to understand?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 min Dr Guru 216,934
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 min EAGLE EYE1 388,320
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 min replaytime 199,441
News Justicea s gay marriage order halts licenses in... 26 min no 341
News Mitt Romney: My son emailed me yesterday tellin... 35 min Cordwainer Trout 2
News Supreme deadlock: Republicans must draft their ... 41 min wild child 1
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 42 min Limbertwig 228,785
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 1 hr Islam DevilWorship 3,537
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr USAsince1680 1,395,958
News Boston Globe's front page: AR-15, 'Make It Stop' 3 hr serfs up 501
More from around the web