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.

Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#22 Jun 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>please cite the cases where they did that.
how would you know about them?
Those are the ones I was talking about.

Those are the ones they aren't disclosing that they could.

Good lord, you got real close and then you must have got distracted by some shiny.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#23 Jun 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what is it you are attempting to do with all this cut and pasting of things you don't seem to understand?
Then why would I post it?

It simply clarifies the distinction between a criminal investigation and a national security investigation and how the court is to distinguish the two, as well as the procedure for issuing the warrant.

You could be a teabagger.

You got the "smarts" of one.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#24 Jun 24, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are the ones I was talking about.
Those are the ones they aren't disclosing that they could.
Good lord, you got real close and then you must have got distracted by some shiny.
which ones? you know about the cases brought to the FISA court and what they entailed? how?

you are not making any sense.

again, which cases were brought to the FISA court that did not involve classified material? please cite them specifically.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#25 Jun 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>which ones? you know about the cases brought to the FISA court and what they entailed? how?
you are not making any sense.
again, which cases were brought to the FISA court that did not involve classified material? please cite them specifically.
I can't.

That's what I was referring to.

The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called Prism, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.

The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers.

The NSA access was enabled by changes to US surveillance law introduced under President Bush and renewed under Obama in December 2012.

Collectively, the companies cover the vast majority of online email, search, video and communications networks.

All of these cannot be connected to national "security".

Otherwise this comment could be "classified".
Storm Warning

Denmark, WI

#26 Jun 24, 2013
a judge is supposed to have a reasonable suspicion, when signing a warrent , there is no way you can have a reasonable suspicion that every verizon user might be a member of al quaida. A judge who signs such and order and a leader like bush chertoff Obama and pelosi who goes along with it is an enemy of the american constitution. please dont reduce this issue to this imbecilic dem rep finge rpointg horse crap
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#27 Jun 25, 2013
Storm Warning wrote:
a judge is supposed to have a reasonable suspicion, when signing a warrent , there is no way you can have a reasonable suspicion that every verizon user might be a member of al quaida. A judge who signs such and order and a leader like bush chertoff Obama and pelosi who goes along with it is an enemy of the american constitution. please dont reduce this issue to this imbecilic dem rep finge rpointg horse crap
Reasonable suspicion?

They may as well not even have the stupid court.

The secret government court put in place under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to review government efforts to spy on foreign nationals and American citizens without a warrant approved the vast majority of the government’s requests, a report published in The New York Times on Friday found.

Of the more than 20,000 FISA applications presented to the court by the government since 2001 — when the Patriot Act greatly reduced the threshold at which the applications could be made — only 11 were rejected. Similarly, the court allowed the FBI to issue more than 140,000 National Security Letters since 2004.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#28 Jun 25, 2013
Storm Warning wrote:
a judge is supposed to have a reasonable suspicion, when signing a warrent , there is no way you can have a reasonable suspicion that every verizon user might be a member of al quaida. A judge who signs such and order and a leader like bush chertoff Obama and pelosi who goes along with it is an enemy of the american constitution. please dont reduce this issue to this imbecilic dem rep finge rpointg horse crap
Reduce this issue to this imbecilic dem rep finge rpointg horse crap".

Well, mostly republican horse crap.

Twelve of the 14 judges who have served this year on the most secret court in America are Republicans and half are former prosecutors.

Judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, drawn from regular trial courts across the country, also have issued orders in public cases that belie their conservative, law-enforcement roots, sometimes ruling against the government in terrorism-related cases.

Eleven in 12 years?

Selected by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, FISA judges serve for staggered seven-year terms. Although the court carries 11 judges at a time, 14 have served this year because of routine turnover.

Six of the 14 were originally appointed to the trial courts by George W. Bush; five by Ronald Reagan; two by Clinton and one by George H. W. Bush.

"There is no way you can have a reasonable suspicion that every verizon user might be a member of al quaida".

Correct.

From 2007 to 2012, FISA judges also approved 532 "business record" warrant applications, the category used in the order that directed Verizon to release metadata on all phone calls inside the United States. No business record warrants were rejected.

The records also show that FISA judges ordered "substantial modifications" to 497 surveillance and property warrants and 428 of the business record warrants.
serfs up

Ormond Beach, FL

#29 Jun 25, 2013
They be talking teknikal again. Wee doggee....Get gunn...get bullitt....put in gunn...aim at teknikal persin...squeez triger...and no more tecknikal persin. Ph ukn theeves!
Storm Warning

Denmark, WI

#30 Jun 25, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Reasonable suspicion?
They may as well not even have the stupid court.
The secret government court put in place under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to review government efforts to spy on foreign nationals and American citizens without a warrant approved the vast majority of the government’s requests, a report published in The New York Times on Friday found.
Of the more than 20,000 FISA applications presented to the court by the government since 2001 — when the Patriot Act greatly reduced the threshold at which the applications could be made — only 11 were rejected. Similarly, the court allowed the FBI to issue more than 140,000 National Security Letters since 2004.
of course your right,

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#31 Jun 25, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't.
That's what I was referring to.
The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.
The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called Prism, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.
The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers.
The NSA access was enabled by changes to US surveillance law introduced under President Bush and renewed under Obama in December 2012.
Collectively, the companies cover the vast majority of online email, search, video and communications networks.
All of these cannot be connected to national "security".
Otherwise this comment could be "classified".
but you said the cases brought to the FISA court that didn't deal with classified info should be made public...

so you didn't really know what you were talking about then?

glad it took so many posts for you to admit your statement was just pulled out of your ass... sheesh1

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#32 Jun 25, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Reasonable suspicion?
They may as well not even have the stupid court.
The secret government court put in place under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to review government efforts to spy on foreign nationals and American citizens without a warrant approved the vast majority of the government’s requests, a report published in The New York Times on Friday found.
Of the more than 20,000 FISA applications presented to the court by the government since 2001 — when the Patriot Act greatly reduced the threshold at which the applications could be made — only 11 were rejected. Similarly, the court allowed the FBI to issue more than 140,000 National Security Letters since 2004.
ummm...it IS the FISA court that gives them the warrant!

you really do not have the faintest clue as to what you are talking about on this issue, do you?

in fact, may of the requests were turned down until they were modified to what the court said would be constitutional

you should do more research than just picking the first site that says what you want when you google...
Lamer

Hopkins, MN

#33 Jun 26, 2013
Well the FISA court did just rule to make some of their judgements open to freedom of info request. Mainly the one where they ruled parts of the NSA spying were unconstitutional. Same ruling the DOD and justice dept are trying to keep hiden as they were ruled unconstitutional yet never stopped the illegal practices.

Im sure more is to come soon.

http://www.ibtimes.com/fisc-will-not-object-r...

Not to mention that clapper is stil lieing his ass off to congress.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#34 Jun 26, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>but you said the cases brought to the FISA court that didn't deal with classified info should be made public...
so you didn't really know what you were talking about then?
glad it took so many posts for you to admit your statement was just pulled out of your ass... sheesh1
Yes, I did.

Of the whopping 11 cases that they have turned down, since 2001 I would be interested in a benchmark as to which ones were ridiculous enough to turn down.

Gotta give credit for you tenacity.

Reasoning?

Pulled out of YOUR ASS.

Poor teabagger.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#35 Jun 26, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>ummm...it IS the FISA court that gives them the warrant!
you really do not have the faintest clue as to what you are talking about on this issue, do you?
in fact, may of the requests were turned down until they were modified to what the court said would be constitutional
you should do more research than just picking the first site that says what you want when you google...
"it IS the FISA court that gives them the warrant"!

Correct.

"in fact, may of the requests were turned down until they were modified to what the court said would be constitutional.

Correct.

Post 31

"But you said the cases brought to the FISA court that didn't deal with classified info should be made public".

Correct.

Post 11

"since the cases brought to the FISA court ALL deal with national security, how many would you expect to be open for public scrutiny"?

ALL cases deal with national "security"?

The evidence proves YOU wrong.

Poor teabagger.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#36 Jun 26, 2013
Lamer wrote:
Well the FISA court did just rule to make some of their judgements open to freedom of info request. Mainly the one where they ruled parts of the NSA spying were unconstitutional. Same ruling the DOD and justice dept are trying to keep hiden as they were ruled unconstitutional yet never stopped the illegal practices.
Im sure more is to come soon.
http://www.ibtimes.com/fisc-will-not-object-r...
Not to mention that clapper is stil lieing his ass off to congress.
Correct.
Storm Warning

Denmark, WI

#37 Jun 28, 2013
Whats this obsession with tea bagger Jive ? U a home oh or something ?
alan

Batchelor, LA

#38 Jun 28, 2013
we have no need for congress or anyone else to interpret the fisa laws for us?the know it all poster wall street government does it for us in his liberal way?fisa wasn't meant to spy on people within the usa!he can say bush did it and I don't care if hes right or wrong!i care about today and its Obama allowing this!since he uses tea bagger in his superior knowledge of all he is just another big mouthed liberal trying to seem important!eat more shit and wash it down with tea you ahole!!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#39 Jun 28, 2013
alan wrote:
we have no need for congress or anyone else to interpret the fisa laws for us?the know it all poster wall street government does it for us in his liberal way?fisa wasn't meant to spy on people within the usa!he can say bush did it and I don't care if hes right or wrong!i care about today and its Obama allowing this!since he uses tea bagger in his superior knowledge of all he is just another big mouthed liberal trying to seem important!eat more shit and wash it down with tea you ahole!!
so you don't care if Bush did it without any judicial oversight or constitutional backing, but just because it is Obama doing it now you are against it?

you are the problem with the US right now... ignorant hyperpartisan sheep like you...you are destroying your own nation.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#40 Jun 29, 2013
alan wrote:
we have no need for congress or anyone else to interpret the fisa laws for us?the know it all poster wall street government does it for us in his liberal way?fisa wasn't meant to spy on people within the usa!he can say bush did it and I don't care if hes right or wrong!i care about today and its Obama allowing this!since he uses tea bagger in his superior knowledge of all he is just another big mouthed liberal trying to seem important!eat more shit and wash it down with tea you ahole!!
Teabagger whining? AGAIN.

Why didn't teabaggers whine like this, a decade ago?

Those of us that were against the un"Patriot" Act from day one are the ones that are pissed.

Not the teabaggers that supported and defended it for over a decade.

196 Republicans voted for it.

53 democrats did also.

122 Democrats voted against it.

Just 31 republicans did.

So.. STOP your WHINING.

Hypocritical partisan teabaggers.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#41 Jun 29, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I did.
Of the whopping 11 cases that they have turned down, since 2001 I would be interested in a benchmark as to which ones were ridiculous enough to turn down.
Gotta give credit for you tenacity.
Reasoning?
Pulled out of YOUR ASS.
Poor teabagger.
but what you are still not grasping, which is truly unbeleivable , is that even though the FISA court rejected those requests, they still contain classified info (that is why they are brought to the FISA court and not a regular court..) so you will not be able to see them until they are declassified, if ever...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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 Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 min MAGA_ITN 17,407
News U.S. Democrats take aim at big companies in eco... 2 min Maria 22
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min John Galt 1,566,488
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 2 min Dr Z 315,297
News The Latest: Trump talks 'new immigration system... 4 min swampmudd 24
News President Trump's new message man Anthony Scara... 8 min old_moose 137
News Kushner denies collusion during four meetings w... 11 min caterwaul 55
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 17 min IND 280,076
News By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans prefer Obamacare ... 39 min IMpeach Now 487
More from around the web