FISA judges still don’t get it

This came out a few days ago. As you know, more and more people as well as members of congress are starting to take a long and overdue look at just how the FISA court has been operating for the last few years.

Thanks to the Snowden revelations, people are understanding that the FISA judges, rather then look at all these requests from various government agencies with a jaundiced eye, have instead been nothing more then a rubber stamp for whatever actions agencies such as the NSA wanted. You would think that the judges on the FISA court would have noticed that the people are getting rather upset with the Government basically pillaging their data and records. Nope. These judicial idiots are doubling down on their stupidity and arrogance. Here are the details from the LA Times:

Judges on the federal government’s secret surveillance court have strongly rejected any proposed changes to their review process, putting unexpected pressure on the White House on Tuesday as President Obama prepares a speech aimed at bolstering public confidence in how the government collects intelligence.

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 aimed at increasing transparency and judicial oversight, including at least one that Obama has tentatively endorsed.

To quote The Captain ((What we’ve got here is (a) failure to communicate)), “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.” These judges have not only misread the public attitude towards what’s been going on, they have completely failed in their duty to the Constitution of the United States, specifically the 4^th Amendment ((Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution)). Allow me to refresh your memory on this fine amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And here is the crux of the matter. If an average person reads this, they would understandably think that the information on their phone as well as on the phone company’s systems is considered private and that if the government had a reason for want it, they would ask for a search warrant and show cause as to why it should be granted. The problem is judges and lawyers hate the 4^th Amendment and the need to show cause. They would rather just sweep up everything and have it available if they want to rummage through it. The FISA Court judges have just announced that they don’t want to listen to the people.

The surveillance court judges have not previously gone public so it is difficult to gauge how much weight their opposition carries. But 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.

Most surprisingly, Bates said the judges opposed adding an independent advocate for privacy and civil liberties to the court’s classified hearings, saying the proposal was “unnecessary — and could prove counterproductive.”

Of course it would prove counterproductive. They might actually have to consider the constitutionality of what they are doing, rather then just ignore the Constitution as they have pretty much been doing for who knows how long. Judge Bates also states that all the judges on the bench are opposed to any and all changes in how the FISA court works.

Bates said he had consulted with current and former judges on the secret court and one above it that reviews its decisions, and thus speaks for them. His three-page letter was accompanied by 15 pages of judicial comments and legal footnotes.

The judges were uniformly against making the secret judicial review more transparent, a practice that Obama has espoused. “Releasing freestanding summaries of court opinions is likely to promote confusion and misunderstanding,” Bates wrote.

Misunderstanding? Oh I love this! What this walking puke is saying is that the average citizen is to stupid to understand how judges think and that they should just shut up and fork over everything agencies like the NSA and DOIJ want, no questions asked. (They certainly won’t be answered)

His letter said the judges also opposed broadening the selection process of FISA court judges, who now are chosen only by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Obama has not signaled whether he is considering changing that system to add diversity to the FISA court.

John Roberts, the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has demonstrated his unfitness for the bench with his ruling on Obamacare. He is the last person I want to have sole jurisdiction over who will be sitting on this Star Chamber ((The Star Chamber)) style court. Frankly, I think the whole idea of the FISA court is unconstitutional and that it should be abolished. At the very least, judges being selected to sit on the court should be reviewed by the Senate, just like any other applicant for a federal judgeship.

Not unexpectedly, the judges announced their reluctance to drastically expand their caseload by being required to review and approve so-called national security letters. The FBI currently uses the letters and needs no warrant to issue administrative subpoenas to gain access to customer records from telephone, credit card and other companies more than 20,000 times a year.

As far as I’m concerned, the “National Security letters ((National security letter))” are so blatantly unconstitutional, that if FBI agents try to use them, they should be flat out fired along with anyone who approved it. I also think that agents coming in waiving these things should be run off the premises, by force of arms if necessary. If you get one of these letters, you are basically stripped of any and all constitutional rights to seek redress and can and will be thrown in prison. Eventually, some idiot FBI agent is going to throw one of these letters in someone’s face and end up with an ass full of buckshot. However, the NSL’s are a discussion for another day. Getting back to the black robed tyrants on the FISA court:

Even if they were given extra resources, requiring a judge’s approval for each subpoena “would fundamentally transform the nature of the [court] to the detriment of its current responsibilities,” Bates wrote.

Yeah, it would start becoming constitutional. In fact, pretty much any court could handle the work and probably in a more responsible manner then you tyrannical jackals. I guess you would all have to go back to working on the federal version of traffic court.

The most sweeping recommendation by the presidential task force would force the NSA to stop collecting and archiving Americans’ telephone toll records, and shift responsibility for the vast database back to the telephone companies or a private entity.

Which they don’t want to do.

But telecommunications officials and some members of Congress are sharply opposed to ordering private companies to hold records of billions of American telephone calls for government use because of potential legal liability and the cost.

Here is the question not to many people seem to be asking. Why the hell is the NSA collecting all this information on AMERICAN CITIZENS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES??? Shouldn’t they be concentrating their efforts on, you know, foreign governments and people? The ones who want to actually destroy us? Congress is holding hearings on this, not that I expect much to come from it.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, some lawmakers worried whether the records would be secure in private hands.

Among those who testified was Cass Sunstein, a former Obama advisor who served on the task force. Asked about Bates’ opposition to naming a privacy advocate, Sunstein told the committee: “We respectfully disagree with that one.… In our tradition, the judge doesn’t decide whether one [side] or another gets a lawyer.”

It isn’t just tradition, its the law. Under our constitution, everyone gets a lawyer of they want one. With the FISA courts, you might not even be notified that you were getting your information handed over to the government. It would be nice if the United States Government actually tried following the constitution for once.

Privacy activists don’t expect Obama to announce major reforms in his speech Friday, said Fred Cate, a law professor at Indiana University.

“I don’t think anyone is expecting this to be good news,” he said. Given that Snowden’s leaks to the media have caused an uproar overseas, “I don’t see that this is likely to get him out of hot water with Europe or with the privacy community.”

Frankly, I don’t give a rats behind what the Europeans and others might think. For them to say they are shocked, SHOCKED that the United States is spying on them is disingenuous at best.

[youtuber youtube=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME’]

Everyone knows that we spy on other countries and they spy on us. It’s expected. What is angering people here is our government spying on Americans and courts that are just rubber stamps for whatever the government wants. If anyone thinks Obama is going to actually do anything about this, or that the Congress is going to reign in the intelligence agencies, think again. It looks to me that our only hope of fixing things that doesn’t involve guns and mass causalities is Mark Levin’s ideas in the The Liberty Amendments. It may be time for a Constitutional Convention to strip away the powers usurped by the Federal Courts and government.

Thatisall

~The Angry Webmaster~
(1 votes, average: 1.00 out of 5)

Loading...