General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI won't call them judges -- judges hear both sides of an argument
http://lifedeathandiguanas.blogspot.com/2013/07/trust-us.htmlJoin the club, but I can now tell you that he is the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. And he came out in a rare statement bristling at the idea that the court—which had 1856 petitions last year and approved all 1856 of them—is a rubber stamp. Here, with the impartiality for which this family of wordsmiths is famous, is what the guy said:
“The perception that the court is a rubberstamp is absolutely false. There is a rigorous review process of applications submitted by the Executive Branch, spearheaded initially by five judicial branch lawyers who are national security experts, and then by the judges to ensure that the court’s authorizations comport with what the applicable statutes authorize.”
Here’s the deal with the FISA courts—they only hear one side of the story. In every other court in the United States, the opposition gets a chance to come forward, state his defense, and have a judge or jury weigh in. But FISA listens to the government’s case, and then decides. So that means, that you and I never had a say in the question of whether Verizon turned over your call history to the government. Oh, and not just your call history but your Internet history and also your snail mail, which is photographed—every single last piece of it. All of which can be accessed by the government by petitioning the “rigorous” FISA court, so famously not a rubber stamp.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)When the police go to a judge to get a warrant, the individual for whom the warrant applies, has no opportunity to contest that warrant beforehand.
In other words, if the police go to a judge and get a warrant so they can tap your phone, you do not get to contest it beforehand.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)The leak of the Verizon warrant was alarming because it showed what we didn't know. These "warrants" are not based on probable cause. They are huge dragnet data mining operations that far exceed any reasonable probable cause analysis.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)is ever issued wher the judge hears "both sides of the story". His/her job is simply to determine if probable cause exists to issue a warrant in question - be it criminal court or FISA court .
Robb
(39,665 posts)IANAL but I believe grand juries do not allow targets to defend themselves before the jury.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)
gopiscrap
(23,763 posts)Judges don't hear both sides of an argument or case...they just pretend to. Judges are whores of the legal system..their job is to fuck you over to make more money and to suppress dissent
Igel
(35,337 posts)There's no guilt or innocence being attributed to the defendant, and no legal penalty.
Moreover, warrants and many grand juries--where the "defendant" is absent--are also secret.
However, we've been through all this a decade back. The # of applications has soared since it was last pitched into the public arena as a topic of conversation, but what was true a decade ago is probably true now. If not, then the government has hired really incompetent lawyers.
A decade ago it was pointed out that the FISA court didn't reject applications. In the previous so many years, only a small handful of applications for a warrant were rejected. And the answer, from the judges and the attorneys, was the same. The lawyers knew the process well enough to know that if they don't have the application complete, it'll be rejected. If the application isn't complete, They just don't submit it. There was discussion about the kinds of information needed (at the time) and how long it took to put together an application. And the judges said the same thing. "We know what the law says. There's no discussion about it most of the time. They know what info to look for, and if all the boxes are checked and blanks filled in properly, it's a slam-dunk.
The rules are still known by the judges and by the attorneys filing for warrants. They've been through the process thousands of times. They know what forms to use. They know what information the rules and the judges' interpretation of the rules require. They know what the questions asked in the last decade are and know which ones need to be answered--and how to answer them.
The number is large. It's likely that the rules could be tightened a bit without harm to national security. Not sure that's the judges' job.
