NSA surveillance "lawful"

[kallend 2,180]

www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/us/nsa-phone-surveillance-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules.html?_r=0

WBEZ (Chicago public radio) had a segment yesterday with a member of the Commission appointed by the Prez to look into the issue.

He said the Commission had also concluded that NSA broke no laws, because their actions were authorized by the 2006 FISA "Section 215" passed by Congress and signed by GWB.

Apparently one of the Commission's recommendations is going to be that Congress re-visits Section 215.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

In other news, The Commitee of Foxes set up an independent commission to study whether foxes really do unfairly discriminate against henhouses. To assure an absence of bias in favor of foxes, only wolves and coyotes will serve on the Commission.

[quade 4]

This back and forth nonsense between Federal District judges is BS. This needs to go to the Supreme Court.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Boogers 0]

quade

This back and forth nonsense between Federal District judges is BS. This needs to go to the Supreme Court.

Well, you kind of need at least two federal district judicial findings to disagree with each other, in order to set up standing for the SCOTUS. Absent that, there's no reason for SCOTUS to hear the issue.

[Andy9o8 3]

Boogers

***This back and forth nonsense between Federal District judges is BS. This needs to go to the Supreme Court.

Well, you kind of need at least two federal district judicial findings to disagree with each other, in order to set up standing for the SCOTUS. Absent that, there's no reason for SCOTUS to hear the issue.

That's now essentially the case - 2 basically-competing federal trial-court rulings.
In any event, federal trial court rulings are generally appealed first to the regional Circuit Court of Appeals. So now we get to see how 2 different Circuit Courts of Appeals deal with this.

[kelpdiver 2]

Andy9o8

That's now essentially the case - 2 basically-competing federal trial-court rulings.
In any event, federal trial court rulings are generally appealed first to the regional Circuit Court of Appeals. So now we get to see how 2 different Circuit Courts of Appeals deal with this.

meanwhile, Congress could just legalize it.

The short summary I read suggested the judge ruled it was legal because it might have stopped 9/11. I hope there was an actual legally based argument, and not just 'violating rights gets results.' We already knew that.

[kallend 2,180]

Andy9o8

Quote

In other news, The Commitee of Foxes set up an independent commission to study whether foxes really do unfairly discriminate against henhouses. To assure an absence of bias in favor of foxes, only wolves and coyotes will serve on the Commission.

Good point. And in that vein:

The court's judges are appointed solely by the Supreme Court Chief Justice without confirmation or oversight by the U.S. Congress. This gives the chief justice the ability to appoint like-minded judges and create a court without diversity. "The judges are hand-picked by someone who, through his votes on the Supreme Court, we have come to learn has a particular view on civil liberties and law enforcement", Theodore Ruger, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, said with respect to Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts. "The way the FISA is set up, it gives him unchecked authority to put judges on the court who feel the same way he does."And Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University's Washington College of Law, added, "Since FISA was enacted in 1978, we've had three chief justices, and they have all been conservative Republicans, so I think one can worry that there is insufficient diversity"

All but one of the current 11 FISA judges were appointed to the federal bench by GOP presidents.

This GOP dominated court approves 99.97% of requests for surveillance.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

This GOP dominated court approves 99.97% of requests for surveillance.

The Clinton and Obama administration have clearly shown that foxes, wolves and coyotes are bipartisan species.

[shropshire 0]

do they 'seriously' think that it would have stopped 11/9? ...

How much of your money are they spending on building and running the new 'data warehouse site' ?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 2,180]

kelpdiver

***
This GOP dominated court approves 99.97% of requests for surveillance.

The Clinton and Obama administration have clearly shown that foxes, wolves and coyotes are bipartisan species.

All but one of the current 11 FISA judges were appointed to the federal bench by GOP presidents and named to FISA court by GOP appointed chief justices. Neither Obama nor Clinton made any FISA appointments.

"Since FISA was enacted in 1978, we've had three chief justices, and they have all been conservative Republicans".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

meanwhile, Congress could just legalize it.

Well, Congress could try, but that would implicate the Constitution, which technically trumps Congress's power to legislate. So it would still be fought over in the courts and decided by judges. The saving constant, of course, is plenty of work for the sharks.

[rushmc 23]

Well, this system was desiged by sharks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

***
The Clinton and Obama administration have clearly shown that foxes, wolves and coyotes are bipartisan species.

All but one of the current 11 FISA judges were appointed to the federal bench by GOP presidents and named to FISA court by GOP appointed chief justices. Neither Obama nor Clinton made any FISA appointments.

"Since FISA was enacted in 1978, we've had three chief justices, and they have all been conservative Republicans".

the clear implication here is that if some of them were appointed by Clinton or Obama, that there would actually be a difference. The actions by Clinton/Reno/Feinstein/Obama/Holder show fairly consistent attitudes towards our rights about privacy and surveillance. Before 9/11 happened, we had Carnivore. I think back to the pressure put on Phil Zimmerman for PGP as well. My friends that worked on secure web servers needed an offshore entity because even SSL was considered "arms" that could not be exported. And of course since Obama took over the White House, we've seen no reversal of the changes that came during the war of terrorism.

[lawrocket 3]

Judge Pauley is a Clinton appointee.

Judge Leon (who ruled against the FISA programs) is a Bush appointee.

The Obama admin applauds Pauley's ruling and decries Leon's ruling. ACLU supports the GOP appointee's ruling while despising that of the Clinton nominee.

Such strangeness. And note: I'm not really sure of FISA procedure. I do know, however, that it's been a one-sided thing. Since the courts operate in secrecy by design it's tough to tell what's happening. But since it's in secrecy I think it's safe to assume shit's going on that isn't good.

And to those wondering why a FISA judge hasn't made a ruling on the constitutionality of FISA - who the hell is going to ask FISA to do that? There's only one side. It's not an adversarial proceeding.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,180]

Apparently another one of the Commission's recommendations is likely to be that appointments to FISA court be approved by the SCOTUS as a whole, not just an appointment by the chief justice with no oversight whatsoever.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Recommendations regarding appointments to a kangaroo court don't make sense to me. It stays a kangaroo court, with the judges there simply to ensure compliance with procedure before granting an order.

It doesn't make a bit of difference who presides over it. If their job is to ensure compliance with section 215 then that's what they do. Listen to one side. Make the order if all the boxes are checked.

Oversight has to be accomplished by openness. There's oversight of the NSA by popular opinion because people now know what is going on thanks to Snowden.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,180]

lawrocket

Judge Pauley is a Clinton appointee.

Judge Leon (who ruled against the FISA programs) is a Bush appointee.

Neither of them are judges on the FISA court.

10 of 11 of the FISA judges are conservative Republicans and all 11 of them were appointed by conservative Republicans. There is no diversity of opinion on that court.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,180]

lawrocket

Recommendations regarding appointments to a kangaroo court don't make sense to me. It stays a kangaroo court, with the judges there simply to ensure compliance with procedure before granting an order.

It certainly is a kangaroo court. Only one side gets to make its case, and 99.97% of the requests made to FISA court are approved.

What do you think of this analysis?

www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/is-the-nsas-spying-constitutional-it-depends-which-judge-you-ask/282672/?google_editors_picks=true

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

WeI think thatof course it depends on which judge. Depends on whom you ask. Even the courts figured it out. Appeals courts have an odd number of justices, whi can participate in a majority, plurality, concurrence or dissent.

It's the realization that reasonable minds can differ. That is to say, there is nuance to those opinions which ar in general dissent with mine are reasonable. Those who reach contray conclusions from me, for examplen are unreasonable.

[kallend 2,180]

lawrocket

WeI think thatof course it depends on which judge. Depends on whom you ask. Even the courts figured it out. Appeals courts have an odd number of justices, whi can participate in a majority, plurality, concurrence or dissent.

It's the realization that reasonable minds can differ. That is to say, there is nuance to those opinions which ar in general dissent with mine are reasonable. Those who reach contray conclusions from me, for examplen are unreasonable.

A bit early to start drinking, isn't it? Or has rushmc hacked your account?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Stumpy 284]

kallend

***WeI think thatof course it depends on which judge. Depends on whom you ask. Even the courts figured it out. Appeals courts have an odd number of justices, whi can participate in a majority, plurality, concurrence or dissent.

It's the realization that reasonable minds can differ. That is to say, there is nuance to those opinions which ar in general dissent with mine are reasonable. Those who reach contray conclusions from me, for examplen are unreasonable.

A bit early to start drinking, isn't it? Or has rushmc hacked your account?

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[shropshire 0]

Where have all the "if you've done nothing wrong ..... " wankers gone?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 2,180]

shropshire

Where have all the "if you've done nothing wrong ..... " wankers gone?

They discovered it was their ox that was being gored.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[base698 20]

Quote

Where have all the "if you've done nothing wrong ..... " wankers gone?

They're being detained and question because they were unknowingly friends with radicals.

[Gravitymaster 0]

shropshire

Where have all the "if you've done nothing wrong ..... " wankers gone?

Probably right over there next to the wankers who screamed outrage when Bush did it after 911, but remain strangely silent as Obama takes it to the extreme.