Now, we are getting to the heart of the problem. It isn't Snowden or the NSA program, it is the FISA court and it's secret proceedings.
The FISA Court under Robert's is a star chamber. The FISA Court CANNOT move beyond their assignment of the legislation without Congressional action. They are not allowed to be ACTIVISTS to suit their own idea of what their proceedings are all about.
The FISA Court is not suppose to set up it's own rules. There is precedent in surveillance and they were to follow that precedent and decide the necessity of the wiretaps requested. They aren't doing their job if they have to make up their own rules. That is what 'complex legal analysis' is. It is making up their own rules to suit their purpose. They do not have that authority. Who the hell told FISA they could operate outside the USA Constitution? They are not the Supreme Court or the Legislative Branch or the Executive Branch. They are conducting themselves without checks and balances.
DOJ and Congressional Oversight need to subpoena the proceedings of this court and evaluate their ILLEGAL activities. I don't care if their decisions were benign, they ARE NOT suppose to be making the rules that govern their decision making. Either the FISA court is constitutional or it is not, but, they cannot be their own autonomous body making up their own rules.
The ONLY venue to set up this judicial unit came from the legislature with SPECIFIC understandings. It is ONLY the legislature that can set the standard for this court.
by Charles Savage
July 25, 2013
The foreign operations of FISA is actually an act of war when there is no TREATY signed to carry out the program. Just because 'it can be done' doesn't mean it should be done. The FISA Amendment Act attempts to override Interpol, the State Department and other nation's sovereignty.
...The court’s power has also recently expanded in another way. In 2008, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act to allow the National Security Agency to keep conducting a form of the Bush administration’s program of surveillance without warrants on domestic soil so long as only foreigners abroad were targeted. It gave the court the power to create rules for the program, like how the government may use Americans’ communications after they are picked up....
It is also a burgeoning war all the time. Information garnered through these programs could easily be used to ram up war. What if Fort Hood was not mentored by a Cleric by a government officer of some kind? What's next then? War.
The FISA Court under Robert's is a star chamber. The FISA Court CANNOT move beyond their assignment of the legislation without Congressional action. They are not allowed to be ACTIVISTS to suit their own idea of what their proceedings are all about.
The FISA Court is not suppose to set up it's own rules. There is precedent in surveillance and they were to follow that precedent and decide the necessity of the wiretaps requested. They aren't doing their job if they have to make up their own rules. That is what 'complex legal analysis' is. It is making up their own rules to suit their purpose. They do not have that authority. Who the hell told FISA they could operate outside the USA Constitution? They are not the Supreme Court or the Legislative Branch or the Executive Branch. They are conducting themselves without checks and balances.
DOJ and Congressional Oversight need to subpoena the proceedings of this court and evaluate their ILLEGAL activities. I don't care if their decisions were benign, they ARE NOT suppose to be making the rules that govern their decision making. Either the FISA court is constitutional or it is not, but, they cannot be their own autonomous body making up their own rules.
The ONLY venue to set up this judicial unit came from the legislature with SPECIFIC understandings. It is ONLY the legislature that can set the standard for this court.
by Charles Savage
July 25, 2013
...In making assignments to the court, (click here) Chief Justice Roberts, more than his predecessors, has chosen judges with conservative and executive branch backgrounds that critics say make the court more likely to defer to government arguments that domestic spying programs are necessary....
...The court’s complexion has changed at a time when its role has been expanding beyond what Congress envisioned when it established the court as part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The idea then was that judges would review applications for wiretaps to make sure there was sufficient evidence that the F.B.I.’s target was a foreign terrorist or a spy.
But, increasingly in recent years, the court has produced lengthy rulings interpreting the meaning of surveillance laws and constitutional rights based on procedures devised not for complex legal analysis but for up-or-down approvals of secret wiretap applications. The rulings are classified and based on theories submitted by the Justice Department without the participation of any lawyers offering contrary arguments or appealing a ruling if the government wins....
Ten of the court’s 11 judges — all assigned by Chief Justice Roberts — were appointed to the bench by Republican presidents; six once worked for the federal government. Since the chief justice began making assignments in 2005, 86 percent of his choices have been Republican appointees, and 50 percent have been former executive branch officials....
...At a public meeting this month, Judge James Robertson, an appointee of President Bill Clinton who was assigned to the surveillance court in 2002 by Chief Justice Rehnquist and resigned from it in December 2005, offered an insider’s critique of how rapidly and recently the court’s role has changed. He said, for example, that during his time it was not engaged in developing a body of secret precedents interpreting what the law means....The foreign operations of FISA is actually an act of war when there is no TREATY signed to carry out the program. Just because 'it can be done' doesn't mean it should be done. The FISA Amendment Act attempts to override Interpol, the State Department and other nation's sovereignty.
...The court’s power has also recently expanded in another way. In 2008, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act to allow the National Security Agency to keep conducting a form of the Bush administration’s program of surveillance without warrants on domestic soil so long as only foreigners abroad were targeted. It gave the court the power to create rules for the program, like how the government may use Americans’ communications after they are picked up....
It is also a burgeoning war all the time. Information garnered through these programs could easily be used to ram up war. What if Fort Hood was not mentored by a Cleric by a government officer of some kind? What's next then? War.
...The first of the documents disclosed by Mr. Snowden was a top-secret order to a Verizon subsidiary requiring it to turn over three months of calling records for all its customers. It was signed by Judge Roger Vinson, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan who had previously achieved prominence in 2011 when he tried to strike down the entirety of President Obama’s health care law.
Chief Justice Roberts assigned Judge Vinson to the surveillance court in 2006, one of 12 Republican appointees, compared with 2 Democratic ones....
There is a very good chance the orders for these records are less about national security and more about politics. No one can blame Chief Justice Robert's for his appointee acting outside the parameters of the legislative purpose, but, the individual justices on FISA can be held responsible for abuse of power.
Please don't tell me there was no oversight provision when FISA was first developed!
Please don't tell me there was no oversight provision when FISA was first developed!
