If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deseret News)   US taxpayers could save a bundle by replacing the FISA court judges with bobble head dolls   (deseretnews.com) divider line 19
    More: Followup, FISA, FISA court, NSA, FISA Amendments Act, warrantless wiretapping, Andrew McCullough, unique identifiers, Dianne Feinstein  
•       •       •

918 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jun 2013 at 12:25 PM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



19 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-07 12:33:41 PM
I'm pretty sure you can find one in Megaton.
 
2013-06-07 12:38:52 PM
This could be apt to the discussion of any warrant.

The state protects itself.  If the policy want in your house they know a judge who will sign off on it.
 
2013-06-07 12:46:03 PM
stream1.gifsoup.com
 
2013-06-07 12:58:32 PM
What I don't get is how one is supposed to determine whether the court is approving any old thing that the NSA puts in front of them, or whether the NSA is only putting requests in front of the FISA court that they are sure will be approved.

The first one would be disturbing, but I would have no issues with the second, and it's impossible to tell which is the truth from this article and others like it.
 
2013-06-07 01:09:38 PM

Nobodyn0se: What I don't get is how one is supposed to determine whether the court is approving any old thing that the NSA puts in front of them, or whether the NSA is only putting requests in front of the FISA court that they are sure will be approved.

The first one would be disturbing, but I would have no issues with the second, and it's impossible to tell which is the truth from this article and others like it.


Since the last guy wouldn't go to them to get a warrant for Qwests records, I'm guessing it's not necessarily a slam dunk.

Or they were just lazy?
 
2013-06-07 01:11:37 PM
The point with these oversights is that some has to sign something and be accountable.  You would have to be a complete fool to take that lightly.

It also shows why it was so troubling when the Bush admin decided to break the law and bypass the oversight from the court.
 
2013-06-07 01:23:03 PM
I have a feeling the secret court that okays everything is just an empty room with a table and some plastic chairs.
 
2013-06-07 01:23:31 PM
Yes, I get all of my information on huge data-collection projects from something called "Deseret News."  Those people are certainly not interested in keeping vast records on everyone.
 
2013-06-07 01:23:58 PM

Nobodyn0se: or whether the NSA is only putting requests in front of the FISA court that they are sure will be approved.


Ding!
 
2013-06-07 01:32:47 PM

Nobodyn0se: What I don't get is how one is supposed to determine whether the court is approving any old thing that the NSA puts in front of them, or whether the NSA is only putting requests in front of the FISA court that they are sure will be approved.


More likely than not, it's the latter, since that's how EVERY kind of warrant works. The judge's role in the warrant process isn't to DECIDE anything, it's to CHECK to make sure the police have fulfilled all the requirements for approval.
 
2013-06-07 01:48:04 PM
so the game has been rigged

who knew
 
2013-06-07 02:03:51 PM

Aldon: The point with these oversights is that some has to sign something and be accountable.  You would have to be a complete fool to take that lightly.

It also shows why it was so troubling when the Bush admin decided to break the law and bypass the oversight from the court.


this assumes they will be held accountable for anything at all, and that accountability has some teeth behind it. If it is a slap on the wrist then they will approve anything, if there is potential jail time then they will pay attention to what it is they are approving.

I believe they are not being held accountable, or that the accountability has no meaning.
 
2013-06-07 02:10:33 PM
No one assumed the most likely scenario... the NSA is very good at gathering evidence before they  go before the FISA court and the present only compelling cases to the judge.
 
2013-06-07 03:03:52 PM
s11.postimg.org
 
2013-06-07 03:28:59 PM
Remember, judges approved thousands of illegal foreclosures (granted, it would be hard to know if something was robo-signed), Including at least one on a house that didn't have a mortgage.
 
2013-06-07 03:31:15 PM
But the whole point of the National Security Letters powers under the PATRIOT Act was that going before the FISA court was too much of a burden for law enforcement.
 
2013-06-07 04:53:48 PM

RTFA: [s11.postimg.org image 497x649]


Doesn't seem to match your username.
 
2013-06-07 09:17:37 PM
"I think people want the homeland kept safe to the extent we can," Feinstein said at a Capitol Hill news conference.

Odd, that the Oath of Office for everyone from the President down to the grunts in the military is to defend and protect the Constitution.

You keep on shredding the forth amendment though.
 
2013-06-08 01:42:30 AM
A warrant is supposed to be complete and accurate before it ever gets to the judge. The NSA (or FBI, or local cops, for that matter) should not be handing a judge a warrant full of holes and getting a signature so they can fill in the blanks afterward. If the "secret court" that we all somehow know about is signing off on all the NSA's warrants, it means that EITHER they are rubber-stamping warrants, OR that the warrants are so thorough that there is no reason to reject them.

Obviously Fark has determined that it is always the former, rather than the latter, so who am I to suggest that the NSA and the court could possibly be doing their jobs.
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report