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.

(The New York Times)   Proud that not one request from an intelligence agency has been denied, the 11 judges of the FISA Court bristled at criticism that they are a rubber stamp for the Feds, picking up their towels and disappearing back into the NSA health spa   (nytimes.com) divider line 219
    More: Obvious, FISA, FISA Court, NSA, counter-terrorism, Iran's nuclear program, nuclear proliferation, legal principles, Fourth Amendment  
•       •       •

1687 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jul 2013 at 11:29 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-07 09:20:19 AM
There are two reasons there could be 0 denials - good, well-supported requests, or heinous conspiratorial rubber-stamping.

Absent evidence, I bet I know what most Farkers choose to believe.
 
2013-07-07 09:20:47 AM
Every FISA judge is chosen by John Roberts and is not subject to any oversight, and Roberts will be doing this for the next few decades.

See? No issues at all!
 
2013-07-07 09:28:22 AM
What does this mean for Paula Deen and George Zimmerman? Someone tell me what to think!
 
2013-07-07 09:28:26 AM

LasersHurt: There are two reasons there could be 0 denials - good, well-supported requests, or heinous conspiratorial rubber-stamping.

Absent evidence, I bet I know what most Farkers choose to believe.


I'd go with the first reason.   If there is one group of people who've traditionally personified 'perfection', it's mid-level government functionaries...
 
2013-07-07 09:30:53 AM

PhiloeBedoe: LasersHurt: There are two reasons there could be 0 denials - good, well-supported requests, or heinous conspiratorial rubber-stamping.

Absent evidence, I bet I know what most Farkers choose to believe.

I'd go with the first reason.   If there is one group of people who've traditionally personified 'perfection', it's mid-level government functionaries...


And if there's one agency you can absolutely trust to be forthright and honest with us, it's the clandestine services.
 
2013-07-07 09:35:00 AM

DamnYankees: PhiloeBedoe: LasersHurt: There are two reasons there could be 0 denials - good, well-supported requests, or heinous conspiratorial rubber-stamping.

Absent evidence, I bet I know what most Farkers choose to believe.

I'd go with the first reason.   If there is one group of people who've traditionally personified 'perfection', it's mid-level government functionaries...

And if there's one agency you can absolutely trust to be forthright and honest with us, it's the clandestine services.


Neither of you are wrong, but I'm still the kind of guy who likes to have evidence, and claims proven. Even somewhat obvious ones.

/wonder if it's in that info that snow/wald hasn't released yet...
 
2013-07-07 09:49:26 AM

LasersHurt: DamnYankees: PhiloeBedoe: LasersHurt: There are two reasons there could be 0 denials - good, well-supported requests, or heinous conspiratorial rubber-stamping.

Absent evidence, I bet I know what most Farkers choose to believe.

I'd go with the first reason.   If there is one group of people who've traditionally personified 'perfection', it's mid-level government functionaries...

And if there's one agency you can absolutely trust to be forthright and honest with us, it's the clandestine services.

Neither of you are wrong, but I'm still the kind of guy who likes to have evidence, and claims proven. Even somewhat obvious ones.

/wonder if it's in that info that snow/wald hasn't released yet...


I grew up under LBJ and Nixon.  I can assure you that if you think the worst of your government, you should multiply it by 2 to arrive at reality.
 
2013-07-07 10:23:00 AM
How do you keep that many judges that drunk for that long?
 
2013-07-07 10:34:04 AM

LasersHurt: There are two reasons there could be 0 denials - good, well-supported requests, or heinous conspiratorial rubber-stamping.

Absent evidence, I bet I know what most Farkers choose to believe.


It could be either, but the American people and most of their elected representatives have no way to know. That is the problem.
 
2013-07-07 10:37:21 AM

WorldCitizen: LasersHurt: There are two reasons there could be 0 denials - good, well-supported requests, or heinous conspiratorial rubber-stamping.

Absent evidence, I bet I know what most Farkers choose to believe.

It could be either, but the American people and most of their elected representatives have no way to know. That is the problem.


A problem, but not a reason to simply assume one way or the other sans evidence. A reason to GET evidence, yes, surely.
 
2013-07-07 10:48:56 AM
So who plays "defense" or devil's advocate?  If some agent is there wanting permission to wiretap, who's there to argue against it, and how hard are they really trying?
 
2013-07-07 11:31:58 AM
Dear congressional republicans, if you believe there is a problem with FISA, it is 100% in your power to fix it.
 
2013-07-07 11:36:41 AM

LasersHurt: There are two reasons there could be 0 denials - good, well-supported requests, or heinous conspiratorial rubber-stamping.

Absent evidence, I bet I know what most Farkers choose to believe.



Actually they've said they end up restricting the original request or rewriting the original request to comply rather than outright deny.  That's why they don't like being called a rubber stamp, but yes, you're correct, Farkers will assume the worst.

That said, FISA courts do need more transparency -- something like a Freedom of Information Request to vet what can and can't be released rather than a blanket "top secret" for everything.
 
2013-07-07 11:36:58 AM

WorldCitizen: LasersHurt: There are two reasons there could be 0 denials - good, well-supported requests, or heinous conspiratorial rubber-stamping.

Absent evidence, I bet I know what most Farkers choose to believe.

It could be either, but the American people and most of their elected representatives have no way to know. That is the problem.




This.
When in doubt, doubt that those who keep secrets will be forthright.
They've got no reason to hold themselves accountable and probably won't give you one either.
 
2013-07-07 11:38:58 AM

Nabb1: What does this mean for Paula Deen and George Zimmerman? Someone tell me what to think!


It means someone somewhere is a racist, but we're not sure who or why?
 
2013-07-07 11:39:45 AM

DarnoKonrad: LasersHurt: There are two reasons there could be 0 denials - good, well-supported requests, or heinous conspiratorial rubber-stamping.

Absent evidence, I bet I know what most Farkers choose to believe.


Actually they've said they end up restricting the original request or rewriting the original request to comply rather than outright deny.  That's why they don't like being called a rubber stamp, but yes, you're correct, Farkers will assume the worst.

That said, FISA courts do need more transparency -- something like a Freedom of Information Request to vet what can and can't be released rather than a blanket "top secret" for everything.


Something. Maybe appointed civilian court/judges to review?
 
2013-07-07 11:40:00 AM

LasersHurt: There are two reasons there could be 0 denials - good, well-supported requests, or heinous conspiratorial rubber-stamping.

Absent evidence, I bet I know what most Farkers choose to believe.


Three, in the absences of any opposition a spurious, poorly reasoned application based on wishful facts seems to the judges to be good, well-supported requests
 
2013-07-07 11:40:32 AM
Not to Godwin the thread, but please, take 5 minutes to read this:

Volksgerichtshof

Do those first two paragraphs sound eerily familar?  Seriously? Is this really the road we want to go down?

This stuff is supposed to be history not a roadmap.
 
2013-07-07 11:41:33 AM

Marcus Aurelius: I grew up under LBJ and Nixon. I can assure you that if you think the worst of your government, you should multiply it by 2 to arrive at reality.


That's kind of the problem.  People today have a much more realistic view of governance.  Whereas, you guys, really did *trust* government in ways even modern so called "big government liberals" simply don't.  So the 2x metric is wildly unrealistic -- even paranoid to a fault, which is where the Tea Party gets most of its insane rhetoric about Obama's gas chambers and other idiocy.
 
2013-07-07 11:43:57 AM

ikanreed: Dear congressional republicans, if you believe there is a problem with FISA, it is 100% in your power to fix it.


Dear ikanreed,

If you believe that the GOP would so much as consider thinking about contemplating lifting a finger to do something that has a non-zero chance of making Obama look good, I've got some swampland in Florida for sale, and  I'm willing to barter that swampland for one kilo of whatever it is you're smoking
 
2013-07-07 11:43:58 AM
Hooray for Star Chambers.
 
2013-07-07 11:47:15 AM

ikanreed: Dear congressional republicans, if you believe there is a problem with FISA, it is 100% in your power to fix it.


The problem is that Obama loves the power and is a corrupt criminal.  Most of Congress is too.  The media are statist fear mongers and the public on the left are Obama cheerleaders incapable of ever calling him out for anything.

We have the government we deserve and we are farked.  We deserve it. Too many people like Linux_yes
 
2013-07-07 11:54:36 AM

Nemo's Brother: ikanreed: Dear congressional republicans, if you believe there is a problem with FISA, it is 100% in your power to fix it.

The problem is that Obama loves the power and is a corrupt criminal.  Most of Congress is too.  The media are statist fear mongers and the public on the left are Obama cheerleaders incapable of ever calling him out for anything.

We have the government we deserve and we are farked.  We deserve it. Too many people like Linux_yes


Funny, because I've seen plenty of the "public on the left" calling Obama out for keeping the powers given by previous Presidents. Of course, those people are naive, because they bought the Republican propaganda that Obama is actually liberal, rather than somewhat right-of-center.

And again, even if Obama WANTED to get rid of the NSA (if you think ANY politician who has even the slightest hope of becoming President actually wants to give up power like that, you've been deceived), it isn't in his power to do so.
 
2013-07-07 11:56:34 AM
So what? What are we going to do, vote in a government which is open and accountable to the people? No. Vote in a government which doesn't spend billions on secret legal, judicial, and prison systems? No. Vote in a government which doesn't spy on its own citizens? No. Vote in a government which doesn't torture or hold people in prison for life without charges? No. I'm not going to be hyperbolic and say we're an authoritarian banana republic. But I remember when we used to ridicule countries that did these things as being nothing more than authoritarian banana republics.
 
2013-07-07 11:57:18 AM

Nemo's Brother: ikanreed: Dear congressional republicans, if you believe there is a problem with FISA, it is 100% in your power to fix it.

The problem is that Obama loves the power and is a corrupt criminal.  Most of Congress is too.  The media are statist fear mongers and the public on the left are Obama cheerleaders incapable of ever calling him out for anything.

We have the government we deserve and we are farked.  We deserve it. Too many people like Linux_yes


Yes, a program that's been around since 1978 and revisited and broadened in 2006 is entirely Obama's fault.
 
2013-07-07 11:57:48 AM

LasersHurt: There are two reasons there could be 0 denials - good, well-supported requests, or heinous conspiratorial rubber-stamping.

Absent evidence, I bet I know what most Farkers choose to believe.


Look, America is nothing more than a giant Junta police state where we are unable to even comment about our treatment in a positive manner without NSA thugs breaking down our doors and torturing us.
 
2013-07-07 12:00:26 PM
Should also be noted that 10 of the 11 current FISA judges were originally nominated to the federal bench by Republicans. Hooray for small government!
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-07-07 12:00:32 PM

LasersHurt: There are two reasons there could be 0 denials - good, well-supported requests, or heinous conspiratorial rubber-stamping.

Absent evidence, I bet I know what most Farkers choose to believe.


No... just no.   You can't believe these people are competent enough to be 100% efficient.  Just.. no.  No farking way.

We've got the worst of the worst working in government (party doesn't matter) here because no one else is sane enough to do it.  All their other work is outwardly shoddy... you can't believe that "well-supported requests" is a reason.  If you do you've drunk someone's Kool Aid.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-07-07 12:03:13 PM

Nemo's Brother: The problem is that Obama loves the power and is a corrupt criminal. Most of Congress is too. The media are statist fear mongers and the public on the left are Obama cheerleaders incapable of ever calling him out for anything


Too stupid to deserve a reply..

oops...
 
2013-07-07 12:03:21 PM

Notabunny: So what? What are we going to do, vote in a government which is open and accountable to the people? No. Vote in a government which doesn't spend billions on secret legal, judicial, and prison systems? No. Vote in a government which doesn't spy on its own citizens? No. Vote in a government which doesn't torture or hold people in prison for life without charges? No. I'm not going to be hyperbolic and say we're an authoritarian banana republic. But I remember when we used to ridicule countries that did these things as being nothing more than authoritarian banana republics.



Who are we holding without charges?  (actually there are people we hold indefinitely because of our privatized bail bond and prison complex, but I doubt that's what you mean.)
 
2013-07-07 12:03:42 PM

d23: LasersHurt: There are two reasons there could be 0 denials - good, well-supported requests, or heinous conspiratorial rubber-stamping.

Absent evidence, I bet I know what most Farkers choose to believe.

No... just no.   You can't believe these people are competent enough to be 100% efficient.  Just.. no.  No farking way.

We've got the worst of the worst working in government (party doesn't matter) here because no one else is sane enough to do it.  All their other work is outwardly shoddy... you can't believe that "well-supported requests" is a reason.  If you do you've drunk someone's Kool Aid.


"The worst of the worst"? You've got to be kidding.
 
2013-07-07 12:03:51 PM

LasersHurt: DarnoKonrad: LasersHurt: There are two reasons there could be 0 denials - good, well-supported requests, or heinous conspiratorial rubber-stamping.

Absent evidence, I bet I know what most Farkers choose to believe.


Actually they've said they end up restricting the original request or rewriting the original request to comply rather than outright deny.  That's why they don't like being called a rubber stamp, but yes, you're correct, Farkers will assume the worst.

That said, FISA courts do need more transparency -- something like a Freedom of Information Request to vet what can and can't be released rather than a blanket "top secret" for everything.

Something. Maybe appointed civilian court/judges to review?


The more people who know, the less security.  Put one guy in charge of reviewing everything.  I bet Booz Allen could provide him.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-07-07 12:05:59 PM

qorkfiend: "The worst of the worst"? You've got to be kidding.


yeah.. hyperbolic.  But if you think they're "the best and the brightest" and meritocracy is in play you must be living on another planet.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-07-07 12:06:52 PM

DarnoKonrad: Who are we holding without charges? (actually there are people we hold indefinitely because of our privatized bail bond and prison complex, but I doubt that's what you mean.)


Guantanamo Bay?
 
2013-07-07 12:12:30 PM
rubber stamp?  That's a funny way to spell judicial town bike.
 
2013-07-07 12:12:45 PM

d23: DarnoKonrad: Who are we holding without charges? (actually there are people we hold indefinitely because of our privatized bail bond and prison complex, but I doubt that's what you mean.)

Guantanamo Bay?


Prisoners of war, governed by the Geneva Conventions and they must be released when hostiles, as outlined in the 2001 AUMF, cease.  They can't be charged with anything because war isn't a criminal matter (unless they were bayoneting babies or something.)  As regular ol' enemy combatants, they're not guilty of anything but being in a war.  In fact, charging combatants with civilian crimes and then trying them is *illegal* under the rules of war.
 
2013-07-07 12:13:30 PM

DarnoKonrad: Notabunny: So what? What are we going to do, vote in a government which is open and accountable to the people? No. Vote in a government which doesn't spend billions on secret legal, judicial, and prison systems? No. Vote in a government which doesn't spy on its own citizens? No. Vote in a government which doesn't torture or hold people in prison for life without charges? No. I'm not going to be hyperbolic and say we're an authoritarian banana republic. But I remember when we used to ridicule countries that did these things as being nothing more than authoritarian banana republics.


Who are we holding without charges?  (actually there are people we hold indefinitely because of our privatized bail bond and prison complex, but I doubt that's what you mean.)


Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay
 
2013-07-07 12:15:41 PM

DarnoKonrad: d23: DarnoKonrad: Who are we holding without charges? (actually there are people we hold indefinitely because of our privatized bail bond and prison complex, but I doubt that's what you mean.)

Guantanamo Bay?

Prisoners of war, governed by the Geneva Conventions and they must be released when hostiles, as outlined in the 2001 AUMF, cease.  They can't be charged with anything because war isn't a criminal matter (unless they were bayoneting babies or something.)  As regular ol' enemy combatants, they're not guilty of anything but being in a war.  In fact, charging combatants with civilian crimes and then trying them is *illegal* under the rules of war.


Prisoners of war, that's cute.
 
2013-07-07 12:19:06 PM

Notabunny: DarnoKonrad: Notabunny: So what? What are we going to do, vote in a government which is open and accountable to the people? No. Vote in a government which doesn't spend billions on secret legal, judicial, and prison systems? No. Vote in a government which doesn't spy on its own citizens? No. Vote in a government which doesn't torture or hold people in prison for life without charges? No. I'm not going to be hyperbolic and say we're an authoritarian banana republic. But I remember when we used to ridicule countries that did these things as being nothing more than authoritarian banana republics.


Who are we holding without charges?  (actually there are people we hold indefinitely because of our privatized bail bond and prison complex, but I doubt that's what you mean.)

Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay


Nope, see my comment above.  And let's remember how this got so farked up in the first place.  Bush claimed these people were "illegal combatants" that he could do with as he pleased.  SCOTUS stepped in and said "no farking way."  They're either legal combatants or criminals.  Because of that we have a big prisoner of war camp.  All the ones we  could charge with crimes, have been.  The rest would be illegal to try.  They're just going to be held until we finish out war on al Qaeda.  It's a huge god damned mess, but that's because we're following the law, not ignoring it.
 
2013-07-07 12:21:46 PM
How far have we fallen? We not only tacitly accept the need of a secret court (to deal with foreign intelligence on a case-by-case basis), but, when we find out it's been used for actions far broader than its original mandate (including domestic intelligence - y'know, us), we just shrug our shoulders and accept that, well, that's how the world works now?

The court is building on a precedent established during the Reagan-Bush years (convenient, that) to essentially make the Fourth Amendment a guideline rather than a law. The scary part about the article is that we're slowly ending up with two parallel legal discussions - the public law, administered by federal, state, and local courts, and the secret law, administered by a single court (managed, in turn, by a single Supreme Court justice.) There is no one "law of the land" any more - there are two, and you don't get to know about the other one. You do get subjected to its rulings, however, even though you can't present your side of a case or even know about the government's side of a case.  You just find out, by accident, whenever a whistleblower says "hey, did you know your government used the secret court and a couple of dubious interpretations of public law to create a new secret law precedent and spy on millions of you?"

The original point of FISA was to protect both us and our country's interests, by ensuring a proper legal review of any surveillance action our government took that involved foreign intelligence through the interpretation of existing legal precedent. That's not what they're doing. Apparently, the new point of FISA is to actually define new legal precedent to justify any surveillance action our government took, foreign or domestic. They've forked our legal system, and that's not supposed to happen.
 
2013-07-07 12:21:57 PM

pueblonative: DarnoKonrad: d23: DarnoKonrad: Who are we holding without charges? (actually there are people we hold indefinitely because of our privatized bail bond and prison complex, but I doubt that's what you mean.)

Guantanamo Bay?

Prisoners of war, governed by the Geneva Conventions and they must be released when hostiles, as outlined in the 2001 AUMF, cease.  They can't be charged with anything because war isn't a criminal matter (unless they were bayoneting babies or something.)  As regular ol' enemy combatants, they're not guilty of anything but being in a war.  In fact, charging combatants with civilian crimes and then trying them is *illegal* under the rules of war.

Prisoners of war, that's cute.



Bush claimed they were illegal combatants without any legal status.  Being a smart ass isn't going to make the legal problems go away.    Gitmo prisoners now have legal status, and we have to follow it.

I mean what the fark do you propose we do?  Ignore the law?   Until congress ends the 2001 AUMF, they're not going anywhere.
 
2013-07-07 12:29:32 PM
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-07 12:32:27 PM
Goddamn there are a lot of people who cannot farking read, today.
 
2013-07-07 12:33:52 PM

FormlessOne: How far have we fallen? We not only tacitly accept the need of a secret court (to deal with foreign intelligence on a case-by-case basis), but, when we find out it's been used for actions far broader than its original mandate (including domestic intelligence - y'know, us), we just shrug our shoulders and accept that, well, that's how the world works now?

The court is building on a precedent established during the Reagan-Bush years (convenient, that) to essentially make the Fourth Amendment a guideline rather than a law. The scary part about the article is that we're slowly ending up with two parallel legal discussions - the public law, administered by federal, state, and local courts, and the secret law, administered by a single court (managed, in turn, by a single Supreme Court justice.) There is no one "law of the land" any more - there are two, and you don't get to know about the other one. You do get subjected to its rulings, however, even though you can't present your side of a case or even know about the government's side of a case.  You just find out, by accident, whenever a whistleblower says "hey, did you know your government used the secret court and a couple of dubious interpretations of public law to create a new secret law precedent and spy on millions of you?"

The original point of FISA was to protect both us and our country's interests, by ensuring a proper legal review of any surveillance action our government took that involved foreign intelligence through the interpretation of existing legal precedent. That's not what they're doing. Apparently, the new point of FISA is to actually define new legal precedent to justify any surveillance action our government took, foreign or domestic. They've forked our legal system, and that's not supposed to happen.


You mean a government body, completely outside the normal system of checks and balances and without any accountability, has corrupted their original mandate, expanded their power, and is now operating contrary to the interests of the people despite the Red Team/Blue Team changeover?

Who knew?
 
2013-07-07 12:34:18 PM

LasersHurt: There are two reasons there could be 0 denials - good, well-supported requests, or heinous conspiratorial rubber-stamping.

Absent evidence, I bet I know what most Farkers choose to believe.


Well Option A of course. I can't imagine anything shady ever happening at the NSA. They're like freakin boy scouts over there and would never EVER even consider going around the rules to get what they want.
Besides, anyone that questions them or their motives is obviously some kind of terrorist enemy of the state bent on destroying America and everything we hold dear.

amarite?
 
2013-07-07 12:35:17 PM

HypnozombieX: amarite?


No, you're just posting hyperbolic shiat because you think it's clever.
 
2013-07-07 12:36:16 PM

LasersHurt: There are two reasons there could be 0 denials - good, well-supported requests, or heinous conspiratorial rubber-stamping.

Absent evidence, I bet I know what most Farkers choose to believe.


OK, I'll present evidence:

The requests were made by human beings, therefore there were undeniably some improper requests made.

Which were approved. Every time.

A government that supports the freedoms of its citizens, with proper checks and balances on its power, would have denied some of these improper requests.

QED.
 
2013-07-07 12:38:29 PM

LasersHurt: HypnozombieX: amarite?

No, you're just posting hyperbolic shiat because you think it's clever.


heh, your right the Idea that the NSA wouldn't duck around the system to get what they want is a bit Hyperbolic. Just apply some medicated ointment to your hurt feelings and you'll be ok.
 
2013-07-07 12:38:52 PM

Broom: LasersHurt: There are two reasons there could be 0 denials - good, well-supported requests, or heinous conspiratorial rubber-stamping.

Absent evidence, I bet I know what most Farkers choose to believe.

OK, I'll present evidence:

The requests were made by human beings, therefore there were undeniably some improper requests made.

Which were approved. Every time.

A government that supports the freedoms of its citizens, with proper checks and balances on its power, would have denied some of these improper requests.

QED.


None of that is evidence, of any kind. Also, the process involved improper requests being sent BACK until they could meet merit of approval.

Again, to be clear, I am not saying that I have evidence that all of these were valid. I'm saying that ABSENT evidence - real evidence - it's absurd to speak with such certainty as people are.
 
2013-07-07 12:39:28 PM

HypnozombieX: LasersHurt: HypnozombieX: amarite?

No, you're just posting hyperbolic shiat because you think it's clever.

heh, your right the Idea that the NSA wouldn't duck around the system to get what they want is a bit Hyperbolic. Just apply some medicated ointment to your hurt feelings and you'll be ok.


HypnozombieX: Besides, anyone that questions them or their motives is obviously some kind of terrorist enemy of the state bent on destroying America and everything we hold dear.


Don't be obtuse, you know what you did.
 
Displayed 50 of 219 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report