Slashdot Mirror
Secret Court: Government Lied to Get Wiretaps Approved
Paersona writes "Ever wonder what Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is doing to pass the time while she waits for the next step in the Microsoft case? Apparently she is now serving as the lead justice of the FISA court that oversees intelligence agencies' requests for domestic wiretapping. Today, the Washington Post reveals that the FISA court has released a rare public report rebuking the FBI and Justice Department for their handling of wiretap requests." The New York Times also has a story about the FISA court. The court's opinion is available.
More wiretap requets were approved under the Clinton administration (8 years) than under the Reagan and Bush (the first) combined (12 years).
Reagan's excuse was the War on Communism. Clinton's was the War on Drugs. GW's is going to be the War on Terrorism.
BTW, we *ARE* talking about wiretaps on U.S. citizens and on U.S. soil. The CIA has jurisdiction for foreign nationals and there is a much less stringent procedure. (i.e. -- insert tape, push "record")
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/tr anscripts/fisa_opinion.pdf
The court rebuked the administration of WILLIAM JEFFERSON BLYTHE CLINTON, not the administration of George W. Bush :
Found these via Drudge...
Special Court Rejects Ashcroft Rules and Secret Court Rebuffs Ashcroft (related to the main story).
And from the second story... "The department discovered the misrepresentations and reported them to the FISA court beginning in 2000.".. which means the improper actions occured before 2000.. i.e. Before Bush. So Bush/Ashcroft are not responsible for those infractions.
Having said that (and despite being a conservative), I do hope these revalations reign in some of the trampling of civil liberties Ashcroft/Bush are considering. I fully understand their desire to fight terrorism, and I understand some liberties we were used to in the past may be crimped in the process. But eliminated? Virtually removed? A number of their proposals (and some things currently put in place) are simply troubling and I hope this is a wake-up call they cannot simply trample over the Constitution in the name of protecting the public. Freedom is not without its risks, either to those who defend it or the society which enjoys it. We all simply need to be aware of that risk and vigilant in our own way to insure we don't lose our freedom to either the terrorist, the criminal or our own government.
(and no, I don't get my music via gnutella either)
-'fester
-'fester
It seems to me that the terrorist have already won, as we (the citizens of the U.S.) are so cowardly that we will give up our freedoms for a bit of safety. And anyone who thought that the government wouldn't eventually abuse its increased powers was naive.
1. Probably
2. Probably, though there might be a lot of finger pointing at people no longer in positions of authority. Lots of political bullshit.
3. Wrong. The majority of the wiretaps approved during the Clinton administration were for the "War on Drugs", not terrorists. And we're not talking "Big Columbian Drug Lord", either. We are talking general U.S. Citizens. The CIA/NSA doesn't need special permission to wiretap non-citizens outside the U.S. -- that is the very DEFINITION of their existence. The FBI deals with U.S. Citizens and U.S. soil, thus the oversight needed.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Straight from the article: "Until now, the workings of the FISA Court have been kept secret. The court, made up of judges designated by the Supreme Court chief justice, deals mostly with secret or top secret information and has never before published any of its rulings." I'm talking about their rulings. The Supreme Court doesn't make secret rulings.
Y'know, if Judge Jackson had NOT given interviews, the MS case might have been finalized by now. The appellate courts didn't overturn his Findings of Facts or guilty verdit. They didn't even say that his penalty was inappropriate. They merely said that his penalty *appeared* to be biased, based soley on the fact that he given interviews before the case was over.
...
... Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code requires judges to recuse themselves when their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." ...
Actually, they overturned quite a few of his rulings, but they decided not to throw out the Findings of Fact (which MS asked them to do). They ruled that the DoJ didn't make a strong enough case for several of the 'guilty' verdicts that Jackson handed down, and that the appearance of bias was reason enough to remove him from the case, and they overturned Jackson's Final Judgment. Furthermore, of those portions that were not outright overturned, many portions of the case are 'on remand', meaning that those portions of the case must be reheard before another ruling can be made based on those portions of the case (and as of yet they have not been).
As for the penalty:
We vacate the District Court's remedies decree for the additional reason that the court has failed to provide an adequate explanation for the relief it ordered.
The District Court has not explained how its remedies decree would accomplish those objectives. Indeed, the court devoted a mere four paragraphs of its order to explaining its reasons for the remedy.
Check for yourself (PDF) It's in section V.
Followed by Section VI. Judicial Misconduct:
All indications are that the District Judge violated each of these ethical precepts by talking about the case with reporters. The violations were deliberate, repeated, egregious, and flagrant.
(emphasis added)
I really wish more people would at least get a good first-hand overview of the 125 page document before they try to state what the court did and did not say. They might also understand why the DoJ changed their tune so quickly after the appeal if they looked over the portions of the case that were thrown out or remanded.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Okay.
The source for current information is the U.S. Courts website on wiretaps. This covers 1997-2001. Archival information (pre-1997) is available through the U.S. Gov't Printing Office.
What the FBI is allowed to do is summarized on the FBi Website FAQ. I quote the relavant question:
Q. Are FBI Special Agents permitted to install wiretaps at their own discretion?
A. No. Wiretapping is one of the FBI's most sensitive techniques and is strictly controlled by federal statutes. It is used infrequently and then only to combat the most serious crimes and terrorism. Title 18, United States Code, Section 2516, contains the protocol requiring all law enforcement officers to establish probable cause that the wiretaps may provide evidence of a felony violation of federal law. After determining if a sufficient showing of probable cause has been made, impartial federal judges approve or disapprove wiretaps. The approving judge then must continue to monitor how the wiretap is being conducted. Wiretapping without meeting these stringent requirements and obtaining the necessary court orders is a serious felony under the law.
Finally, this site is a good jumping off point for further information on wiretaps and Judicial oversight.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.