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.
If you understood the announcement of the FISA court you would understand this has everything to do with YRO. I imagne it wouldn't be a big step to go from phone tapping to packet sniffing, and the DOJ could say you are a suspected terrorist, monitor you, then send your name, address, phone number, penis size, whatever, to the FBI for criminal charges (got any MP3's to a CD you dont own, legally thats felony copyright infringement) with not warrant. Get it now? People should be EXTREMLY pissed off about this.
-- Insert wisdom here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/tr anscripts/fisa_opinion.pdf
This is a good sign that Kotar-Kotelly isn't afraid to take on the current powers that be. Many people, even ones with good track records, have taken up a don't-rock-the-boat attitude since you know when. It's good to see that it hasn't hit K-K. If she's willing to stand up to the PATRIOT-enabled FBI, it bodes well for her honesty in the Microsoft case.
This woman seems to wield a lot of power over both individual citizens and major corporations. I would like to know more about her.
The "secret court" isn't a big deal. Governments deal with classified information. The secret court is the one with the judges that have a security clearance to hear this stuff.
Be glad we actually have a separate branch of gov't looking over their shoulder.
Some secrets *ARE* necessary, for the protection of National Security. However, too many politicians confuse "National Security" with "my career" and "protection" with "embarassment".
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Louis Freeh was far from a saint. Nothing to do with the administration: it was often pointed out that Freeh paid little heed to the desires of the president or attorney general.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Sometimes I feel that the federal judiciary is the only place that "gets it" about fundamental American rights and legal traditions. Then, of course, I think of Judge Kaplan and I get depressed again.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
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
with the fact that a secret court exists and issues wiretaps authorizations?
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
"We believe the court's action unnecessarily narrowed the Patriot Act and limited our ability to fully utilize the authority Congress gave us," the Justice Department said in a statement.
So, in other words, Congress (Legislative Branch) attempted to give additional (unconstitutional?) power to the Justice Department (Executive Branch), and this power was taken away by the court (Judicial Branch). Apparently the system, corrupt and ineffective though it may be, actually DOES work sometimes.
Now, if only we can get the DMCA overturned.....
Think For Yourself. Question Authority.
No? Really? I am so surprised.
Best Slashdot Co
...and you people have the gall to be discussing the FISA court rebuking the FBI and Justice Department???? My *god*, people, GET SOME PRIORITIES!
While I agree with you that a load of shit is going on around the world (and always has been): it's imperative that you clean things up in your own house, regardless of what the neighborhood looks like. If you want to stand for civil rights and liberties, for justice and equal opportunities and oppose the idea police/military regimes you have to follow your own ideals. Otherwise they are worthless and "The Free World" becomes another meaningless term used for propaganda, political power struggles and disposal of the opposition (as it probably is right now, anyway). If you don't pay attention to our society's very foundation then our course is meaningless. And protection from arbitrary, unchecked wiretap is part of this foundation, we call it privacy. And no, privacy is not for terrorists only.
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.
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.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Campaign finance reform, Corporate reform, Patriot act and similar legislation, our involvement in Israel/Palestine conflict...
It's all about trust. Until issues of trust are resolved, we will never get anywhere. and remember that actions -should- speak louder than words.
I'm glad that this judge has exposed these actions of the FBI. The next time the FBI says that it's ridiculous that any agent would abuse these broad powers given to them under the Patriot Act, we can just point to this example. The next time the FBI says that these powers are necessary in order to combat terrorism, just point to this example.
-Sorry, you gotta earn my trust! and you haven't been doing a very good job (referring to this administration). Talk is cheap.
Guess that hasn't been the case.
Refreshing.
"By comparison with that existing
today, all the tyrannies of the past were half-hearted and
inefficient. The ruling groups were always infected to some
extent by liberal ideas, and were content to leave loose ends
everywhere, to regard only the overt act and to be uninterested
in what their subjects were thinking. Even the Catholic Church
of the Middle Ages was tolerant by modern standards. Part of
the reason for this was that in the past no government had the
power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance. The
invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate
public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process
further. With the development of television, and the technical
advance which made it possible to receive and transmit
simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an
end. Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough
to be worth watching, could be kept for twentyfour hours a day
under the eyes of the police and in the sound of official
propaganda, with all other channels of communication closed.
The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the
will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all
subjects, now existed for the first time."
"All the beliefs, habits, tastes, emotions, mental
attitudes that characterize our time are really designed to
sustain the mystique of the Party and prevent the true nature
of present-day society from being perceived. Physical
rebellion, or any preliminary move towards rebellion, is at
present not possible. From the proletarians nothing is to be
feared. Left to themselves, they will continue from generation
to generation and from century to century, working, breeding,
and dying, not only without any impulse to rebel, but without
the power of grasping that the world could be other than it is.
They could only become dangerous if the advance of industrial
technique made it necessary to educate them more highly; but,
since military and commercial rivalry are no longer important,
the level of popu lar education is actually declining. What
opinions the masses hold, or do not hold, is looked on as a
matter of indifference. They can be granted intellectual
liberty because they have no intellect. In a Party member, on
the other hand, not even the smallest deviation of opinion on
the most unimportant subject can be tolerated."
She's an Capricorn, a natural blond with a GSOH, and her turns ons include long moonlit walks, back rubs, and putting the fear of god into arrogant, power abusing men.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
An AC wrote:
> The worst terrorist attack in recorded history
> occurred nearly a year ago,
Worst terrorist attack, yes. But no where near what it could have been. Nearly three thousand died. Many more were wounded. But in a tower complex that could have had up to 50,000 people in it, it is clear that the terrorist attack is only part of the story. The other part is the wisdom, courage and compassion of those who sacrified themselves, those who died in the line of duty, and ordinary people who helped each other. That part worked a shining miracle, saving tens of thousands. Those noble, heroic hearts put those heartless monsters to shame!
> followed by a Holy War against Islam,
9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. Since we are talking about the *World* Trade Center, you might keep in mind that good followers of Islam were murdered that day as well. That isn't Allah that Bin Laden is following. I don't care who he thinks his boss is, or how many Islamic poems he mutters. I'm sure Azi Dahaka gets a big kick out of being called "Allah" though. Right up there with "Great Devil that comes from the Sky" and Nostradamus's little nickname "King of Terror".
> and now Israel and the Palestinians as well as
> India and Pakistan are teetering on the brink of
> their own war,
Which is a really novel experience for them. Not.
> Argentina is in the midst of a financial crisis,
Yes, I know. My sympathies. Most of the world is having some kind of economic problems.
> America is considering launching attacks against
> Somalia and Iraq,
I've got a unique idea: how about we take down the Al Quada organization in all 60 countries before we add new enemies to our plate. But no, we must go after Saddam at all costs because he is using the "weapons of mass destruction" we gave him on an ethnic minority inside Iraq (kinda brings back memories of the Old West and those smallpox blankets). If there was honest hope of helping the Kurds, I might be more willing. But somehow I think any real humanitarian assistance is pretty far down on the list.
> and you people have the gall to be discussing
> the FISA court rebuking the FBI and Justice
> Department????
They need a good rebuking. Ashcroft needs to take the curtain off the statue of Justice and get reaquainted.
> My *god*, people, GET SOME PRIORITIES!
>
> The bodies of the thousands of innocent
> civilians who died (and will die) in these
> unprecedented events could give a good god damn
> about the FISA court rebuking the FBI and
> Justice Department (and I'm sure if they were
> still alive, they'd thank the wiretaps that
> could have saved their lives), your childish
> Lego models, your nerf toy guns and whining
> about the lack of a "fun" workplace, your
> Everquest/Diablo/D&D fixation, the latest Cowboy
> Bebop rerun, or any of the other ways you are
> "getting on with your life" (here's a hint:
> watching Cowboy Bebop in your jammies and eating
> a bowl of Shreddies is *not* "getting on with
> your life"). The souls of the victims are
> watching in horror as you people squander your
> finite, precious time on this earth playing
> video games!
>
> You people disgust me!
You disgust me, if your solution is to sit around quaking in terror. I will not dishonor the memory of those people by bowing to the will of their murderers!!! They want us to be terrified. It is the terror, not the deaths, that is the key to the definition of the word "terrorist". Anyone who huddles up in fear, drags the flag around for a security blanket, or uses the terror of 9/11 to further their quest for tyranny is basically inviting the King of Terror to come and put up a throne for himself in Washington D.C.
The terrorists took the right to Life away from people on 9/11. I will not surrender Liberty and Happiness too.
"Lola, kindness is not enough, look for the reason of hatred and anger.
When you find and understand that, love becomes the strongest power..."
Belabera, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"
While I agree with you that a load of shit is going on around the world (and always has been): it's imperative that you clean things up in your own house, regardless of what the neighborhood looks like.
Very well said.
It should be pointed out that the 3,000 deaths in New York, while tragic, are hardly a blip in the population.
We have had more than 50,000 people die in car accidents since then. All horribly mutilated, some burned beyond recognition, others decapitated, some crushed within the tin can that became their automobile, some crushed beneath the wheels of an oncoming car, and so on and so forth, ad nauseum. In short, each death was horrible, left behind it a wake of trajedy and grieving, and each represents a life that ended much sooner that it should have.
Yet we live with this stark reality every year, and few if any of us fear to climb into an automobile and drive to work.
The terrorists can scare us, can knock down a couple of buildings (as can a 5.0 richter earth quake, a big forest fire, or a wopping hurricane, and we get a lot more of those than we do terrorist attacks), but they cannot do us any real, significant harm!
Even the economic damage the fear they create is minimal. The markets had recovered virtually all of their 9/11 losses and the economy was on the upswing, until Enron, WorldCom, and a whole slew of other corrupt American executives and CEOs were caught with their hands in the life savings of the middle class, pilfering the nation's wealth for their own miserly gains. In the wake of such criminal behavior the markets and the economy tanked as every thinking person recognized and chose to avoid further opportunity for the wealthy to defraud them, and as a result of this behavior, and our governments neglect in regulating and preventing it, the economy now shows no signs of recovering, an unpleasant event that is entirely self-inflicted by greedy, rich CEOs and executives whose ethics died shortly after the umbelical was cut, and the tame politicians they've had in their pockets for the last twenty years. Such subhuman filth, who represent the highest, most priveleged economic class in America, are responsible for most of our economic troubles and hardships, not Osama and his flea-ridden, filthy followers.
Indeed, the terrorists, in contrast to our own corrupt officials, aren't even relevant.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't go around the world eradicating them and their followers wherever we find them, nor does it mean bin Laden's head wouldn't look good on a pike.
It does mean we shouldn't allow Aschcroft and his cronies to ride roughshod over the constitution, and that we shouldn't allow Bush Junior to use the country's military and spend our strength fighting Daddy's unfinished, and unrelated, battles a la Iraq.
Frankly, if the choice I'm given is between freedom with a 3,000 death/year terrorist pricetag, and an Orwellian society that maybe, perhaps, reduces that number to a few hundred, or even to zero, I'll take the three thousand deaths per year and keep my freedom thankyou very much. My car is far more likely to kill me than some towel-head Saudi fanatic hiding out with his donkey in some dirty cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan, and I'm not about to stop driving because of it.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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.
So that's what they're calling perjury, lies and fabrication of evidence? Why the hell haven't these agents been prosecuted?
This is exactly why we should NEVER have secret courts and secret evidence. I can't friggin' believe this is being allowed to happen here.
"Speech". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
> Sure, it's not a right to destroy government property, but it's vandalism, not terrorism.
Destroying government property for no reason at all is vandalism.
Destroying government property (or most other uses of violence / force by non-uniformed combatants) in order to change policy is the definition of terrorism.
Granted, a rock's nowhere near as lethal as a bomb, but that's a matter of degree, not a matter of principle - by throwing that rock, you're saying to the drones in the building that if they continue to work for the institution against which you're protesting, they put their personal safety at risk. If throwing rocks through government office windows in order to change policy isn't terrorism, why not step up to Molotovs? Little chunks of lead? Where do you draw the line?
You have the right to peacably assemble and protest. You have the right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances.
Where I come from, speech comes in many forms. Sound waves. T-shirts. Handbills. Source code. Executable code. But "igneous", "metamorphic", or "sedimentary" aren't on the list.
Likewise, "stuffed into a bottle of flammable liquid and lit on fire" doesn't constitute a Constitutionally-protected way to deliver a petition.
You can not quote exceprts from historically significant literature and use them to place relevant and insightful thoughts into the brains of other people (see 1984 EULA sec 256.1.0.2.4) even if said people have a valid license (to view and store in their short term memory only) the copyrighted material in question.
You have been reported to the Book Publisher Industry Assosiation (BPIA) and will be prosecuted for copyright violations and failure to uphold corporate profits.
Please stay by your computer while we send the authorities to pick you up for reeducation.