Slashdot Mirror
FISA Judges Oppose Intelligence Reform Proposals Aimed At Court
cold fjord writes "The LA Times reports, 'Judges on the ... surveillance court have strongly rejected any proposed changes to their review process ... In a blunt letter to the House and Senate intelligence and judiciary committees, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates made it clear that the 11 judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court are united in opposition to key recommendations by a presidential task force last month ... their skepticism adds to a list of hurdles for those advocating significant reforms following former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden's massive disclosures of domestic and foreign surveillance programs. ... Obama and some intelligence officials have publicly signaled support for creating an adversarial legal process in the court ... and aides have suggested the president will create an advocate's position or call for legislation to do so ... But Bates disagreed sharply, arguing that "the participation of an advocate would neither create a truly adversarial process nor constructively assist the courts in assessing the facts, as the advocate would be unable to communicate with the target or conduct an independent investigation." Adding an advocate to "run-of-the-mill FISA matters would substantially hamper the work of the courts without providing any countervailing benefit in terms of privacy protection," he added.' — The Hill adds that Bates, "... recommended an advocate chosen by the court, rather than an independent authority, for only a limited number of cases. " — More at Computerworld and NPR."
You'll be crushed, either way. The ratchet turns only one way.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
If they're against an adversarial process, that suggests that the FISA court is not a neutral party. While I agree that it is inadequate, a third-party advocate for civil liberties would be better than the nothing that we have at the moment.
I'm suspicious of an advocate chosen by the court. Fox guarding the henhouse?
Then again, I'm also suspicious of secret court proceedings.
So an advocate would not benefit the process? Then the process is broken. In the interests of protecting innocents from government overreach, dissolve the FISA court.
I'd like my rights, freedoms, and liberties back please. I don't need or want you or your 'protection.'
Everyones screaming at the Judges, but read what they're saying:
"the participation of an advocate would neither create a truly adversarial process nor constructively assist the courts in assessing the facts, as the advocate would be unable to communicate with the target or conduct an independent investigation."
REALLY read that. I read it as saying "You're trying to send an advocate to make this appear like it's an adversarial process. But it's not. This will still be a rubber stamping process until you send in a REAL advocate."
i.e. If there are going to be reforms, then they need to be real. Reforms like this (that achieve nothing but make the people think somethings been done) will only increase their workload. With no added benefit to the target of the NSA.
While the judges are clearly biased, there is value in their point:
the participation of an advocate would neither create a truly adversarial process nor constructively assist the courts in assessing the facts
This is true: How can you have an adversarial process when the adversary isn't allowed to know that anything is happening? But there still needs to be some adversary. The problem is bigger than this though.
Ultimately, this court isn't even a court by any modern definition. No adversarial process. The judges are appointed without any confirmation or oversight. There is no appeals court. The NSA lies to the judges anyway. And the department that oversees them ignores complaints by the judges.
How is this a court at all?
Snowden for President!
Who cares what the FISA judges think about the reforms? I mean, they're not the boss of the government.
This notion that there is some widespread fear in the government of how agencies and entities will react to changes in he surveillance regime are starting to get a little alarming. If you look at the NYTimes story here: http://t.co/lSEb6vWXSi, you will see the phrase, "backlash from national security agencies" in regard to reforms to surveillance. Who are they that now elected officials, who are charged with oversight over these agencies, have to worry about intelligence agencies' "backlash"? There have been several other stories recently that have mentioned similar "consequences" from the agencies if the scope or powers of those agencies were to be limited in any way.
I guess that tells us who's really in charge.
I'm telling you, unless we can figure out a way to chop this surveillance regime down to size, and quick, there is absolutely no chance that any other national problem can ever be fixed in any significant way. Not the economy, not security, not social problems, not anything. When Americans finally internalize the fact that they are always being watched and that our own security agencies view them as a threat, there will be a sickness over the American people like none we have ever seen before.
To this day, people from places like East Germany and other surveillance states have it in the back of their heads that there is always someone watching. As the husband of a woman from Eastern Europe, I know this to be true from my experience with family and friends. Once you have Big Brother in your head, he never goes away, maybe not for generations.
I would absolutely rather take my chances with the terrorists than see the US go on this way much longer.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The fact is, the court does not have to reveal names to have public monitoring. Claiming that names of suspects are required, as you have shilled in the past, is irrational and illogical. Every person in court could be named "John Doe" for the proceedings, and every privacy and liberty advocate would be fine with that method.
What people want made public is the proceedings themselves. How are they ruling that John Doe is worthy of surveillance? Is the evidence being presented gathered legally and ethically? Is there even evidence presented to the courts, or is this simply a rubber stamp? What methods rulings are the judges giving and what powers are they granting to these agencies? Are the rulings and powers being granted legal?
Your point is not just irrational, it evades the reason people are demanding either these courts become open or we shut them down. Perhaps you should read what Due Process is, and what the Constitution states regarding the Justice system and your Liberty. You won't, because you are a habitual shill for a pro authoritarian state and it's agencies.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.