Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
35. Ask the judge.
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 10:12 AM
Oct 2014


John Roberts Packed ‘Independent’ FISA Court With Republicans, Former Federal Employees

by Margaret Hartmann
New York Magazine, July 26, 2013

Last month, President Obama defended the government surveillance programs exposed by Edward Snowden, telling Charlie Rose, "It is transparent. That's why we set up the FISA court." He added that in addition to Congress, "you've got a federal court with independent federal judges overseeing the entire program." That's true, but he failed to mention that the judges approve nearly every government request, their decisions are classified, and they're all appointed by the Supreme Court's chief justice. For the first time, the New York Times has published a list of every judge to serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court since it was created in 1978. Their analysis reveals that compared to his predecessors, Chief Justice John Roberts's picks are far more likely to be Republicans, and to have worked in the executive branch.

Chief Justice Roberts was already known to select mainly conservatives to serve the seven-year terms on the court, but the the Times shows that his selections are even less diverse than those of the last two chief justices, who were also Republicans. Of Warren Burger and William Rehnquist's picks, 66 percent were appointed by Republican presidents and 39 percent had worked for the executive branch. As for Roberts, 86 percent of his selections have been Republican appointees, and 50 percent worked in the executive branch. The eleven judges currently serving on the court were all assigned by Roberts. Ten are Republicans and six have worked for the federal government.

What effect that has on the court is debatable. Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal tells the Times that judges who used to be executive branch lawyers are more likely to defer to federal government. Steven Bradbury, who headed the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel under the Bush administration, says judges with executive branch experience already understand some of the complex issues involved, and are thus more likely to ask tough questions. As for the judges' political leanings, the Times notes that studies of non-FISA cases have shown that judges appointed by Republicans since Reagan are more likely to side with the government over people who claim their civil liberties have been violated.

Part of the FISA court's extremely high approval rate for surveillance and property search warrants might be the nature of the requests. President Obama suggested, "Folks don't go [to the FISA court] with a query unless they've got a pretty good suspicion." And in a Times op-ed this week, former FISA court judge James G. Carr pointed out that to collect phone and Internet data, the government only has to show "probable cause that the target has a connection to a foreign government or entity or a foreign terrorist group," while for a regular search warrant they'd have to show probable cause that the target is suspected of a crime.

Regardless, Snowden's leaks have intensified calls to change how the secret court operates. Both Carr and another former FISA court judge, James Robertson, are pushing for more transparency and say lawyers should be appointed to challenge the government's requests. Several members of Congress have come up with plans to change how the judges are selected, in an attempt to wrest some control from the chief justice. For instance, Sen. Blumenthal has proposed that each of the chief judges of the twelve major appeals courts should select a FISA court judge. He says that in light of the new data, "people with responsibility for national security ought to be very concerned about the impression and appearance, if not the reality, of bias."

SOURCE w/links: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/roberts-packed-fisa-court-with-republicans.html
"arrangements" -- we don't need no damn legalities. nashville_brook Oct 2014 #1
If it's illegal for NSA to spy on Americans, no problem-o. GCHQ'll do it. Octafish Oct 2014 #31
"Power tends to corrupt... Tace Oct 2014 #2
Lord Acton was spot-on. Octafish Oct 2014 #32
Well, gee, I'm really confused now. woo me with science Oct 2014 #3
ECHELON is WASP exclusive Octafish Oct 2014 #34
Keep this on top. Our government has no right to be making "ARRANGEMENTS" like this. woo me with science Oct 2014 #4
PLUS ONE, a huge bunch! Enthusiast Oct 2014 #20
Do these 'arrangements' have to do with specific suspects, perhaps? randome Oct 2014 #5
Don't even start. Seriously. woo me with science Oct 2014 #9
Can you read the PDF? There are checks and balances in place. randome Oct 2014 #28
If they have to do with "specific suspects" then there is probable cause to get a warrant. yellowcanine Oct 2014 #13
Ask the judge. Octafish Oct 2014 #35
Why has Obama not ended this bullshit? Maedhros Oct 2014 #6
Looks like he's the latest prez not to take on the mic... polichick Oct 2014 #17
Political courage is in very short supply these days. [n/t] Maedhros Oct 2014 #18
+1 This was an important OP: woo me with science Oct 2014 #19
True, and the ptb make sure that only compliant candidates... polichick Oct 2014 #24
I guess he's just fine with it. No resistance from him that I can see. pa28 Oct 2014 #26
Excellent questions for which the public has no right-to-know. Octafish Oct 2014 #36
So let's join in with DNI CLAPPER leading his arrangement of "God Save the Queen"=no rule of law.n/t bobthedrummer Oct 2014 #7
Did you see the NFL London broadcast Sunday morning? Octafish Oct 2014 #37
No-but I'm glad that the LIONS won. n/t bobthedrummer Oct 2014 #44
K&R Cleita Oct 2014 #8
The old end-around. Octafish Oct 2014 #38
Aw, shoot! gratuitous Oct 2014 #10
Theres no other solution! woo me with science Oct 2014 #11
I was gonna say, "Aw shit" gratuitous Oct 2014 #14
Did Snowden leak the Family Jewels back in '76? Octafish Oct 2014 #39
"We don't need no stinkin' warrants!" yellowcanine Oct 2014 #12
Warrants are so Old School. Octafish Oct 2014 #41
The FBI's shameful recruitment of Nazi war criminals (Richard Rashke essay 3-6-13 Reuters) bobthedrummer Oct 2014 #47
The Five Eyes program whereby plausible deniability exists for the participating countries riderinthestorm Oct 2014 #15
^^^^^^ Thank you. ^^^^^^^ woo me with science Oct 2014 #16
That's the Formula! Octafish Oct 2014 #25
Kicked and recommended a whole bunch! Enthusiast Oct 2014 #21
Safe and effective, secret spying is quite profitable, too. Octafish Oct 2014 #40
Recommend...... KoKo Oct 2014 #22
Mass Surveillance in America: A Timeline of Loosening Laws and Practices (Cora Currier, Justin bobthedrummer Oct 2014 #23
This is a great overview. Kick for your addition. Thanks! Nt riderinthestorm Oct 2014 #29
Passing and renewing the "Patriot" act are two huge steps JEB Oct 2014 #42
Thank you. woo me with science Oct 2014 #46
Recommend wavesofeuphoria Oct 2014 #27
Seems to me that this needs another kick. hootinholler Oct 2014 #30
HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!! WillyT Oct 2014 #33
K&R for the original post and subsequent informative posts and links. JEB Oct 2014 #43
Are people afraid to post on this subject? JEB Oct 2014 #45
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»British Spy Agency: We Do...»Reply #35