The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I believe "retroactive" means within 24 hours. There are 8 judges spread across the country. On average they'll each see hundreds of requests- anyone ever work in Crim law enough to know how quickly you can get standard warrents- I've seen TV where the cops go wake the Judge up.


http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/ (actually 1700-0)

I wonder if they canned the guys who ended their 16,000 warrant win streak in 2003: (stats)

And, yes, they go to the judge's house all the time to get these things approved. And yes, they sometimes have to modify them to get acceptance. DOJ, I understand, who actually seeks the warrants actually imposes a bit of a check itself on the FBI--they feel some duty to have a basis for the application, which the FBI does not believe it has to have.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If by "very rarely" you mean "never". My understanding of the history is that the FISA court has denied 3 applications. Ever. In 30 years. All three of those were reversed on appeal to the FISA court of appeals.

But, at least there is a process established whereby a judge actually looks at the basis for the wiretap. As distrustful as I am of ex parte, closed-door proceedings, at least this one has some level of safeguard.

I read that, since 1978 (when the Court was created) it has denied 5 out of 15,878 applications.

BTW -- the "retroactive approval" provision in FISA allows approval of a warrant up to 72 hours after the tap begins.

The WaPo article on the story today quotes administration officials as saying that they needed "more agility" than FISA provides, and that most taps under the Bush program last for only "a few days or hours" and are approved by a "shift supervisor." Gosh, that is comforting.

I see no sign of a need to bypass the FISA procedures.

S_A_M

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think I've read that the court will sometimes basically tell them that they need to come back with something more, and so you get the application deferred and then ultimately accepted, instead of rejected outright.

This certainly happens in some criminal courts, I can say from experience. What also happens is that warrants are issued, but in a more limited form than requested.

More importantly, it is ridiculous to draw the conclusion that seeking warrants shouldn't be necessary, or that law enforcement would never overreach, from the fact that most, or even all, applications for warrants are granted. People behave differently when they know that their actions are subject to review. Very few people will drive over the speed limit, or break a store window, if a police cruiser is in plain view. Does that mean that police oversight is unnecessary to prevent speeding or burglary?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Anyways, if you accept that the Admin only does it if there is a clear tie to AQ (and I know none of you guys accept much about the admin),

Today's NYTimes reports that, after 9/11 when Ashcroft loosened the rules on FBI investigations, the FBI used their new power to conduct surveillance of such known Al Qaeda subsidiaries as Greenpeace, PETA, and Catholic Workers.

If you accept this, you would have to question the assumption quoted above (and I know none of you guys accept much about the NYTimes)

[Sidd Finch]

Penn judge rules against (former) school board (aka hell-bound perjurers).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/...olution_debate

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I believe "retroactive" means within 24 hours. There are 8 judges spread across the country. On average they'll each see hundreds of requests- anyone ever work in Crim law enough to know how quickly you can get standard warrents- I've seen TV where the cops go wake the Judge up.

72 hours, actually -- so no reason not to seek retroactive approval -- and BTW -- no reason for any terrorist to think that they _were_ or _weren't_ being monitored absent the public disclosure of this program.

As to the criminal question, there is always a magistrate on duty (or on call) for warrants, and you can generally get said warrant within a couple of hours if you have the basis and do the paperwork right. It can be done over the phone -- but the Judge has to trust you not to lie to them (of course).

As to the rationale -- I have to believe that it is primarily administrative convenience, Hank. Anything else raises real questions about the scope of the taps/grounds for the warrants -- which we just don't know, and won't have any idea of until the Specter hearings.

No one from the government has yet argued that any of this intelligence is too sensitive to risk sharing with these federal judges with Top Secret clearances, who already review hundreds of classified requests each year.

The president says it is "shameful" to disclose this, and just aids the enemy. Well, almost everyone thinks that they personally have good judgment and can be trusted to do the right thing. I know, for example, that I would make an excellent King, and I may have even made the same decision as Bush.

However, this case is a classic example of the benefits of having a free press, three branches of government with checks and balances, and means to pull someone up short when they ignore some of those.

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

The president says it is "shameful" to disclose this, and just aids the enemy.

I'm not sure this argument is correct. He asserts that bin Laden learned his communications on sat. phone were being tracked, so stopped using it. But is that necessarily a bad thing? If terrorists know they're being tracked, and stop using cell phones, doesn't that fear substantially disrupt their activities? If we were able to turn off all cellphones owned by terrorists, would that be a useful tool? If disclosure of this accomplishes that much, is that a bad thing?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm not sure this argument is correct. He asserts that bin Laden learned his communications on sat. phone were being tracked, so stopped using it. But is that necessarily a bad thing? If terrorists know they're being tracked, and stop using cell phones, doesn't that fear substantially disrupt their activities? If we were able to turn off all cellphones owned by terrorists, would that be a useful tool? If disclosure of this accomplishes that much, is that a bad thing?

I haven't been following this as closely as I'd like, but tapping bin Laden's phone was done without a warrant? WTF? Why, in god's name, would they not get a warrant for this? No probable cause? Were they worried they'd have to cough up secret information to get it (what would that be, beyond "bin Laudin has a satellite phone we are technologically able to tap"?)?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Today's NYTimes reports that, after 9/11 when Ashcroft loosened the rules on FBI investigations, the FBI used their new power to conduct surveillance of such known Al Qaeda subsidiaries as Greenpeace, PETA, and Catholic Workers.

If you accept this, you would have to question the assumption quoted above (and I know none of you guys accept much about the NYTimes)

Sidd, I'm glad you're back- Ty has been hating the Italians, and I know he won't if you're here-

Do you remember the Douglas Brackman rant on the airplane- "Things just have to make sense to me....." - airplane stuck on tarmac?

Anyway that what throws me here- the standard for the warrent is obviously low. How could any tap that excites NSA enough that it justifies going outside the procedure not meet the standard?

It's like the "Bush lied" to get us into Iraq argument- why would he?

And for those of you who don't buy into the "too senstive explaination" look at SAM's post above- "I guess we'll all know what the taps are for once Spector's investigation is over." WTF?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I know you guys are better lawyers than the way you analyze stuff here. If the admin is actually getting 1500 warrents a year, it's not like they need to go looking for more. (actually 1700-0)

As others have already pointed out, you're justifying this by saying that their earlier success either (a) means they don't need to worry about it here because they'd win anyway, or (b) implies that it must've been really important, so it's OK to skip the procedure here.

I know you're a better lawyer than the way you're analyzing stuff here.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I haven't been following this as closely as I'd like, but tapping bin Laden's phone was done without a warrant? WTF? Why, in god's name, would they not get a warrant for this? No probable cause? Were they worried they'd have to cough up secret information to get it (what would that be, beyond "bin Laudin has a satellite phone we are technologically able to tap"?)?

Maybe I'm whiffing, but you do know Article 3 Judges technically don't have authority in Pakistan, don't you?

Actually I think this law would allow tapping a US citizen's phone w/o warrent if done outside the US.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Anyway that what throws me here- the standard for the warrent is obviously low. How could any tap that excites NSA enough that it justifies going outside the procedure not meet the standard?

I bet there are people in the NSA who get a hard-on (or wet-on, whatever) just thinking about how they can go do something without judicial approval. Because it makes them special -- rules only apply to the little people, so not having to obey the rule makes them a big important person. And once you get used to not having to get a warrant, you can go tap people/things you are just curious about or hate.

Like, if they gave me access to the right system, and I knew I wasn't being checked on, I'd totally look up that-bitch-I-hate's comp.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I haven't been following this as closely as I'd like, but tapping bin Laden's phone was done without a warrant? WTF? Why, in god's name, would they not get a warrant for this? No probable cause? Were they worried they'd have to cough up secret information to get it (what would that be, beyond "bin Laudin has a satellite phone we are technologically able to tap"?)?

No, I was speaking to the more general point. Bush is pissed that someone leaked the fact that they were doing this (I don't think he went so far as to say he'd fire the person). He asserts that disclosing the fact of these wiretaps undermines efforts to combat terrorism. The analogy drawn was to the disclosure of inception of bin Laden satphone communications.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Anyway that what throws me here- the standard for the warrent is obviously low. How could any tap that excites NSA enough that it justifies going outside the procedure not meet the standard?

I question whether Nixon could have gotten a warrant for everyone on his "enemies" list.

Given Bush's view that everyone who questions him, or any aspect of his tactics or his execution of the plan for postwar Iraq (assuming there ever was a plan, beyond sweets and flowers), is "with the terrorists", I have similar questions about him.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I bet there are people in the NSA who get a hard-on (or wet-on, whatever) just thinking about how they can go do something without judicial approval. Because it makes them special -- rules only apply to the little people, so not having to obey the rule makes them a big important person. And once you get used to not having to get a warrant, you can go tap people/things you are just curious about or hate.

Like, if they gave me access to the right system, and I knew I wasn't being checked on, I'd totally look up that-bitch-I-hate's comp.

Yeah but Bush approves them. Do you think he's in on the pettiness?

Oh, and prissy bitch makes:

Prissy Bitch Salary= Fringey Salary + $50,000