Skip to main content

View Diary: Press, polls wrongly conflate Bush and Obama NSA surveillance (189 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You don't care whether or not there (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Onomastic, Sylv

    is judicial oversight of government surveillance programs?

    That's more than a "nuance" to me.

    •  100% of 2010's 1,506 warrants approved (4+ / 0-)

      I believe the average is over 99% through the Bush/Obama continuum.

      So… secret "judicial oversight" makes this shit better how?

      http://arstechnica.com/...

      "I am confident that we're going to be able to leave the Gulf Coast in better shape than it was before." President Barack Obama

      by quagmiremonkey on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:38:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's how, if you'd care to be informed... (0+ / 0-)
        •  This in particular I found persuasive: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sylv
          In many ways the court is secretive, but one thing we do know is the members.  They are all sitting federal judges.  Here are a few who served recently:  Judge James Roberston, of the D.C. district court, was on the FISA court for a number of years until he resigned in 2005 to protest the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.  He was appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton, and early in his career worked for the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights under Law.  His public judicial work shows that he is anything but a rubber stamp for government police powers.  Yet he (apparently) rejected almost no applications, as there were only 11 rejections out of almost 34,000 from 1979-2012.  Or consider Judge James G. Carr, who served on the FISA Court from 2002-2008.  He was appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton, and is a former law professor who wrote an extensive treatise on wiretapping law.  I have practiced in front of Judge Carr; he, too, is no rubber stamp.

          It is definitely worth scrutinizing the FISA Court, but it is not a kangaroo court.

          The writer also points out that an application that foreseeably will be rejected (which the court will signal by asking for supplemental information that the government perhaps cannot provide) is often withdrawn by DOJ rather than denied by the court. So the "granted vs. denied" statistic is basically meaningless.
    •  If the courts approve (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      quagmiremonkey

      "spy on literally everyone [with a Verizon phone, and presumably with their competitors as well]," there is no meaningful check here.

      What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

      by happymisanthropy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:55:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But that isn't what they're doing. (0+ / 0-)

        You do understand that nobody is collecting the content of any communication under this order, right?

        •  WTF? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Argyrios, quagmiremonkey

          Collecting the locations from which I make phone calls = spying on me.

          What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

          by happymisanthropy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 07:44:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Or to be more precise (0+ / 0-)

            collecting the locations from which phone numbers interact with other phone numbers (along with time stamps).

            Just trying to make sure we're all talking about the same thing.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site