Greenwald can't make up his mind: Is the FISA court a "rubber-stamp" or not?

[ProSense]

Greenwald can't make up his mind. Previously, he knocked the FISA court as "the ultimate rubber-stamp court."

The bad joke called 'the FISA court' shows how a 'drone court' would work
Newly released data show that the government submitted 1,789 eavesdropping requests last year, and none was rejected
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/03/fisa-court-rubber-stamp-drones

Fisa court oversight: a look inside a secret and empty process
Obama and other NSA defenders insist there are robust limitations on surveillance but the documents show otherwise
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy

His latest claim is that the FISA court actually performed its oversight function, but the Obama administration is blocking release of the information.

<...>

Greenwald also referenced a secret FISA court opinion that called the expansive reach of the NSA’s data mining programs unconstitutional and illegal. The Guardian journalist said that the FISA court has no objection to releasing the decision, but that the Obama administration is keeping it classified.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/greenwald-mocks-robust-oversight-of-nsa-spying-congress-being-forced-to-learn-about-nsa-in-our-reporting/

If the FISA court has declared the programs "unconstitutional and illegal," why does it continue to approve them?

Could it be that the opinion doesn't really state that or that it may have found a violation that was already corrected?

For example, one of the documents declassified this week cites such an incident, and it shows oversight.

From the 2009 release:



http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/2009_CoverLetter_Report_Collection.pdf

All documents: http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/908-dni-clapper-declassifies-and-releases-telephone-metadata-collection-documents

Beyond this, Greenwald's own reporting on the leaks hasn't revealed anthing illegal, but he keeps repeating the charge, now citing a FISA court opinion that he hasn't seen as evidence.

[Rex]

1. Do they rubber stamp requests or have they ever turned one down?

nt.

[GoneFishin]

2. They rubber stamp them, although I think they turned one down. n/t

[Rex]

4. Thanks just wondering why call it a court.

Why not just call it the Approval Committee.

[ProSense]

3. Well,

"Do they rubber stamp requests or have they ever turned one down?"

...according to Greenwald, the court has declared the program "unconstitutional and illegal."

Also, see the excerpt from the 2009 release.

[Rex]

5. Ya about Greenwald

he says a lot of things doesn't he? I will go look at the release in detail.

[ProSense]

15. Yes, he does. n/t

[Logical]

6. Do you trust the FISA courts Prosense? Yes or No. And not 15 links to other posts. n-t

[ProSense]

16. Kick!

"Do you trust the FISA courts Prosense? Yes or No. And not 15 links to other posts."

Who cares? It's not about me, what the hell do "links" have to do with it the issue?

Does Greenwald trust the court? He's the one claiming the court declared the program "unconstitutional and illegal."

Evidently, he does when it suits his needs.

[Logical]

32. I figured you wouldn't answer. Not a shock. n-t

[AgingAmerican]

63. Guess who appointed all 11 judges?

nt

[randome]

24. No, they don't rubber stamp them.

Warrants are often rejected by the court for specific reasons, modified to meet the court's requirements and resubmitted then approved.

This has been pointed out over and over again but as you see there are some who don't want to look objectively at the process.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[rug]

28. It denied 11 of them.

Granted 33,949.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_court

[randome]

33. From what I understand, prosecutors rarely go before a court with a warrant request...

...without a firm likelihood of it being granted. That applies to any type of prosecutor and court system, not just FISA.

At least that's how some DUers have explained it. And it makes sense because a prosecutor doesn't want the reputation of asking for the court's time frivolously.

Now if some DUers with actual knowledge of other court systems could bring up similar statistics, we'd have a baseline for comparison.

Otherwise, we're 'stuck' with taking Greenwald's opinion that the FISA court is both a rubber-stamp institution and exercises oversight.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[ProSense]

34. Another thing

often overlooked is that Bush bypassed the FISA court.

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: December 16, 2005

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html

The FISA court came into focus after Bush's illegal spying was exposed. The debate leading up to the FISA amendments took place mostly in 2007.

[randome]

37. Yeah, I'd say a secretive court is better than no court at all.

Still, too much secrecy breeds distrust and that's where we are today.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[AgingAmerican]

64. A secret court controlled by the GOP

Sounds like a recipe for fascism

[Logical]

35. Same bogus reason people defend Grand Jurys which are rigged in the states favor. n-t

[randome]

36. I'm not sure how else you would go about determining if a trial was needed or not.

Selecting random citizens to look at the evidence seems like a good start. Otherwise, the process would be stacked even more heavily in the State's favor.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Logical]

38. The state controls the evidence, at least in my state. No counter by the defense. And.....

the grand jury very seldom, if ever, do not indite.

And if a cops case goes to a grand jury, it is amazing how often they are not indited.

The evidence is controlled by the prosecutor.

[randome]

40. Interesting points.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

47. Okay thanks for the data.

That says it all.

[bluestate10]

7. The far Left is alternating between the FISA Court being a rubber-stamp, and the Court

making secret new laws. The Court obviously can't be both, and realistically isn't close to being either. In the real world, the Court is most likely a body that is trying to make sense of rushed, poorly written laws out of Congress during a period when politicians took advantage of fear and a desire among the public to feel safe.

[Rex]

9. So they cannot do two things at once?

Why do I hear that from so many people that bring up the far left?

[GoneFishin]

10. And all hell breaks loose if they try to walk or chew gum. n/t

[dkf]

11. Lol right?

[Rex]

48. It is a funny pattern.

The Left is always expected to think about one thing and that all other things in the universe can do only one thing at a time. There is no multitasking. Funny pattern.

[Thinkingabout]

8. This is becoming much more about another agenda than FISA courts, Greenwald is supposed

Be a Constitutional attorney but some of his writings and statements doesn't always make sense. I hear statements made on behalf of clients which are thin. So far he has been associated with Snowden who has now received asylum in Russia and is charged with several counts including espionage. Is it going to become apparent Snowden is a patsy to Greenwald or is this more of a libertarian influence to attempt to split our Democratic party. We know for sure Greenwald will change the story in a few days if he continues performing in his usual manner.

[dkf]

12. Of course it's not just about the FISA court. It's about the entire NSA operation. Geez.

[ProSense]

13. The OP is about the FISA court and Greenwald's current claim. n/t

[dkf]

14. But the poster I am responding to is asking if Greenwald's agenda is the FISA court.

And to that I say no, it is much larger than that.

[DJ13]

39. "Greenwald is supposed (to) Be a Constitutional attorney but some of his writings

and statements doesn't always make sense."

Sounds.... familiar.

Oh wait........

[Thinkingabout]

42. Where is the post by Obama? He does not have any. who is writing and crying

About violations of the Fourth amendment, oh, that would be Greenwald. Might he have been in the position to properly advise Snowden on the probability of Snowden being charged with espionage. Oh, but it was more important to get the Greenwald name attached to something. Yes, Obama knew the warrantless wiretapping was in violation of the Constitution and when he was campaigning he spoke of this problem. The problem had already ceased by the time Obama took office. Here Greenwald is going on and on about something which occurred in 2008 and has managed to convince some this is a new revealing news.

[DJ13]

43. Obama, the Constitutional lawyer, is IN CHARGE of the programs

He should know better.

Greenwald is just a convenient target to deflect attention.

[stevenleser]

45. He already reigned in warrantless wiretapping and replaced it with FISA. He knew better and changed

it.

http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2013/08/repost-transcript-of-nsa-surveillance.html

[DJ13]

46. bla bla bla

Rewriting the rules isnt the same as ceasing the actions.

[stevenleser]

49. Yeah, I know, facts aren't exciting and get in the way of a perfectly good mindless rant.

Sorry I spoiled the fun with facts.

Please continue.

[ProSense]

62. Facts don't matter.

The if this was Bush argument proves that.

President Obama didn't start an illegal war. He didn't sanction torture. He didn't illegally eavesdrop on Americans. He reversed and ended Bush's policies.

Yet the minute that bullshit story about the NSA showing up at someone's house surfaced, the shit stirrers were calling for impeachment. It's not the first time, and the agenda is clear.

[Thinkingabout]

60. You are absolutely correct, Obama is in charge, he has taken an oath to uphold the laws of the US,

he is doing what his oath requires. Obama also knows the Constitution, Greenwald is just a mouth, does not have to execute the laws of the US. Obama does know better, actually Greenwald knows better but he apparently does not care to be truthful. Greenwald has chosen to place attention toward himself, he should be prepared to have criticism, just as you have been critical of Obama, others are critical of Greenwald.

[Bonobo]

17. This OP makes nothing out of nothing.

The FISA courts job is not to determine whether a program is unconstitutional or not.

Its job is to either approve or not approve wiretap requests.

So offering an opinion that the program is not constitutional or legal does not contradict the fact that, by their actions, they can be considered to be "rubber-stamping" requests.

[ProSense]

19. "The FISA courts job is not to determine whether a program is unconstitutional or not."

Really?

So what is Greenwald talking about?

"So offering an opinion that the program is not constitutional or legal does not contradict the fact that, by their actions, they can be considered to be "rubber-stamping" requests."

Why would the court continue to approve requests if it deemed them "illegal"?

[Bonobo]

22. Your OP is making an issue out of nothing.

There is, quite simply, nothing to reply to.

Your questions are petty and silly and, more importantly, they are missing the forest for the moss on a single tree.

[ProSense]

25. Right,

"Your OP is making an issue out of nothing...Your questions are petty and silly and, more importantly, they are missing the forest for the moss on a single tree."

...because claiming the court does oversight and also does no oversight is rational.

[Bonobo]

27. OK, let's show how silly your OP is clearly:

It is entirely possible that the FISA court offered the opinion that the programs are unconstitutional AND that they rubber stamp the requests.

Your implication that reporting these two reconcilable facts is somehow hypocritical is ridiculous for 2 reasons:

1. A reporter reports on what has happened and so assigning some blame to Greenwald for these two issues is weird.

2. The two things are, in fact, both possible. Courts commonly offer opinions but that does not excuse them from also having to carry out a decision forced upon them.

Your OP really, really is one of the poorest you have offered.

And for that reason, I will gleefully continue to engage so that this stays kicked.

More people should be aware of the pathetic lengths that some will go to to defend the indefensible.

[randome]

29. So your 'goal', then, is to denigrate a DUer, not offer your opinion and let it stand on its own.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Bonobo]

30. It is a teaching moment. nt

[Bodhi BloodWave]

53. You are right, its a teaching moment that taught me i seem to have held you in to high regard

in the past.

A sad lesson to learn.

[Number23]

56. Very well said.

[Mojorabbit]

65. +100 nt

[ProSense]

31. No,

"It is entirely possible that the FISA court offered the opinion that the programs are unconstitutional AND that they rubber stamp the requests. "

...that's speculation that makes no sense. Why would they reject violations and demand compliance only in some cases?

Worse, why would they cite violations and then rubber stamp them?

Your OP really, really is one of the poorest you have offered.

And for that reason, I will gleefully continue to engage so that this stays kicked.

More people should be aware of the pathetic lengths that some will go to to defend the indefensible.

You know, you've offered no logical explanation, but you're trying to be condescending.

Your comment makes no sense, and that's on you.

[Mojorabbit]

66. The comment makes perfect logical sense. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Unwinding this nonsense.

1. The fisa court has apparently rejected something like 1 of the tens of thousands of requests put before it to conduct fisa "regulated" wiretaps.

2. Quite remarkably this same court might (the document is classified) have found one of the many mass surveillance programs illegal and unconstitutional.

Rubber stamps almost every wiretap case put before it, ruled one of the post 9-11 mass surveillance programs unconstitutional.

There is no contradiction there.

Carry on, I'm sure tomorrow's talking point will be truly devastating.

[ProSense]

20. That makes no sense. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

21. I agree your op is non-sense.

But heck you will have a fresh memo to work with tomorrow.

[ProSense]

23. LOL!

You attempted to excuse away Greenwald's contradictory claims.

[randome]

26. Requests are often rejected for constitutional reasons.

Then modified, resubmitted, repeated as many times until it passes the court's requirements.

That's why so few have been rejected.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[disidoro01]

61. Please

Show me information on this:"Requests are often rejected for constitutional reasons.Then modified, resubmitted, repeated as many times until it passes the court's requirements.That's why so few have been rejected."
I've not seen information where many are rejected then resubmitted and i am curious as to grounds, etc.

[RetroLounge]

41. Yawn...

RL

[Vinnie From Indy]

44. I read that Greenwald NEVER leaves a penny in the "take a penny/leave a penny" dish

He always "takes a penny"!!!!

I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that he also has fuckin' boxes in his garage!

[AppleBottom]

50. The numbers would lead any thinking individual to acknowledge that they're a rubber stamp.

But the fact that they're a secret court whose decision are classified from review makes it difficult to understand why they are such rubber stamps.

Besides GG isn't the only person to point out that the FISA is rubber stamp 'court' other progressive publications have come to the same conclusion.

[Recursion]

57. Ah, it was stated on television

Obviously that's true, then

[Waiting For Everyman]

52. The 2009 release in your OP is by the Dept. of Justice and the "Intelligence Community".

Given their track record for lying, their own statement about how great their oversight is, proves zip.

Secondly, Greenwald has no obligation to make his statements conform to what the opposing side has to say. Their lies are their own problem, not his.

This is a puffed up bunch of nothing, designed to mislead.

[Douglas Carpenter]

54. Greenwald only cares about his rescue dogs

http://www.out.com/news-commentary/2011/04/18/glenn-greenwald-life-beyond-borders?page=0,0

[AgingAmerican]

55. More spin

Oh, and NSA domestic surveillance is still wrong.

[bowens43]

59. blah blah blah blah blah blah etc.....

you really should give it a rest, your desperation is comical....

[TransitJohn]

67. Have the Greenwald smears not outlived their usefylness, yet?

Amazeballs.