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
Kick and rec if you support the proposed NSA reforms.
ACLU: NSA Legislation Since the Leaks Beganhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/10023469450
Wyden is pushing reform, from his statement:
We appreciate the candor of the Chief Judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court regarding the Court's inability to independently verify statements made by the executive branch. We believe that the Court is not currently structured in a way that makes it an effective check on the power of the executive branch. This highlights the need for a robust and well-staffed public advocate who could participate in significant cases before the Court and evaluate and counter government assertions. Without such an advocate on the court, and without greater transparency regarding the Court's rulings, the checks and balances on executive branch authority enshrined in the Constitution cannot be adequately upheld.”
http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-udall-statement-on-reports-of-compliance-violations-made-under-nsa-collection-programs
http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-udall-statement-on-reports-of-compliance-violations-made-under-nsa-collection-programs
Blumenthal Unveils Major Legislation To Reform FISA Courts
Thursday, August 1, 2013
(Washington, DC) – Today, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) – joined by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) – unveiled two bills that would ensure FISA courts properly balance the need to protect national security with constitutional and statutory requirements to safeguard individual rights to privacy and liberty. The first bill – the FISA Court Reform Act of 2013 – would create a Special Advocate with the power to argue in the FISA courts on behalf of the right to privacy and other individual rights of the American people. The second bill – The FISA Judge Selection Reform Act – would reform how judges are appointed to the FISA courts to ensure that the court is geographically and ideologically diverse and better reflects the full diversity of perspectives on questions of national security, privacy, and liberty.
(Washington, DC) – Today, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) – joined by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) – unveiled two bills that would ensure FISA courts properly balance the need to protect national security with constitutional and statutory requirements to safeguard individual rights to privacy and liberty. The first bill – the FISA Court Reform Act of 2013 – would create a Special Advocate with the power to argue in the FISA courts on behalf of the right to privacy and other individual rights of the American people. The second bill – The FISA Judge Selection Reform Act – would reform how judges are appointed to the FISA courts to ensure that the court is geographically and ideologically diverse and better reflects the full diversity of perspectives on questions of national security, privacy, and liberty.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023388210
Blumenthal Applauds President Obama’s Support For Special Advocate In FISA Courts
Blumenthal Introduced Senate Legislation Last Week To Provide For Adversarial Process
Friday, August 9, 2013
(Hartford, CT) – Today, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) issued the following statement after President Obama announced the he would support appointing a special advocate to the FISA courts to argue on behalf of the right to privacy and other individual rights of the American people. Recently, Blumenthal introduced the FISA Court Reform Act of 2013 , which would create such an advocate.
http://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-applauds-president-obamas-support-for-special-advocate-in-fisa-courts
Blumenthal Introduced Senate Legislation Last Week To Provide For Adversarial Process
Friday, August 9, 2013
(Hartford, CT) – Today, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) issued the following statement after President Obama announced the he would support appointing a special advocate to the FISA courts to argue on behalf of the right to privacy and other individual rights of the American people. Recently, Blumenthal introduced the FISA Court Reform Act of 2013 , which would create such an advocate.
“I am tremendously pleased to hear President Obama’s support for appointing a special advocate to the FISA courts, an idea that is at the heart of legislation I introduced last week. Recent revelations about the size and scope of the nation’s foreign surveillance activities prove – once again – that the Constitution needs a zealous advocate. My legislation would empower such an advocate to protect precious Constitutional rights if threatened by government overreaching, and thereby strike a critical balance that serves the interests of both liberty and security. The Special Advocate’s client would be the Constitution and the individual rights of the American people. President Obama’s endorsement of this general framework today is a strong step in the right direction.
“As a skilled lawyer, President Obama knows that courts commonly make better decisions when they hear both sides. His support for this commonsense concept should give this cause compelling momentum. His statement reflects that he's receptive to reforms that make the FISA court more open and accountable – more like other federal courts and less like a secret court, making secret law through secret opinions.”
http://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-applauds-president-obamas-support-for-special-advocate-in-fisa-courts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023473562
15 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
There are those on DU that don't want "reform". They want the removal of the current President and installation of an Ayn Rand type society - "free" of any government involvement or regulation.
It was breath-taking to see how many supporters of Ron & Rand Paul existed here. It took forever to get the rec count up on that thread polling for who refuses to buy the Libertarian bullshit.
the technology and equating with what is described in a document written in the late 1700s.
The 4th Amendment states -
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I.e., what was once "tangible" in a "physical sense" is no longer so. The most applicable statues that seem to apply to the current NSA activity deal with various "Wire-tapping" legislation. A recent Supreme Court ruling gave a somewhat "mixed" signal -
[font size="3"]Wiretapping-Law Challenges Barred by U.S. Supreme Court[/font]
By Greg Stohr - Feb 26, 2013 2:47 PM ET
John Roberts has a way of inserting himself into almost every political setting. He upstaged Barack Obama at his first inauguration; he made his the most important single vote cast in the 2012 election; he has upended 2014 politics with his opinion gutting the Voting Act. Now it turns out he has assumed a key role in the war on terror.
<snip>
Lawyers and civil rights activists can’t challenge a federal law that allows government surveillance of international phone calls and e-mail, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a victory for the Obama administration.
The justices, voting 5-4 along ideological lines, today said groups and people represented by the American Civil Liberties Union hadn’t shown they were being harmed by the surveillance. The ACLU’s clients include Amnesty International, lawyers, international rights activists and journalists.
The activists contended that the 2008 law violates the Constitution by allowing the monitoring, with minimal court supervision, of international communications by Americans who aren’t suspected of criminal or terrorist activities.
“It is speculative whether the government will imminently target communications to which respondents are parties,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
Today’s ruling didn’t address the lawfulness of the wiretapping law itself, saying only that the ACLU and its allies lack legal “standing” to pursue their suit. The standing requirement stems from the constitutional limit on federal courts’ authority to decide “cases” and “controversies.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-26/wiretapping-law-challenges-barred-by-u-s-supreme-court.html
By Greg Stohr - Feb 26, 2013 2:47 PM ET
John Roberts has a way of inserting himself into almost every political setting. He upstaged Barack Obama at his first inauguration; he made his the most important single vote cast in the 2012 election; he has upended 2014 politics with his opinion gutting the Voting Act. Now it turns out he has assumed a key role in the war on terror.
<snip>
Lawyers and civil rights activists can’t challenge a federal law that allows government surveillance of international phone calls and e-mail, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a victory for the Obama administration.
The justices, voting 5-4 along ideological lines, today said groups and people represented by the American Civil Liberties Union hadn’t shown they were being harmed by the surveillance. The ACLU’s clients include Amnesty International, lawyers, international rights activists and journalists.
The activists contended that the 2008 law violates the Constitution by allowing the monitoring, with minimal court supervision, of international communications by Americans who aren’t suspected of criminal or terrorist activities.
“It is speculative whether the government will imminently target communications to which respondents are parties,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
Today’s ruling didn’t address the lawfulness of the wiretapping law itself, saying only that the ACLU and its allies lack legal “standing” to pursue their suit. The standing requirement stems from the constitutional limit on federal courts’ authority to decide “cases” and “controversies.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-26/wiretapping-law-challenges-barred-by-u-s-supreme-court.html
The key being this ruling didn't address "the lawfulness" leaving the issue open to other cases, with the obvious caveat of egregious impact. I believe this case applied to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008.
One of the biggest arguments for reform has to do with the composition of the FISA court and the revelation that Chief Justice Roberts appointed all the judges. I would agree with the below as a way to reign in and better involve Congress in what they have wrought -
[font size="3"]Chief Justice John Roberts Appointed Every Judge on the FISA Court[/font]
Is that too much power for one person?
By Garrett Epps, The Atlanic
August 12, 2013 | 11:02 a.m.
John Roberts has a way of inserting himself into almost every political setting. He upstaged Barack Obama at his first inauguration; he made his the most important single vote cast in the 2012 election; he has upended 2014 politics with his opinion gutting the Voting Act. Now it turns out he has assumed a key role in the war on terror.
<snip>
The question is being raised now because recent leaks give us a disturbing look into the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The chief justice selects the 11 district judges who serve on this court; his discretion is subject only to a few limits: the judges must come from at least seven appeals-court circuits, one must be a district judge of the District of Columbia, and no fewer than three must live within 20 miles of D.C.
The FISA panel was originally conceived as simply a mechanism to grant warrants for surveillance—the equivalent of a magistrate who looks at an affidavit from a police officer and then orders a search or seizure. It's an important function, but pretty pedestrian (or as lawyers like to say, "ministerial"
.
<snip>
For that reason, it may make sense to spread the responsibility for the makeup of the FISA courts. Vladeck suggests either creating a stand-alone specialized FISA Court, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, or confining the present FISA Court to warrant approval, with a transfer of the more complex oversight of surveillance programs to panels of an existing court, perhaps one such as the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has experience in the intricacies of administrative law.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/chief-justice-john-roberts-appointed-every-judge-on-the-fisa-court-20130812
Is that too much power for one person?
By Garrett Epps, The Atlanic
August 12, 2013 | 11:02 a.m.
John Roberts has a way of inserting himself into almost every political setting. He upstaged Barack Obama at his first inauguration; he made his the most important single vote cast in the 2012 election; he has upended 2014 politics with his opinion gutting the Voting Act. Now it turns out he has assumed a key role in the war on terror.
<snip>
The question is being raised now because recent leaks give us a disturbing look into the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The chief justice selects the 11 district judges who serve on this court; his discretion is subject only to a few limits: the judges must come from at least seven appeals-court circuits, one must be a district judge of the District of Columbia, and no fewer than three must live within 20 miles of D.C.
The FISA panel was originally conceived as simply a mechanism to grant warrants for surveillance—the equivalent of a magistrate who looks at an affidavit from a police officer and then orders a search or seizure. It's an important function, but pretty pedestrian (or as lawyers like to say, "ministerial"
.
<snip>
For that reason, it may make sense to spread the responsibility for the makeup of the FISA courts. Vladeck suggests either creating a stand-alone specialized FISA Court, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, or confining the present FISA Court to warrant approval, with a transfer of the more complex oversight of surveillance programs to panels of an existing court, perhaps one such as the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has experience in the intricacies of administrative law.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/chief-justice-john-roberts-appointed-every-judge-on-the-fisa-court-20130812
Probably the most notable issue causing the outrage is the "casting a wide net" type of strategy that appears to try to "capture all" and then sift through it. The "sifting" part is what has explicitly required the warrants but the "casting the net" part is what is at issue regarding the government's legal authority to do such, apparently without a warrant.
It gets worse because the technology and ability to "spoof" phone numbers and data source IPs, aids in potential intermingling foreign with domestic - "muddying the waters". I.e., something from a "foreign" source engaging in nefarious activities, can mask itself as "domestic" with the intent to circumvent the surveillance.
Since FISA deals with foreign (international) activity, perhaps the U.S. could propose changes to the International Criminal Court to assist in how to handle some of these issues. In 2002, the U.S. informed the U.N. that it would no longer participate in this court however the current Administration has supported the court in a limited fashion, so there is an opening to build on that. Alternately, perhaps have a similar set-up to the FISA but operating under the International Court of Justice.
