Skip to main content

View Diary: Dick Durbin: Secret FISA court 'fixed,' 'loaded' (206 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If all you're going by is approval rate, though (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Reggid

    (which is the gist of the original comment), you can say the same about any other court -- just ask and get what you want.

    We see them as different because we have more information about those other courts, as you detail -- later events that tell you what happened in secret. (That is not universally true, of course -- many intercepts are never revealed to their targets, let alone uninvolved parties.) I agree that the continuing secrecy as to FISC orders is a huge problem, as are several other aspects of its operation. It's just not evidence that federal judges who every day, in their ordinary criminal caseload, require the government put forth evidence sufficient to meet the standard, suddenly stop requiring the government to provide sufficient evidence because of the foreign intelligence context.

    •  I believe that Russ Feingold -- (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, maryabein, CroneWit, rlochow

      -- addressed some of those concerns when opposing the Patriot Act back when it was originally debated.  What was it called?  Sneak and Peek warrants which had nothing to do with terrorism but applied to routine criminal warrants where police could enter someone's home and conduct a search without their knowledge and not have to inform them of the search for weeks, months, or, in  some cases, ever.

      This is Mission Creep at its very worst.  Using a terrorist attack as a pretext to expand the power of the state wrt terrorist activities only to see that expansion creep into other areas of federal law enforcement and criminal law enforcement.

      all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

      by 4kedtongue on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 03:06:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

        Actually while working on my paralegal degree I just studied about the issue of sneak and peek.  They are required to tell you that they had the warrant on you. Just they aren't required to tell you anything else about it.  You can ask but you won't get an answer.  And yes the warrant is so they can sneak a peek in the case that they might lose the evidence in a case.  It's supposed to help protect situations like that (key word is supposed).

        With warrants you're supposed to have a probable cause and yes saying the word "terrorism" definitely makes it easier to get what you want. Who wants to be the one to not stop the next bombing or shoot out or what have you?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site