In Secret, Court Vastly Broadens Powers of N.S.A. (almost a parallel Supreme Court)

nytimes ^

[corlorde]

I became aware of the FISA Court when under the former president Bush, the liberals were screaming about him “shredding the Constitution” for authorizing warrant less wiretaps of targeted overseas communications of suspected Al Queda members. So, in 2008 under our current ruler, they decided they didn’t want to come under similar scrutiny from the likes of the ACLU, MSNBC, and to a lesser extent their base. So, they just expanded the FISA Court’s power to justify any and everything the regime deems necessary to “keep us safe” (from tax payers and tea party member no doubt) and it is all on the up and up because it is overseen by a judge.

[dragnet2]

Bookmark

[boxlunch]

Just since all the revelations on NSA this summer. That’s why I don’t condemn Snowden either. Ive studied and read too much about life under both Nazis and communists. NKVD, KGB, SS. Lubyanka....terrifying.

[USS Johnston]

I think there might have been others, but they were destroyed first. I'm shocked he was able to speak.

No way was Snowden "allowed" to make such damaging revelations. He obviously must have taken extreme precautions far beyond extraordinary. Which is exactly why the world governments have been coerced, blackmailed, and threatened NOT to give sanctuary to the Whistleblower. He's spoken, but briefly. As insurance it's been said that he's given 'The Guardian' and other sources other information from which to "speak" -- presumably, from beyond the grave, if ever.

Wouldn't you presume 'The Guardian' have had their lives threatened or had whatever info they've been given confiscated?

Remember the information that leaked out about 600 future leaders (all pro-Constitution) were going to be taken out? For awhile, I was keeping track of how many were mysteriously/tragically dying in their 30s and 40s.

I don't recall the specific threat, but Breitbart and Hastings (of late) have proven these aren't idle threats.

[NonValueAdded]

Not to mention, this monstrosity of a “court” is likely nowhere to be found in the Constitution

Actually, yes it is:

Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. [emphasis added]

As an inferior court, I would think is it answerable to the Supremes. They are shirking their duty.

[USS Johnston]

The special needs doctrine was originally established in 1989 by the Supreme Court in a ruling allowing the drug testing of railway workers, finding that a minimal intrusion on privacy was justified by the government’s need to combat an overriding public danger. Applying that concept more broadly, the FISA judges have ruled that the N.S.A.’s collection and examination of Americans’ communications data to track possible terrorists does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, the officials said.

So....nullifying the Fourth Amendment and surveillance Of ALL Americans is supposedly justified as a result of testing railway workers for drugs back in 1989?? Is this not unbelievable?

[spokeshave]

Welcome King Barack "Canute" Obama the Great.....

...Obama issues an Executive Order to the Sun...

....to increase it's magnetic field....

and make a good crop of sunspots before elections in 2016....

(PhysOrg.com) -- Sunspot formation is triggered by a magnetic field, which scientists say is steadily declining. They predict that by 2016 there may be no remaining sunspots, and the sun may stay spotless for several decades.

The last time the sunspots disappeared altogether was in the 17th and 18th century, and coincided with a lengthy cool period on the planet known as the Little Ice Age....and lasted 400 years.

Good luck surviving with no electricity and GE modified seeds.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news203746768.html#jCp

[zeugma]

Ye Olde English Star Chamber Court we have now in contemporary America that does not call witnesses or allows defense arguments that meets in secret, hears only the government side and makes decisions that are stamped “Top Secret” and not shared with the citizens.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court Orders 1979-2012

Stolen from http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

Year	Number of FISA Applications Presented	Number of FISA Applications Approved	Number of FISA Applications Rejected	Number of NSL Applications Concerning U.S. Persons1	Number of U.S. Persons Involved In NSL Applications	Number of FISA Applications for Business and Tangible Records
19792	199	207	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
19803	319	322	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
1981	431	433	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
1982	473	475	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
1983	549	549	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
1984	635	635	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
1985	587	587	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
1986	573	573	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
1987	512	512	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
1988	534	534	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
1989	546	546	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
1990	595	595	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
1991	593	593	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
1992	484	484	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
1993	509	509	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
1994	576	576	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
1995	697	697	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
1996	839	839	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
19974	749	748	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
1998	796	796	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
19995	886	880	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
20006	1005	1012	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
20017	932	934	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
20028	1228	1228	0	n/a	n/a	n/a
20039	1727	1724	4	n/a	n/a	n/a
200410	1758	1754	0	8943	n/a	n/a
200511	2074	2072	0	9475	3501	15517
200612	2181	2176	1	12583	4790	43
200713	2371	2370	4	16804	4327	6
200814	2082	2083	1	24744	7225	13
200915	1329	1320	1	14788	6114	21
2010	1579	1579	0	24287	14212	96
2011	1745	1745	0	16511	7201	205
201216	1856	1855	0	15229	6223	212

 

Acknowledgment: The Federation of American Scientists compiled a list of FISA annual reports, from which these statistics were extracted.

---

1. National Security Letters (NSLs) are extraordinary search procedures giving the FBI the power to compel the disclosure of customer records held by banks, telephone companies, Internet Service Providers, and others. In 2001, the FBIís authority to issue National Security Letters was significantly expanded by Section 505 of the Patriot Act, primarily by lowering the threshold in which NSLs may be issued.

Under the Patriot Reauthorization Act of 2005, the FBI is required to report to Congress on the number of NSLs issued and the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is required to review "the effectiveness and use, including any improper or illegal use, of national security letters issued by the Department of Justice." The OIG released its first report, covering calendar years 2003 through 2005, on March 9, 2007. The report detailed significant violations of law and regulations by the FBI in its use of its national security letter authority.

In 2007 the OIG found that the FBI had underreported the number of NSLs issued in the past. In the 2007 General Report of the Office of the Inspector General, the numbers for the years 2003-2005, previously reported in other sources, were examined and re-released. For these years only, the numbers of NSL requests reported to Congress relating to U.S. Persons are taken from the General Report, and not the annual reports. Note that the Modified numbers do not include NSL requests that do not identify if the request is seeking information related to a U.S. person or a non-U.S. person.

2. The calendar year of 1980 was the first full year that FISA had been in effect. Hence, 1979 does not reflect a complete calendar year.

3. No orders were entered which modified or denied the requested authority, except one case in which the Court modified a FISA order and authorized an activity for which court authority had not been requested.

4. In one case, although satisfied as to the probable cause to believe the target to be an agent of a foreign power, the court declined to approve the FISA application as plead for other reasons, and gave the government leave to amend the application. The government has filed a motion to withdraw that case as it has become moot.

5. One FISA application filed in 1999 was pending before the Court until March 29, 2000, when it was approved. Five FISA applications which were filed in late December 1999 were approved when presented to the Court on January 5, 2000.

6. The Court approved 1003 of these FISA applications in 2000. Two of the 1005 FISA applications were filed with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in December 2000 and approved in January 2001. Nine FISA applications were filed with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in calendar year 1999 and approved in calendar year 2000. Thus, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved 1012 FISA applications in calendar year 2000. Also, one order was modified by the Court. No orders were entered which denied the requested authority.

7. Two of the 934 FISA applications were filed with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in December 2000 and approved in January 2001. Also, two FISA orders and two warrants were modified by the Court. No FISA orders were entered which denied the requested authority.

8. The Court initially approved 1226 FISA applications in 2002. Two FISA applications were "approved as modified," and the United States appealed these applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, as applications having been denied in part. On November 18, 2002, the Court of Review issued a judgment that "ordered and adjudged that the motions for review be granted, the challenged portions of the orders on review be reversed, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's Rule 11 be vacated, and the cases be remanded with instructions to grant the United States' applications as submitted..."

9. The United States did not appeal any of the Court's four denials. However, the 2003 FISA report provides additional information about two of the four FISA applications denied:

(1) In one case, the Court issued supplemental orders with respect to its denial, and the Government filed with the Court a motion for reconsideration of its rulings. The Court subsequently vacated its earlier orders and granted in part and denied in part the Government's motion for reconsideration. The Government has not appealed that ruling. In 2004, the Court approved a revised application regarding this target that incorporated modifications consistent with the Court's prior order with respect to the motion for reconsideration.

(2) In another case, the Court initially denied the application without prejudice. The Government presented amended orders to the Court later the same day, which the Court approved. Because the Court eventually approved this application, it is included in the 1724 referenced above.

In 2003, the Court made substantive modifications to the United States' proposed orders in 79 FISA applications. For notes on NSL numbers, please reference footnote 1.

10. The United States withdrew three of its 1,758 FISA applications before the Court ruled on them. The United States then resubmitted one of these applications, which was approved by the Court as a new application. One of the 1,758 FISA applications made to the Court was approved in 2003 and received a docket number in 2004. In 2004, the Court made substantive modifications to the United States' proposed orders in 94 FISA applications. For notes on NSL numbers, please reference footnote 1.

11. The United States withdrew two of its FISA applications before the Court ruled on them. The United States then resubmitted one of these applications, which was approved by the Court as a new application. In 2005, the Court made substantive modifications to the United States' proposed orders in 61 FISA applications. For notes on NSL numbers, please reference footnote 1.

12. The United States withdrew five FISA applications before the Court ruled on them. One of these was resubmitted as a new FISA application. In 2006, the Court denied in part one FISA application. The Court made substantive modifications to the United States' proposed orders in 73 FISA applications.

Although the FBI expended significant resources to identify and correct errors in its NSL database, 2006 statistics are considered approximate.

13. In 2007 the Court denied 3 FISA applications and one FISA application in part. Two FISA applications filed in 2006 were not approved until 2007. During 2007 the Court made substantive modifications to proposed orders in 86 FISA applications.

In addition to NSLs that were issued in the ordinary course of its national security investigations, in 2007 and 2008 the FBI issued corrective NSLs, outside the ordinary course, which cause an anomaly in the historic trend of persons concerned by the NSLs. This trend is discussed at length in the 2008 Annual Report. Though 2007 NSL numbers underwent significant review, most figures were derived from manual input and there is possibility for error.

14. Two FISA applications filed in calendar-year 2007 were not approved until calendar-year 2008. Substantive modifications were made to two FISA applications before approval.

In addition to NSLs that were issued in the ordinary course of its national security investigations, in 2007 and 2008 the FBI issued corrective NSLs. All but one of the corrective NSLs , obtained prior to 2008, were issued in 2008 in order to provide legal authority for the FBI to retain records that had previously been provided by communications service providers. This topic is discussed at length in the 2008 Annual Report. Also note that 2008 was the first full year that the FBI used a new NSL subsystem to automatically tally data points necessary for accurate and timely Congressional reporting.

15. Eight FISA applications were withdrawn by the government prior to a decision. One FISA application was denied in whole, one FISA application was denied in part. Modifications were made to 14 FISA applications prior to approval.

16. One FISA application was withdrawn by the government prior to a decision. Modifications were made to 40 FISA applications prior to approval, including one application from 2011.

17. In his April 4, 2005 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Gonzales noted that the Justice Department was increasingly using business records orders to obtain subscriber information, such as names and addresses, for telephone numbers captured through court-ordered pen register or trap and trace devices. This information is routinely obtained in criminal investigations. The use of business records requests in conjunction with pen register applications accounts for much of the increase in the number of business records orders reported here as compared to statistics previously made public. Section 128 of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act specifically amended the pen register provisions of the FISA statute (50 U.S.C.  1842) to authorize the disclosure of subscriber information in connection with such court-authorized collection. We expect that this new provision will result in a decrease in the number of requests for business records orders that are reported in the future.

[mad_as_he$$]

Thanks. I couldn’t remember the name of the group that compiled that. Scary stuff.

[Vendome]

I’m dubious about the number of targeted persons being 15K, otherwise we would see even more arrests touted on TV.

In the case of FISA they are violating the 4th amendment.

The present an affirmation of “reasonable cause”.

The fourth is specific about the requirement being “Probable Cause”

Important distinctions. Reasonable cause merely implies one might conclude for a variety reasons a persons involvement. That however is rather ambiguous.

For it may mean merely the person “Might” fit a profile. Said profile can even be precognitive but, doesn’t have actual hallmarks or evidence of a specific crime.

However, Probably Cause, would contain a more stringent definition. That is; There an actual crime suspected/alleged and there is actual evidence leading one to believe a certain element or thing relating to proving the prosecution of a specific crime is located in a specific place.

Further, the problem with FISA is there is no specific prohibition against sweeping up huge swathes of information not related, in way, shape, form or fashion, the specific crime being investigated.

The various agencies use a process called “Whole Pipe Access” when they trawl through a service providers network.

That is; they search for records and transmissions across a very wide part of a network or storage medium.

They then look and listen through all that information to get to their target.

In the process they will uncover information that is not covered in the warrant.

Who is to say they couldn’t then use reasonable cause, once again, to obtain another warrant based on the one previously gained and the new “evidence” has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st and original case.

[cherokee1]

Yeah,, it got stretched. FISA got started as Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ACT-—But they needed a court so that gets added in as FISA Court. I’m waiting for someone to get prosecuted actually using an order from a secret court. That cute little logo they flash and a case of beer will will get one of them invited to a neighborhood party. Mostly it seems to me that the striped pants crowd is impressing themselves with their own internal supersecret clusterflock.

[zeugma]

The various agencies use a process called “Whole Pipe Access” when they trawl through a service providers network.

That is; they search for records and transmissions across a very wide part of a network or storage medium.

They then look and listen through all that information to get to their target.

In the process they will uncover information that is not covered in the warrant.

Who is to say they couldn’t then use reasonable cause, once again, to obtain another warrant based on the one previously gained and the new “evidence” has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st and original case.

Yup. That's one of the problems with these unconstitutional fishing expeditions, among others.

[ConorMacNessa]

That's quite an array of rubber-stamped orders, FRiend! I'm trying to find the same information on other sites. I'd like to post this on a left-wing forum where I occasionally post, but if this is the only link I have, I know the left-wing maggots there will just dismiss it as being a RWNJ site.



"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[ConservativeMind]

The NYT is only about a month behind English newspapers on all of this.

This crud is old news, folks.

The “Gray Lady” is not relevant any more.

[Bshaw]

I’m waiting for the super secret patriot brigade to identify these individuals who have empowered themselves against the Constitution and deal with them appropriately.

Where does one obtain an adequate supply of tar, feathers and pitch forks?

[Antoninus II]

The FISA court was front page news under W’s administration!!

[zeugma]

I know the left-wing maggots there will just dismiss it as being a RWNJ site.

I'm quite sure they'll be busy attacking the source, but if anything, EPIC.org is left wing. I'm pretty sure those numbers are government numbers. I didn't take the time to look at exactly how they compiled them.

[zeugma]

Looks like the source may actually be this: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/.

[zeugma]

 

FISA Annual Reports to Congress

2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989

1988, 1987, 1986, 1985, 1984, 1983, 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979

 

From that same link I just sent.

2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001

[ConorMacNessa]

Thank you so much, FRiend!! I'll check all those out, as well as everything from your earlier posts before I put this up. I did find one link to DU that I can slip in on them as well. That will be sweet!



"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."