Meet The Chief Justice Of America’s Secret Supreme Court

First, allow me to introduce everyone to the Federation of American Scientists' "Secrecy News" website. I see a lot of new-ish members asking, "What are everyone's sources?" (or words to that effect). I usually don't respond; but, for the record, my response is: Pay attention to sources. Bookmark the useful ones. But above all: Get out there and learn to DO YOUR OWN DAMN RESEARCH!

Project on Government Secrecy—Federation of American Scientists


"FAS's Secrecy News reports on new developments in government secrecy and provides public access to documentary resources on secrecy, intelligence and national security policy. It is written by Steven Aftergood."

Second, I've noticed members questioning the legitimacy of secret courts. As do I. I don't remember electing no damn "Secret Court" judges—do you? I thought not. We are daily being masterfully steamrolled under Federal Government overreach, just as many of our Founding Fathers warned. We are living under the most massive police state ever devised—and we have GOT to wrest control back to We The People.

Onward:

Reggie Walton

Judge Walton Named Presiding Judge of FISA Court

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court reviews and authorizes applications for electronic surveillance and physical search under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. A roster of the current court membership is here.

According to BuzzFeed:

A 1993 interview with author Linn Washington paints a picture of a man who views the law and government as having a sweeping role in creating "social change."

[...]

He has drawn little notice for his role in shaping the nation’s secret law—even his Wikipedia page barely mentions the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. But since his appointment to the court in 2007, the FISA Court has dramatically expanded the ability of the federal government to use controversial techniques to gather intelligence on Americans both at home and abroad that have outraged civil libertarians.

Walton serves as the court’s public face to the very limited extent that it has one—typically, in low-grade sparring with Congress. Because the vast majority of the court’s rulings are sealed, it is impossible to know which rulings expanding NSA’s authority Walton has written. But it is clear that during his time on the court those powers have increased significantly.

AHEM:

Although there are obvious differences between the drug war and the war on terrorism, Walton’s arguments for an expansion of efforts into extrajudicial areas belies a clear belief in an expansive view of the role of the federal government.

"There was always a problem with the administration’s theory that local activities were principally the responsibility of local government," he said.

In other words: He thinks that too many in government believe that it's not the role of FEDERAL government to meddle in LOCAL government.

This bastard is the exact reason that I have a problem with "acitivist judges" and "legislating from the Bench." And some people claim that I have a "problem with Authority." Uhhh--Yeah....

It looks like they got their 'commie' on the inside.

Perhaps this will shed light on many theories that the FISA Court is really a liaison group that seeks information on 'foreigners' and then arranges contact and makes 'secret' deals that would be 'illegal' or too controversial for public consumption.

The 'sealed' records makes it easy.

Pretty good way to keep it 'secret' too.

No questions asked, no questions answered.

reply to post by xuenchen


Interesting theory. I'd love to look into that. Got any further information?

reply to post by Ex_CT2


The only reason our nation is now a corporate dictatorship as all the politicraps including the judicial system is in their pay roll, is because the way we the people take this news, you don't see any outrage but only the one that the corporate media offers with controlled coverage to have the rage die after the media coverage is over.

Once we lost our independent media to the conglomerates people do not get access to the real news that matter, if they were aware of what is going on it will be more outrage and protest.

Corporate America controls everything and they make sure that they can control how people reactions affect the nation too.

I still believe that the so call secret courts are unconstitutional and nothing short of dictatorship powers were they are working under.

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Interesting theory. I'd love to look into that. Got any further information?

It's just a theory I've heard about.

Not much info other than talk.

Some people think the Court 'authorizes' the wiretaps, then somebody finds out who has the 'power' in certain groups.

Then the coercion and blackmail start.

Then before we know it, the government is making secret deals with foreign powers that may not be 'governments'.

Maybe that explains some of the dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Quida that seem out of balance and strange.

It's not about simple 'terrorism'.

There's money involved.

reply to post by xuenchen


Ahhh...

Clever little monkeys, aren't they? I guess when the taxpayers are footing the massive bill for all your toys you have plenty of luxury to sit around and find novel ways to use them....

reply to post by marg6043


Unconstitutional indeed. And they've gotten so "in your face" about it lately. It's like they're on some desperate unholy mission to get us under control before some given deadline. It's getting really scary—and it makes me wonder what that deadline is and how we can exploit it against them....

reply to post by Ex_CT2

All of the judges on the FISA court have been appointed by one man, SCCJ John Roberts. They are not required to be approved by the US Senate.
California congressman Peter Schiff has introduced legislation that would require that they be approved by the Senate.... link

In my always humble and soft spoken opinion ....

It's FAR PAST TIME we deep six'ed this ENTIRE "Secret" Court System. It's the most Un-American Institution currently existing in Government, in my opinion and outright by the document itself. Not figurative. It's set up to SERVE, not check/balance the Executive Branch with the full power and more of the Judicial Branch.

Constitutionally, I believe it's a direct subversion and perversion of our system by it's literal existence alone. If anyone could even argue it necessary for a time of war, then declare a war so that we'll know an end when it comes. There is no end when there is no declaration and hence, no formal war. So NO SECRET COURT!

I feel better now.

reply to post by Ex_CT2


Unconstitutional yes, but we have to understand that the only reason the people in the nation as so obfuscated and blind is because they are dependent on the conglomerate media for their news, this corporate media is controlling peoples perception of everything happing in the nation.

Look at the examples, government corruption, scandals and overstepping of powers vs. Zimmerman trial, the media was used to keep the people obfuscated on manufactured racial discrimination and completely have black out the government mess that have more impact on Americas rights and freedoms that the Zimmerman trial will ever be.

Is the American people become dumb and stupid? no is just the mind controlling propaganda. and the sad part is that is working.

Propaganda is a powerful thing and also a tool for those seeking unlimited powers like dictatorship do.

In theory, these judges have nothing to do with the big issue that people have with the NSA, being the in-country snooping. These judges (which are appointed to 7-year terms by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) deal with approval or denial of the sealed warrants for overseas monitoring of foreign targets. This is all laid out in the Foreign Intelligence Services Act.

If you want to complain about the in-country snooping being unconstitutional, go for it. But this is a completely separate issue and is explicitly allowed by current law.

reply to post by flyswatter


That's assuming a whole lot more than I ever will, to say this is all about foreign targets, overseas and nothing Domestic. In fact, strictly speaking, that's patently false and provably so.

The secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved all 1,506 government requests to electronically monitor suspected “agents” of a foreign power or terrorists on U.S. soil last year, according to a Justice Department report released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The two-page report, which shows about a 13 percent increase in the number of applications for electronic surveillance between 2009 and 2010, was obtained by the Federation of American Scientists and published Friday.

Oh, they did apparently deny two in 2009...

The 11-member court denied two of 1,329 applications for domestic-intelligence surveillance in 2009. The FBI is the primary agency making those requests.

What the heck could those TWO have asked for when they give away the whole store on a rubber stamp the rest of the time?

Now we can look at the NDAA and see what they think of for definition of a 'terrorist' on US soil. If someone figures they don't look at it that way? Well, I think that's their burden to show at this point. The area they rule over is already shown to carry SO much abuse, there is NO presumption of innocence to their actions possible at this point, in my opinion.

There is a bit more here tho....and it matters to see, I think.

The court, set up in 1978, issues warrants for domestic surveillance that are unlike the warrants issued in criminal investigations. The secret court warrants, under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, grant the government broad authority to secretly monitor the electronic communications of persons in the United States, generally for intelligence purposes only.

Source

I think assuming anything to the better side of outcomes with these people, especially in light of recent developments, is assuming far far too much. It's time they drop their secrecy and show us how they haven't been abusing us on a regular basis. The article goes on to note, the FBI issued over 24,000 "National Security Letters" on over 14,000 people, last year alone. That's one step below FISA approved action ....and shows how unbelievably vague their fishing trips have apparently become. Numbers alone suggest that much.

reply to post by flyswatter

In theory, these judges have nothing to do with the big issue that people have with the NSA, being the in-country snooping.

In fact, these judges are exactly the group that ones that signed off on the Verizon order that Ed Snowden leaked...

Which was domestic spying.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by flyswatter

 

In theory, these judges have nothing to do with the big issue that people have with the NSA, being the in-country snooping.

In fact, these judges are exactly the group that ones that signed off on the Verizon order that Ed Snowden leaked...

Which was domestic spying.

Yeah and as of Friday this Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court renewed NSA's request to continue illegally recording Verizon phone calls. After the whole nation found out about this illegally recording practice from Snowden they don't even blink - nothing phases these corrupt people. They said Screw You American People we don't care and you can't stop us.

See here for details www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=16702761#pid16702761

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by flyswatter

 

That's assuming a whole lot more than I ever will, to say this is all about foreign targets, overseas and nothing Domestic. In fact, strictly speaking, that's patently false and provably so.

The secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved all 1,506 government requests to electronically monitor suspected “agents” of a foreign power or terrorists on U.S. soil last year, according to a Justice Department report released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The two-page report, which shows about a 13 percent increase in the number of applications for electronic surveillance between 2009 and 2010, was obtained by the Federation of American Scientists and published Friday.

Oh, they did apparently deny two in 2009...

The 11-member court denied two of 1,329 applications for domestic-intelligence surveillance in 2009. The FBI is the primary agency making those requests.

What the heck could those TWO have asked for when they give away the whole store on a rubber stamp the rest of the time?

Now we can look at the NDAA and see what they think of for definition of a 'terrorist' on US soil. If someone figures they don't look at it that way? Well, I think that's their burden to show at this point. The area they rule over is already shown to carry SO much abuse, there is NO presumption of innocence to their actions possible at this point, in my opinion.

There is a bit more here tho....and it matters to see, I think.

The court, set up in 1978, issues warrants for domestic surveillance that are unlike the warrants issued in criminal investigations. The secret court warrants, under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, grant the government broad authority to secretly monitor the electronic communications of persons in the United States, generally for intelligence purposes only.

Source

I think assuming anything to the better side of outcomes with these people, especially in light of recent developments, is assuming far far too much. It's time they drop their secrecy and show us how they haven't been abusing us on a regular basis. The article goes on to note, the FBI issued over 24,000 "National Security Letters" on over 14,000 people, last year alone. That's one step below FISA approved action ....and shows how unbelievably vague their fishing trips have apparently become. Numbers alone suggest that much.

edit on 23-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: minor correction and adjustment to National Security Letter info

The FISC having a part in the domestic tapping of non-terror related individuals is wrong, I agree. The government going to them was the first bad step in the process, and them approving it was the next. This is not what they are supposed to be there for.

reply to post by flyswatter


Okay. If I'm reading you correctly at this point, you're saying the original point/purpose of the FISA Court and how it SHOULD be going, if going by it's intent and spirit of being made in the first place, isn't necessarily a bad thing? That would have been 100% foreign intelligence/counter-intelligence related issues, of course.

In really thinking about this...if that's your point, I suppose I can't disagree. In fact, I could see the point of what their stated purpose had been. Heck, the US Government has even had moles in VERY bad places in terms of counter-intelligence and why a secret court may make sense in that narrow scope?

Then again, the CIA would be an outstanding agency to have, in my opinion, if it had stuck to collection and analysis while never touching the action upon intelligence.

Not saying that in a snarky way at all..but perhaps a little sadly at what these things COULD have been if they'd ever been run in the way they'd been presented and understood to be from the start. Absolute power absolutely corrupts tho, right? ...and American apathy gave them all the power they desired to simply claim and take. No one cared to really even complain.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Okay. If I'm reading you correctly at this point, you're saying the original point/purpose of the FISA Court and how it SHOULD be going, if going by it's intent and spirit of being made in the first place, isn't necessarily a bad thing? That would have been 100% foreign intelligence/counter-intelligence related issues, of course.

In really thinking about this...if that's your point, I suppose I can't disagree. In fact, I could see the point of what their stated purpose had been. Heck, the US Government has even had moles in VERY bad places in terms of counter-intelligence and why a secret court may make sense in that narrow scope?

Then again, the CIA would be an outstanding agency to have, in my opinion, if it had stuck to collection and analysis while never touching the action upon intelligence.

Not saying that in a snarky way at all..but perhaps a little sadly at what these things COULD have been if they'd ever been run in the way they'd been presented and understood to be from the start. Absolute power absolutely corrupts tho, right? ...and American apathy gave them all the power they desired to simply claim and take. No one cared to really even complain.

edit on 23-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Correct, that is exactly what I am saying. I fully support the FISA/FISC in their intended capacity. When they move beyond that capacity, I start to become a bit leery of what is going on.

The FISC isn't a "secret Supreme Court." It has specific, limited jurisdiction, and it's not even the top FISA court--there's a review court between it and the actual Supreme Court.

Second, I've noticed members questioning the legitimacy of secret courts. As do I. I don't remember electing no damn "Secret Court" judges—do you?

You haven't elected any Federal judges. They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

You probably have elected a representative, a Senator, and a President at some point in your life. All of them work in secret from time to time.

"There was always a problem with the administration’s theory that local activities were principally the responsibility of local government," he said.

In other words: He thinks that too many in government believe that it's not the role of FEDERAL government to meddle in LOCAL government.

Given the fact that his FISC role is limited to authorizing Federal activities under a Federal statute, it really doesn't matter what he thinks of local governments. There is no overlap between Federal and local governments when it comes to foreign intelligence surveillance. It is entirely a Federal function. If you disagree with his opinions on federalism, you should hope that he stays on the FISC for as long as possible, to limit the number of rulings he can make that might affect local governments.

And, it should be noted, the judge was an executive branch official at the time, he was not serving as a judge. If you read what he said in context, instead of cherry-picking and quote-mining, you will see he was criticizing the law enforcement approach to drug abuse, and supporting social programs as an alternative. The ongoing militarization of local police with resulting "collateral damage," and the success of drug courts and diversion programs, suggests the judge may not be wrong in this case.

During his work as an assistant drug czar under President George H.W. Bush and later a presidential adviser, Walton aggressively pushed the administration to expand its work on social programs to stem the tide of drug abuse and poverty in minority communities. Having served on the D.C. Superior Court, Walton had a front-row seat for the crack wars that ravaged the nation’s Capitol in the 1980s.

“I repeatedly stated my belief that efforts had to be made in the area of social programs. There was an aversion to social programs among the people in the drug office. They felt that you didn’t need to address the problems of jobs or housing or education or the host of other social issues that I thought had to be addressed,” Walton said in the 1993 interview.
...
“There was always a problem with the administration’s theory that local activities were principally the responsibility of local government,” he said.

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Interesting theory. I'd love to look into that. Got any further information?

No, that poster won't have. It's posting opinion based as fact on the assumption enough people are stupid enough to buy into it without seeing any actual evidence. Happens a lot, seems to be mainly where people hate Obama and are willing to see opinion or comments as fact but are too lazy to actually do the homework...... any facts again about what your op is about rather than your opinion?

Originally posted by uncommitted

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Interesting theory. I'd love to look into that. Got any further information?

No, that poster won't have. It's posting opinion based as fact on the assumption enough people are stupid enough to buy into it without seeing any actual evidence. Happens a lot, seems to be mainly where people hate Obama and are willing to see opinion or comments as fact but are too lazy to actually do the homework...... any facts again about what your op is about rather than your opinion?

As I said, it is just a theory, nothing more.

And don't forget, the FISA Act was passed in the 1970's, introduced by Senator Ted Kennedy.

They've had decades to fine tune the inner workings and keep it secret.

This ain't about Obama is it ?

Stranger things have happened.

Who would have thought a few years ago that the NSA spying was at the level it is.

Soon we will get a whistleblower, just watch.

You sound very jealous with your knee-jerk reaction.