4 ms·

You can't get a FISA warrant for a purely domestic criminal case, though you can use data discovered in a domestic criminal case. There used to better protectio

You can't get a FISA warrant for a purely domestic criminal case, though you can use data discovered in a domestic criminal case. There used to better protections, requiring the gathering foreign intelligence must be the primary purpose of the warrant, but it was changed in 2008 to, "(v) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information;". I know people are going to call fallacy, but FISA was a classic slippery slope.

roenxi 8y ago
I'm going off the wiki page for thee commerce clause [1] here. The Supreme court interpreted "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." as including "apply[ing] national quotas to wheat grown on one's own land, for one's own consumption". This isn't a new observation unique to todays conversation (I'm sure it has been bought up from the establishment of a secret court) but you can't claim what you are claiming unless you happen to be a FISA court judge. We don't know what this court is doing. We don't decide what these words mean. The dictionary doesn't decide what these words mean. The judge decides what the words mean. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Dormant_Commerce_Clause_jurisprudence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Dormant_Commer...
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  I can say what I'm saying because that's explicitly what the law says, and it has been litigated and adjudicated. Maybe I should have been more precise and have said you can't legally get a FISA warrant for a purely domestic criminal case. The only way it comes into play for a purely domestic case is if the FBI/DOJ lies to the judge, or the judge is corrupt. And I'm sure that's happened, and it is in part a consequence of the secrecy that shrouds the court.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    > that's explicitly what the law says The very large number of lawyers and justices are employed to argue extensively about the meaning and interpretation of the law. You are interpreting the law here. You cannot know if your interpretation aligns with FISC, because the proceedings are not public. By the way, while looking up names for this comment I came up with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#Secret_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla... . So it looks like the FISC court is doing exactly this by getting creative with what a "special-need" is.
    - WillPostForFood 8y ago
      I 100% agree that secrecy is a problem and invites corruption. The intent of the law is clear though. It has come up in cases before, and hopefully will again if it is being abused.

roenxi 8y ago

I'm going off the wiki page for thee commerce clause [1] here. The Supreme court interpreted "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." as including "apply[ing] national quotas to wheat grown on one's own land, for one's own consumption". This isn't a new observation unique to todays conversation (I'm sure it has been bought up from the establishment of a secret court) but you can't claim what you are claiming unless you happen to be a FISA court judge. We don't know what this court is doing. We don't decide what these words mean. The dictionary doesn't decide what these words mean. The judge decides what the words mean. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Dormant_Commerce_Clause_jurisprudence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Dormant_Commer...

WillPostForFood 8y ago
I can say what I'm saying because that's explicitly what the law says, and it has been litigated and adjudicated. Maybe I should have been more precise and have said you can't legally get a FISA warrant for a purely domestic criminal case. The only way it comes into play for a purely domestic case is if the FBI/DOJ lies to the judge, or the judge is corrupt. And I'm sure that's happened, and it is in part a consequence of the secrecy that shrouds the court.
- roenxi 8y ago
  > that's explicitly what the law says The very large number of lawyers and justices are employed to argue extensively about the meaning and interpretation of the law. You are interpreting the law here. You cannot know if your interpretation aligns with FISC, because the proceedings are not public. By the way, while looking up names for this comment I came up with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#Secret_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla... . So it looks like the FISC court is doing exactly this by getting creative with what a "special-need" is.
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    I 100% agree that secrecy is a problem and invites corruption. The intent of the law is clear though. It has come up in cases before, and hopefully will again if it is being abused.