23 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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.