3 ms·
Convenient, and perhaps legitimate, but not provably so. Courts are supposed to be adversarial, that's why we have prosecution vs. defense or grand jury. Judges
by sterlind 8y ago
Convenient, and perhaps legitimate, but not provably so. Courts are supposed to be adversarial, that's why we have prosecution vs. defense or grand jury. Judges are meant to be impartial arbiters. In the FISA system, judges play a dual role as both arbiter and defense, which is a conflict of interest.
It'd be a real court if there were a sort of public defender, and the judges simply mediated between both sides. You could see it working in the warrants rejected.
- AndrewKemendo 8y agoIt is provably so. Namely if this is a serious interest I suggest you write to the House or Senate Select Permanent Committee on Intelligence [1] [2] and request documentation of such. In fact the court is adversarial, though not like you seem to be envisioning. There are many courts in the US, in fact most where no litigation happens because it's inappropriate for the task. So the idea that they are playing "both sides" is a non sequitur. The role of the court is to ensure that requests are legal and there is sufficient evidence to pursue the task as requested. It's exactly the same as when a judge issues a warrant. [1] https://intelligence.house.gov/ https://intelligence.house.gov/ [2] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/ https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/
- dingoegret 8y agoWe just had a full decade of exposed US spying in every sector of life and you have the nerve to sit here and claim otherwise? Just not the way you think? Is every refutation you spout just merely a "nuh uh see its like this". Fact: 90% of warrants are granted. Deal with it