3 ms·
> They noted that a judge must approve any use of the provision We tried the same in the US. Our intel agencies just lied to the judges, who mostly otherwise w
by debacle 3y ago
> They noted that a judge must approve any use of the provision
We tried the same in the US. Our intel agencies just lied to the judges, who mostly otherwise were hip to the con and acted as a rubber stamp.
- sschueller 3y agoWhile the intel community in the United States seems to be above the law I don't think lying to a judge in France is ignored to the same extent.
- SteveNuts 3y agoHow can a judge possibly have all the context required to make a decision like this, do they get access to the Intel so they can verify the claims?
- ibejoeb 3y agoWe think they lied to the judges. Or maybe there are no judges, because the entire thing is a secret system, so we can't know who the judges are or how they've ruled on the matters brought before them. All we know is that it is only used against foreign adversaries, except in the cases when it's used on Americans.
- Loughla 3y agoOf all of the issues in the US, I genuinely believe FISA and FISC are the largest issues today. There can be no secret courts in a real democracy (or republic or whatever else you want to call it). The government can't be by, for, and of the people if they have a recourse to lock away people that can't have the sun shine on it. It astounds me that this is just accepted as a practice in the US. Or am I being naive?
- ibejoeb 3y agoYou're not being naive. It happened in a flash, without a referendum, and nobody asked for it. It's not that we accepted it; it's that there's nothing we can do about it.