4 ms·

Your comment — particularly your final graf — reads to me like a big ol', "Don't hate the player, hate the game." And while, for some games, I think that's a co

by rosser 13y ago

Your comment — particularly your final graf — reads to me like a big ol', "Don't hate the player, hate the game." And while, for some games, I think that's a completely legitimate attitude, I really have a lot of trouble swallowing it in this context. As a Federal judge, he has tremendous power to effect change in the matters that come before his bench, and yet FISC is, to all appearances, a rubber stamp with a security clearance. To the extent that's actually the case, I don't think hating the player is unwarranted, as it's exactly that kind of player who has made — and continues to make, with every unquestioned encroachment — the game the bowl of suck that it is.

DannyBee 13y ago
It's not really "don't hate the player, hate the game" at all. It's "don't be an asshole to a guy you've never met and have no idea about, and assume bad faith on his part". FISC is not a rubber stamp, as explained in that very article. As a federal judge, he is bound by the rules of the FISC court, and the legal statutes that enacted it and set the standards they must follow. He just went out of his way to say, in public: "Just FYI, you guys are more than welcome to challenge this. I believe you have the authority to do so, and here is the statute I believe grants you that authority". Instead of saying "hey, great look, even the main judge thinks we have a right to challenge this", y'all are jumping on him like he's lying through his teeth. He has no right to challenge these orders himself. He can modify them, but only within the bounds of the law. As I said, his job is not to make law, but to be bound by the statutes that rule his court. Have you ever stopped for a second to think that maybe this is his way of trying to explain to people how to get this stuff shut down? You know, instead of assuming he's just trying to lie to save face. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he is lying to save face. Maybe he doesn't really give a shit. Most federal judges I know are better than that. I may not always agree with their ideologies or rulings, but just about every one i've ever met tries to do the right thing. Whatever you may believe, they certainly aren't mouthpieces for any administration. Hell, even his wikipedia page will tell you that.
- rosser 13y ago
  First, where in what I said do you infer an accusation of lying? I never said, nor even thought such a thing. To the contrary, I'm actually rather thrilled to see someone that deeply involved in this nastiness stand up and say what he's just said. That doesn't excuse his participation to date one whit, however. He's as culpable as anyone else who actively and willingly participates in the surveillance state for the fact that we have a surveillance state, he's directly and personally responsible for whatever abuses of the law have passed across his bench, and I'm willing to bet everything I have that such abuses have crossed his bench, and been approved by him. Second, how exactly does one not characterize a situation in which, "In short, it appears that the government only submits applications that it knows will get approved—after having first gotten them modified to meet that approval," as more or less a rubber stamp?
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    "First, where in what I said do you infer an accusation of lying? I never said, nor even thought such a thing. To the contrary, I'm actually rather thrilled to see someone that deeply involved in this nastiness stand up and say what he's just said." Parent implied he was lying, not you :) See " I wouldn't put it past FISA judges/spokesmodels/whatever to claim that nobody ever challenged an order when there's actually no procedure to perform such a challenge, and no attempts to challenge have even been recognized." "and he's directly and personally responsible for whatever abuses of the law have passed across his bench — and I'm willing to bet everything I have that abuses of the law have crossed his bench, and been approved by him." I doubt this highly. He's not going to approve things he believes violate the law. He has no reason to do so, and every reason not to. My guess is instead, you do not believe the current law is constitutional, which is not the same thing. It's not his place to rule on it. Not even because "just following orders", but for starters, because nobody has challenged it. Not because they didn't know, BTW, Verizon knew, Yahoo, knew, etc. "Second, how exactly does one not characterize a situation in which, "In short, it appears that the government only submits applications that it knows will get approved—after having first gotten them modified to meet that approval," as more or less a rubber stamp?" By this logic, almost every motion to almost every court in a real case is a rubber stamp. In larger cases, you generally don't submit motions without talking to someone first either, and making sure it will go over well, or you don't submit it. Judges don't want to see motions, for example, that just piss on the other side. Here, they modified the requests to conform to law. If they had been passed through FISC after not conforming to law, that would be a rubber stamp. How can you suggest that telling people "X is illegal, you'd can't do X", so that they don't submit the motion, is a rubber stamp. The idea of a rubber stamp is that it doesn't matter what you give them, they'll stamp it. Here, instead, they are doing exactly the opposite. They tell people ahead of time "we aren't going to stamp that", so nobody bothers.

by rosser 13y ago

DannyBee 13y ago

It's not really "don't hate the player, hate the game" at all. It's "don't be an asshole to a guy you've never met and have no idea about, and assume bad faith on his part". FISC is not a rubber stamp, as explained in that very article. As a federal judge, he is bound by the rules of the FISC court, and the legal statutes that enacted it and set the standards they must follow. He just went out of his way to say, in public: "Just FYI, you guys are more than welcome to challenge this. I believe you have the authority to do so, and here is the statute I believe grants you that authority". Instead of saying "hey, great look, even the main judge thinks we have a right to challenge this", y'all are jumping on him like he's lying through his teeth. He has no right to challenge these orders himself. He can modify them, but only within the bounds of the law. As I said, his job is not to make law, but to be bound by the statutes that rule his court. Have you ever stopped for a second to think that maybe this is his way of trying to explain to people how to get this stuff shut down? You know, instead of assuming he's just trying to lie to save face. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he is lying to save face. Maybe he doesn't really give a shit. Most federal judges I know are better than that. I may not always agree with their ideologies or rulings, but just about every one i've ever met tries to do the right thing. Whatever you may believe, they certainly aren't mouthpieces for any administration. Hell, even his wikipedia page will tell you that.

rosser 13y ago
First, where in what I said do you infer an accusation of lying? I never said, nor even thought such a thing. To the contrary, I'm actually rather thrilled to see someone that deeply involved in this nastiness stand up and say what he's just said. That doesn't excuse his participation to date one whit, however. He's as culpable as anyone else who actively and willingly participates in the surveillance state for the fact that we have a surveillance state, he's directly and personally responsible for whatever abuses of the law have passed across his bench, and I'm willing to bet everything I have that such abuses have crossed his bench, and been approved by him. Second, how exactly does one not characterize a situation in which, "In short, it appears that the government only submits applications that it knows will get approved—after having first gotten them modified to meet that approval," as more or less a rubber stamp?
- DannyBee 13y ago
  "First, where in what I said do you infer an accusation of lying? I never said, nor even thought such a thing. To the contrary, I'm actually rather thrilled to see someone that deeply involved in this nastiness stand up and say what he's just said." Parent implied he was lying, not you :) See " I wouldn't put it past FISA judges/spokesmodels/whatever to claim that nobody ever challenged an order when there's actually no procedure to perform such a challenge, and no attempts to challenge have even been recognized." "and he's directly and personally responsible for whatever abuses of the law have passed across his bench — and I'm willing to bet everything I have that abuses of the law have crossed his bench, and been approved by him." I doubt this highly. He's not going to approve things he believes violate the law. He has no reason to do so, and every reason not to. My guess is instead, you do not believe the current law is constitutional, which is not the same thing. It's not his place to rule on it. Not even because "just following orders", but for starters, because nobody has challenged it. Not because they didn't know, BTW, Verizon knew, Yahoo, knew, etc. "Second, how exactly does one not characterize a situation in which, "In short, it appears that the government only submits applications that it knows will get approved—after having first gotten them modified to meet that approval," as more or less a rubber stamp?" By this logic, almost every motion to almost every court in a real case is a rubber stamp. In larger cases, you generally don't submit motions without talking to someone first either, and making sure it will go over well, or you don't submit it. Judges don't want to see motions, for example, that just piss on the other side. Here, they modified the requests to conform to law. If they had been passed through FISC after not conforming to law, that would be a rubber stamp. How can you suggest that telling people "X is illegal, you'd can't do X", so that they don't submit the motion, is a rubber stamp. The idea of a rubber stamp is that it doesn't matter what you give them, they'll stamp it. Here, instead, they are doing exactly the opposite. They tell people ahead of time "we aren't going to stamp that", so nobody bothers.