Secret court rebukes NSA for 5-year illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens

[DCPatriot]

Secret court rebukes NSA for 5-year illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens
Tim Johnson

WASHINGTON

U.S. intelligence agencies conducted illegal surveillance on American citizens over a five-year period, a practice that earned them a sharp rebuke from a secret court that called the matter a “very serious” constitutional issue.

The criticism is in a lengthy secret ruling that lays bare some of the frictions between the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and U.S. intelligence agencies obligated to obtain the court’s approval for surveillance activities.

The ruling, dated April 26 and bearing the label “top secret,” was obtained and published Thursday by the news site Circa.

It is rare that such rulings see the light of day, and the lengthy unraveling of issues in the 99-page document opens a window on how the secret federal court oversees surveillance activities and seeks to curtail those that it deems overstep legal authority.

The document, signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, said the court had learned in a notice filed Oct. 26, 2016, that National Security Agency analysts had been conducting prohibited queries of databases “with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the court.”

It said a judge chastised the NSA’s inspector general and Office of Compliance for Operations for an “institutional ‘lack of candor’ ” for failing to inform the court. It described the matter as “a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article152948259.html

[Free Vulcan]

Rebuke? Did they fart in their general direction as well?

Call me when people start going to jail.

[Smokin Joe]

Rebuke? Did they fart in their general direction as well?

Call me when people start going to jail.

Maybe they sent them a strongly worded letter.
(Or hand delivered it over dinner...)
They should have "secretly" fired some people, just for starters, with criminal charges to follow.
. 18 U.S.C. § 241 http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-241.html

[Gideon300]

Hmmmm...a Secret Court gives a "rebuke" to Secret Agents. 

What the heck is a SECRET COURT?  Is there a Confidential Court, or a Top Secret Court?  Was the case of the agents involved with strippers and prostitutes an "Eyes-Only Court"?  And I'm not sure what a "rebuke" really is, but considering the histories of some of these agencies, it could be kinda kinky. 

It all sounds like a case for....SECRET SQUIRREL!!



[attachment deleted by admin]

[truth_seeker]

What the heck is a SECRET COURT? 

It is the "FISA" court, mentioned in the article.

[Bigun]

I have posted story after story on this and other VERY big scandals over the last few weeks none of which have drawn much interest.

Makes me wonder if those who post here aren't more interested in fighting with each other than actually learning what is going on around them.

[rodamala]

I have posted story after story on this and other VERY big scandals over the last few weeks none of which have drawn much interest.

Makes me wonder if those who post here aren't more interested in fighting with each other than actually learning what is going on around them.

Whatever... Trump's fault.

[Oceander]

I understand the basic reasoning underlying this court, but the concept of a secret court just sticks in my craw. 

[DCPatriot]

These are the Watchers....watching the watchers, after all. 

But it bugs the hell out of us.

[DCPatriot]

I have posted story after story on this and other VERY big scandals over the last few weeks none of which have drawn much interest.

Makes me wonder if those who post here aren't more interested in fighting with each other than actually learning what is going on around them.

Post them again, Earl.

....in POLITICS    ^-^

[Sanguine]

I understand the basic reasoning underlying this court, but the concept of a secret court just sticks in my craw.

As well it should.

[Bigun]

Post them again, Earl.

....in POLITICS    ^-^

No sir! I will not!  All you have to do is click on my name and you can see every post I ever made here.

[Frank Cannon]

Wow. The secret court is rebuking the spooks for doing illegal stuff. I see how this will end up.....Double Secret Probation...

[DCPatriot]

No sir! I will not!  All you have to do is click on my name and you can see every post I ever made here.

Only trying to help, sir. 

Point was that it seems only the daily attempts at making a 'Gotcha-Told-you-so' threads in POLITICS get any action.

If going forward is more like yesterday on the forum....we're going in the right direction.      @mystery-ak

Could have been hallucinating, but swear I even had a civil exchange with @txradioguy  and @Suppressed 

[Suppressed]

Only trying to help, sir. 

Point was that it seems only the daily attempts at making a 'Gotcha-Told-you-so' threads in POLITICS get any action.

If going forward is more like yesterday on the forum....we're going in the right direction.      @mystery-ak

Could have been hallucinating, but swear I even had a civil exchange with @txradioguy  and @Suppressed 

@DCPatriot   

@Bigun  To be honest, I think the first time I ventured into the Scandal forum was within the past few days, perhaps even yesterday.  I should come here more, now that it's on my radar.

[LateForLunch]

Rebuke? Did they fart in their general direction as well?

Call me when people start going to jail.

The judge wrote them a strongly worded letter telling them how upset the court is with them. That is what passes for decisive action inside the DC Beltway.

[truth_seeker]

I understand the basic reasoning underlying this court, but the concept of a secret court just sticks in my craw.

I think in theory it derives from the secrecy involved to keep the circle of people very small, in trying to investigate possible terrorism.

[DCPatriot]

I think in theory it derives from the secrecy involved to keep the circle of people very small, in trying to investigate possible terrorism.

Why weren't people marched out in cuffs?  With clown masks for all I care....???   I understand the need to keep their identity 'secret' at this time, but people need to talk...or do hard time.

All the way up the chain, to Valerie Jarret's front lawn.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

A rebuke is just a piece of paper.  And it is simply directed at an agency.

The Court has the power to put some meat on its decision by identifying specific individuals within the NSA and FBI that approved this surveillance, and place them in jail and even strip them of federal pensions.

The Court said what was done is unconstitutional.  Make the consequences real meaningful to perpetrators.

[Smokin Joe]

A rebuke is just a piece of paper.  And it is simply directed at an agency.

The Court has the power to put some meat on its decision by identifying specific individuals within the NSA and FBI that approved this surveillance, and place them in jail and even strip them of federal pensions.

The Court said what was done is unconstitutional.  Make the consequences real meaningful to perpetrators.

The court is guilty of nonfeasance in re: 18 USC sec 241...Conspiracy to deprive a person of civil rights.

[Oceander]

A rebuke is just a piece of paper.  And it is simply directed at an agency.

The Court has the power to put some meat on its decision by identifying specific individuals within the NSA and FBI that approved this surveillance, and place them in jail and even strip them of federal pensions.

The Court said what was done is unconstitutional.  Make the consequences real meaningful to perpetrators.

Courts cannot generally indict people for crimes on the courts' own initiative.  That requires a prosecutor to act.

[Smokin Joe]

Courts cannot generally indict people for crimes on the courts' own initiative.  That requires a prosecutor to act.

True, that. If the actions of the court were ruled unconstitutional, though, there is prima facie evidence of a violation of the act. A Prosecutor should be acting. Unfortunately, prosecutors seem to be the weak link in the judicial system.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Courts cannot generally indict people for crimes on the courts' own initiative.  That requires a prosecutor to act.

So how did the Court rule as it did without a prosecutor?

Did it on its own initiative?

[driftdiver]

I was at an event sponsored by a University Cybersecurity group.  The featured speaker was General Keith B. Alexander, USA (Ret.) Commander, U.S. Cyber Command (2010-2014) and Director, National Security Agency/Chief, Central Security Service (2005-2014)

He was talking at a high level about NSA monitoring and made a very specific point that the United States was a big black hole that the NSA did not monitor.

General Keith Alexander is a lying SOB.

[driftdiver]

Courts cannot generally indict people for crimes on the courts' own initiative.  That requires a prosecutor to act.

@Oceander

Contempt of court is typical when you don't follow the courts orders.