Andrew Napolitano Exposes FISA Court Charade

Authored by Adam Dick via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

There is plenty of reason to think that regular United States courts too readily allow surveilling people and searching their homes and property. But, in the US court authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), there is not even a pretense of observing Fourth Amendment restraints.

The result is what many Americans who demanded a Bill of Rights be adopted in the early days of the United States sought to prevent from arising in America — routine, sweeping judicial decrees for invading people’s privacy based on little or no credible reason to suspect the people committed criminal acts.

In a Monday interview at Fox Business, legal scholar and former New Jersey state Judge Andrew Napolitano called out the FISA court for its extreme flaunting of constitutional restraints. Presenting a scenario where he is woken in the middle of the night by a call from the courthouse regarding an urgent warrant request that the state police are waiting in the lobby of his building to discuss with him, Napolitano illustrates the difference between the process to obtain a FISA court warrant and the process he employed as a judge. Napolitano explains.

"And they come into my living room, and we spend an hour going through what they have and how they can demonstrate to me that I should sign a piece of paper letting them break down somebody’s door at three in the morning in order to get evidence. It’s a give and take and a give and take, and I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that behind that door is evidence of a serious crime. The court has to go through that kind of give and take, give and take, give and take when they come to you with an emergency application for a warrant.

If the court blithely accepts what the government gives, it’s as much the court’s fault as the government. If the government knows that the court grants 99.9 percent of all warrants requested, which is an unbelievable number — a number never heard of in my career, then the government’s going to get lazy and sloppy, because they are going to walk in there saying 'we’re going to get this thing, we always do."

Watch Napolitano’s complete interview here:

The super-accommodative approach of the FISA court also opens the door to easily obtaining permission to search and surveil in order to fish for evidence of a criminal act to pin on someone, for information helpful in advancing an individual or company’s financial gain, for information the potential disclosure of which can be held over an individual to exert influence on him, or for information that can be leaked to the media for purposes including influencing an election, a congressional vote, or the confirmation decision on a presidential nominee.

While the FISA court’s activities are secret, the court did admit in 2013 that it had, during its several decades in existence, approved over 99.9 percent of the US government’s surveillance requests.

Comments

Chupacabra-322 SWRichmond Thu, 02/08/2018 - 17:32 Permalink

 

The minimum requirement to be found guilty of mishandling of States Secrets is Gross Negligence. It’s why Criminals at Large Comey, Muellar &

Strzok changed the language in their report.

 

An earlier draft included tougher language describing Clinton as “grossly negligent.” Comey then used a softer tone, saying Clinton was “extremely careless” in her use of private emails. According to federal law, “gross negligence” in handling the nation’s intelligence is a felony.

 

“If the government puts into your hand for safe keeping [the] state’s secrets and you failed to keep them safe by intentionally exposing them or grossly negligently exposing them, you can be prosecuted,” Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said during an interview with FOX Business’ Stuart Varney.

 

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/11/07/clinton-can-be-prosecuted...

In reply to by SWRichmond

Boris Gudonov Thu, 02/08/2018 - 17:14 Permalink

"In a Monday interview at Fox Business, legal scholar and former New Jersey state Judge Andrew Napolitano called out the FISA court for its extreme flaunting of constitutional restraints. "

God fucking dammit.  It's "flouting" not "flaunting"!  Doesn't anyone know the English language anymore?  Fuck!

 

Boris Gudonov Thu, 02/08/2018 - 17:17 Permalink

And yes, obviously any court that approves 99.97 percent of anything isn't doing jack shit as far as doing its job is concerned.  Don't think for a minute that McCabe and the rest of these corrupt FBI assholes had to worry for one minute about getting their illegal FISA warrants approved.  The judges are all know doubt as corrupt as they are.

 

verumcuibono Thu, 02/08/2018 - 17:20 Permalink

"If the court blithely accepts what the government gives, it’s as much the court’s fault as the government. If the government knows that the court grants 99.9 percent of all warrants requested, which is an unbelievable number — a number never heard of in my career, then the government’s going to get lazy and sloppy, because they are going to walk in there saying 'we’re going to get this thing, we always do.""

Most people think that FISC is a new thing... It's decades old. Heh---American public has been fooled again.

FISA + FISC courts came out of the Church and Pike Cmte Hearings in the Senate and House - even back then they had already been experiencing decades of abuse and spying on Americans by the same Intel agencies.

As a reminder, F= foreign and that is the entire purpose of the Russkie rube - there had to be a perceived foreign threat.

From 1979-2013 of 35000 FISA applications to FISC, only 12 have been denied.

swmnguy verumcuibono Thu, 02/08/2018 - 17:42 Permalink

Apparently from 1979-2016 there was no problem with the FISA Court.  It was all both hunky and dory that whole time.  Just like the IRS was only annoying in a theoretical sense until they challenged Tea Party groups who applied for tax-exempt status while openly promising to do direct lobbying.

I have no respect for people who are just fine with immorality until it inconveniences them personally.

The FISA Court has been unConstitutional bullshit since its inception.  The FBI and IRS and DOJ have been political police for at least a century.  If the Right just figured that out, it means their either incredibly stupid or fundamentally dishonest.  Ask anybody who was active in the Civil Rights or Anti-War movements and they'll laugh in the Republicans' faces.

In reply to by verumcuibono

california chrome Thu, 02/08/2018 - 17:25 Permalink

My attempt at a limerick ;-):

 

there once was a Muslim resident 

whose First Lady wasn't hesitant.

they made up a report 

and lied to FISA court.

but covfefe Trump is still President.

44magnum Thu, 02/08/2018 - 17:25 Permalink

Since their seems to be a lot of (((them))) as judges it would be interesting to know how many of (((them))) are FISA judges. Is it the same ratio as Supreme court judges or is it higher? 

Hey you don't know if you don't ask.

Ink Pusher Thu, 02/08/2018 - 17:26 Permalink

Starting to wonder whether every one of the lawyers involved with this fiasco shouldn't be fired and disbarred simply as a matter of principle. Just to be sure we don't see any possibility of any plausible re-occurrence .