Secret court seeks briefing on wiretap orders
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the designated monitor of government wiretapping that reaches globally, has asked the federal government to react to a private group’s plea for access to that Court’s recent secret orders on eavesdropping. The American Civil Liberties Union on Aug. 8 formally moved for public release of orders on the scope of international eavesdropping authority (see this earlier post). On Friday, the ACLU made public the Court’s two-page order asking for further briefing A download link to the briefing order can be found here.
The call for briefing, dated Thursday, called the ACLU motion “an unprecedented request that warrants further briefing.” The government was told by file a response in two weeks, by Aug. 31, and to supply the ACLU with a copy — censored, if necessary, to exclude secret material. The ACLU was given until Sept. 14 to reply.
The order was signed by the FIS Court’s Presiding Judge, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of Washington, D.C.
The Court did not release the order itself. Ordinarily, that tribunal operates entirely in secret; usually, its proceedings involve only one side — the government, as it seeks approval for foreign intelligence wiretapping. The ACLU’s news release (found here) describing the briefing order did not indicate whether it had asked for permission to release the briefing order — which obviously contained no secrets.
This is surely an instance where public policy is playing a very dangerous negative sum game upon the public with “secret” associated with the word “court”.
No one here should for a single moment believe anyone in government will ever succeed in convincing enough of a majority that terrorism, whatever that may mean, if anything more than what some court of haughty fools may arbitrarily and capriciously decide it might mean, could possibly be more threatening than a secret court, despite any notion that these secret courts are only designed to invade the natural rights of foreigners.
That all our natural rights are only defended with acts of terrorism is not such a great cognitive leap that even a junior high school student would not surmise this reality, though those who clerk for higher courts might stumble here in the shadow of the gods for whom they toil.
Everyone is a foreigner before any court of fools such as those who do not see the folly here. If it is a secret, that it is surely dishonest is no mean feat of cognition.
A poll of the population would reveal perhaps startlingly facts to those associated with jurisprudence.
That an overwhelming majority polled would support vile, vicious and painful death penalty for dishonest jurists would seem to preclude the use of the words “secret” and “court” in the same sentence, if just for common sense reasons.
The universal failure of light to act as a viable disinfectant upon the work of the courts is likely the reason for such a fatal sentiment.
And, no small minority would have you all shot just for good measure.
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
Comment by Don Robertson — August 18, 2007 @ 11:02 pm