So... I Decided To Do A Little Surveillance On Federal Judge Posner !!!

[WillyT]

Watching NBC Nightly News tonight, they do a two camera\interview cut-away with CATO Institute's Tim Lynch, and Federal Judge Richard Posner.

Video here: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/

And I'm just gettin that 'Federalist Society' feeling as I listen to Judge Posner argue the "What are you guys worried about" position, so I decide to do some internet spying. (All public and legal, dontcha know?)

First I find this recent WaPo ditty (12\21\2005):

<snip>

Washington, D.C.: What significance if any do you attribute to Judge James Robertson's decision to resign from the FISA court?

Richard Posner: I don't know the circumstances.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: I read your op-ed today with interest and I appreciate your thoughtful input on this subject. However, there are a few issues that I have to take with some of your points. First, is it not the case that if current law does not adequately address the threats we face, then the appropriate action is to change the law rather than circumvent it? Wasn't this specifically the point of the Patriot Act?

More importantly, your discussion of the computer vs. human inspection of data is disingenuous. The criterion by which the computers sift the data is determined by humans, and we do not have distinct statutes for automated wholesale invasions of privacy as opposed to human, retail invasions of privacy, to my knowledge.

Next, you make the claim that "the only valid ground for forbidding human inspection of such data is fear that they might be used to ... intimidate the administration's political enemies." The constitution does not, I believe, address the motives associated with "unreasonable search and seizure". It simply prohibits them, so your argument has no bearing.

I could go on, but I will leave it there, and assume that you will let us know more if you feel that it will be necessary to find out if some us "innocent, unwitting" people have "valuable counterterrorist information".

Richard Posner: I did not offer a legal opinion. My concern was with issues of policy. Are you worried about having a conversation of yours (say this conversation) recorded in a government database? Suppose that unbeknownst to you your neighbor is a terrorist, and you happen to mention his name in the conversation. A government computer picks up the name and learning from your conversation where he lives, arrests him.



Would such an episode bother you? If so, why?

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: I am curious as to where Judge Posner gets support for his position that the NSA's software systems first search for data that has intelligence value before there is actually any human intervention in the process. This assertion seems to be without any factual basis, especially since there has been hardly any debate or oversight of these systems.

Richard Posner: I have no inside information about the operation of NSA. However, according to an article in one of this morning's newspapers, NSA intercepts 650 million conversations a day. Obviously its staff cannot personally review this volume of conversations. They must be using computer search engines to pick out the tiny fraction of potential intelligence interest.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Judge Posner:

You say "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it difficult to conduct surveillance of U.S. citizens . . . unless they are suspected of being involved in terrorist or other hostile activities." But the administration has said it is spying for precisely that reason, they believe, hopefully with evidence to support that belief, that these folks are suspected terrorists. Thus under your standard, the administration has the necessary prerequisite to obtain a warrant under FISA. Why then are they not breaking the law?

Richard Posner: The real problem with FISA, as an anti-terrorist weapon, is not, I think, the bother of having to get a warrant, especially since the warrant can be obtained retroactively; it is that the statute places too great restrictions on surveillance of U.S. persons (citizens plus permanent residents). And, as you say, that problem falls away if the government confines its non-FISA surveillance to terrorist suspects. There is still a question, though, whether FISA is the sole basis for national security surveillance of U.S. persons. Suppose the United States was being invaded by a foreign power; no one would think that to intercept the communications of the invading force would require a FISA warrant; invasions are outside FISA's domain. The Administration position is that the joint resolution of Congress authorizing the use of force against al Qaeda is in effect a declaration of war, and that the activities that the non-FISA surveillance is aimed at thwarting is in effect an attempted invasion of the United States. If that is a sound position, it would justify the non-FISA surveillance that the National Security Agency has conducted, at least as that surveillance has been described by Administration officials.

_______________________

Fairfax County, Va.: Computer-generated intel is undeniably useful, but just as clearly susceptible to abuse. Wouldn't you prefer that some checks be placed on the executive's use of this power, for the same reasons that the Framers devised a system of separated powers?

Richard Posner: Congress is entitled to conduct oversight of all executive branch activities, including national security intelligence. That oversight, if conducted competently, is an important check on abuses. :rofl::bounce::rofl:

<snip>

Link to much more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/12/20/DI2005122001142_pf.html

Then I perused here (Wikipedia) and found (Federalist Society):

<snip>

The Federalist Society is a non-partisan organization that seeks to foster spirited debate of constitutional issues and public policy questions. Some events the Society sponsors attract noteworthy participants and attendees who do not share the views of the Society's conservative and libertarian members. On some issues, such as drug legalization and abortion, there is a clear split in opinion between conservative and libertarian Society members.

According to Alfred Ross, of the Institute of Democracy Studies (a liberal interest and advocacy group), "they recently launched a state judicial selection project to try to dominate the state, as well as federal, bench."<3> Federalist Society supporters note that such a project would simply be a counterpoint to the project already in place at the American Bar Association, which has been accused of a liberal bias. For example, the ABA gave Ronald Reagan's judicial nominees Richard Posner and Frank H. Easterbrook low "qualified/not qualified" ratings;<4> later, the ABA gave Bill Clinton judicial nominees with similar resumes "well qualified" ratings.<5> Meanwhile, Judges Posner and Easterbrook have gone on to become the two most highly-cited judges in the federal appellate judiciary.<6> (In 2005, however, the ABA gave John Roberts, George W. Bush's nomination for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a unanimous "well qualified" rating; it also gave a unanimous "well qualified" rating to appellate court nominee Miguel Estrada, who never took his seat because his nomination was filibustered, but only a "qualified/not-qualified" rating to nominee Janice Rogers Brown. :rofl::bounce::rofl:

<snip>

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society

Ya know... it's amazing what you can do without a warrant.

:shrug:

[bluerum]

1. Is that a terrorist in your pocket or ar you just glad to see me? n/t

[WillyT]

2. Somthing Like That...

:evilgrin: