Why Should We Believe Solicitors General about Warrantless Wiretapping

I’m working on a longer post about the arguments in Amnesty v. Clapper today.

But I wanted to point to this passage from the transcript, in which Solicitor General Don Verrilli responded to Justice Ginsburg’s suggestion that the FISA Court didn’t exercise very rigorous oversight, given that it had only ever rejected one application.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Is there much of a speculation involved in how — I think it’s only one time, and it was under the pre-amended statute, that the FISA court ever turned down an application

GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes, but that, Your Honor, is, I think, not a fair assessment of the process. It’s really very much an iterative process in which there’s a dialogue between the executive branch and the FISA court in which the court can demand more information, raise objections. Those get worked out, and then there’s a final order.

So I don’t think it’s fair to infer from the fact that there’s only one rejection that this — that it’s a process that isn’t rigorous.

But there was evidence in the court room today to show how false such assurances are.

You see, Ted Olson was in the room. He was there to argue a copyright case heard just after Amensty v. Clapper. And as I have noted before, the government actually sent Olson–back when he was Solicitor General–to argue before the FISA Court of Review without disclosing the warrantless wiretapping program to him. He made a number of claims about how “lawful” the government’s activities were when, in fact, they weren’t.

Given that the government has lied to FISCR before, and given that Solicitors General apparently don’t get briefed on what the government does with warrantless wiretapping, is there any reason we should believe this Solicitor General about the FISA Court’s oversight?

Twitter20Reddit0Facebook4Google+0Email

8 Responses to Why Should We Believe Solicitors General about Warrantless Wiretapping

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Emptywheel Twitterverse
JimWhiteGNV Grumpy surveillance apologists are STILL grumpy.
25mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @ashk4n: Fed appeals court affirms Lavabit district decision: providing SSL keys in 4-point font is in contempt http://t.co/u0LDsGyV8L #…
29mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @NRCATtweets: COMMENTARY: CIA #torture report ought to disturb all our consciences http://t.co/yK1oWO0ALz via @washingtonpost
48mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @JoshMBlackman: Did Congress Pass A Bill Of Attainder That Denied Visa to Iranian Envoy Who Was Involved in 1979 Hostage Crisi... http:/…
3hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @barryeisler Nope. Just noting it on twitter and elsewhere. Glad you wrote it up.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @adambonin Wait. David Brooks? Can I get my tuition back? @NateSilver538 @AmherstCollege
10hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @adambonin Wait what?!?! I'd say got to Brunos but I understand ... sadly ... @NateSilver538 @AmherstCollege
10hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Fat Evil Parallel Gore RT @twolf10: Snow sticking to ground in mid April, 2 days after almost hit 80. I blame evil parallel universe Al Gore
11hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz That said Olivia Wilde was one light year closer to Suzy Miller than Chris Hemsworth was to the real James Hunt who I actually knew a little
11hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz I was fortunate enough to meet Suzy Miller back in the day, and Olivia Wilde looks nothing at all like her.
11hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @adamgoldmanwp Lots of reasons to imagine why it might remain suppressed, most innocuous of which is investigation in key stage.
11hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @adamgoldmanwp It may not be in there--but it is in HHSAC report. Prosecutors won't let Dhokhar's team see it either.
11hreplyretweetfavorite
October 2012
S M T W T F S
« Sep   Nov »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031