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?

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @nickmanes1 It's been there for 3 days, walk-to-work guy.
28mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @KevinBankston Except that at least per Wyden, data COULD stay w/providers w/o new law. @USATODAY
38mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @HeerJeet A first person narrative, written in the style of Faulkner? @HealeyParera
39mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @ryangrim: Misconduct In Jailhouse Snitch Program Letting Murder Suspects Walk Free http://t.co/G7QJnpm1Sj
50mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @LemonSlayerUS Pretty sure DiFi said his name showed up just 6 times. @onekade
57mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @nancyleong: Great post by @IlyaSomin on why #samesexmarriage bans are sex discrimination: http://t.co/tO2AnhSXkP #marriageequality
6hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Bob McCulloch’s grand jury charade: County Prosecutor shows how to not get an indictment http://t.co/f7neebxQlr via @tweetmeme
6hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @TheBradBlog @billmon1 In some civil circumstances, yes, but very far from all. As to criminal, the remedy is pretty much political.
7hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @stephenlemons @FredDuVal Just saw independent as, presumably dark funded, on Duval "releasing terrorists". Pukeworthy.
7hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @erinscafe The furry picture should lead all reports though.
8hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @billmon1 @TheBradBlog Ooof. Hope you have enough coffee and/or bourbon.
8hreplyretweetfavorite
October 2012
S M T W T F S
« Sep   Nov »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031