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
bmaz @ddayen Granted. Hope Wolvereenies and ASU can meet in some meaningful game this year.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Silversalty @emptywheel @ddayen You got 15 followers jackass, go blow yourself.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ddayen @Silversalty @emptywheel Oh, hai, how ya doin?? Welp, at least it wasn't Appalachian State this time cc: @ColMorrisDavis #Harbahaha
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @invictawatchUSA @EyalAtInvicta @BuyInvicta @EVINELive You guys have morals+game, or just covering? We shall see. What you honestly got???
6hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Silversalty @emptywheel @ddayen Yeah, what is your brilliant take asshole? Got one? No, then shut the fuck up. And go the fuck away. #dick
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @JoshMBlackman: Judge Bunning's Mom on Obergefell: "He doesn’t agree with the Supreme Court but has to obey the law." http://t.co/YQ0lBX
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ilovaussiesheps Hmm. I shall try to do better.
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Travis_Waldron I'm the LAST person to be able to criticize for language. But I invite to consider whether we're pitching this right.
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Travis_Waldron With all due respect, this is abt a bunch of workers (who happen to be millionaires) putting it to the man. Let's tell that
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Travis_Waldron You did! Might I invite you to review your language for how working people might see themselves here?
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Travis_Waldron This is a big labor issue. Stupider than Uber, justifiably. But nevertheless a labor issue.
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Travis_Waldron OK. You've not been as horrible as certain other leftie sports guys. Nevertheless, this is a key labor issue. Push it.
6hreplyretweetfavorite
October 2012
S M T W T F S
« Sep   Nov »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031