Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court of "Review"

So, let me get this straight. The FISC, which "considers surveillance and physical search orders from the Department of Justice and US intelligence agencies", already of questionably broad powers, has itself been circumvented by the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review and John Ashcroft.

In May of this year, the FISC concluded that proposed actions designed to "intensify the use of secret surveillance in the United States", "...are NOT reasonably designed, in light of their purpose and technique, 'consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, or disseminate foreign intelligence information' as defined in §1801(h) and §1821(4) of the [Federal Intelligence Surveillance] Act."

The FISC released declassified material regarding this ruling in August of this year, which specifically includes reference to 75 instances of abuses of surveillance warrants under the Bush and Clinton administrations.

So, just to nutshell it, here, this Court rarely turns down requests for warrants, yet dug in its heels this year against the motion that the Court "rescind all 'wall' procedures in all international terrorism surveillances and searches now pending before the Court, or that has been before the Court at anytime in the past".

They said no. More specifically, they said,

"Under the normal 'wall' procedures, where there were separate intelligence and criminal investigations, or a single counter-espionage investigation with overlapping intelligence and criminal interests, FBI criminal investigators and Department prosecutors were not allowed to review all of the raw FISA intercepts or seized materials lest they become defacto partners in the FISA surveillances and searches. Instead, a screening mechanism, or person, usually the chief legal counsel in a FBI field office, or an assistant U.S. attorney not involved in the overlapping criminal investigation, would review all of the raw intercepts and seized materials and pass on only that information which might be relevant evidence. In unusual cases such as where attorney-client intercepts occurred, Justice Department lawyers in OIPR acted as the 'wall'. In significant cases, involving major complex investigations such as the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Africa, and the millennium investigations, whem criminal investigations of FISA targets were being conducted concurrently, and prosecution was likely, this Court became the "wall" so that FISA information could not be disseminated to criminal prosecutors without the Court's approval. In some cases where this Court was the "wall," the procedures seemed to have functioned as provided in the Court's orders; however, in an alarming number of instances, there have been troubling results."

So, of course, if the judges you're in front of say something you don't like, well, go get some different ones. Empanel a Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, and let them say "yes" to you. Which is exactly what happened.

Great.