Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Rick Moran


July 20, 2013 - 11:06 am

Earlier this month, a judge who served on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court laughed off the notion that the secret court was a “rubber stamp” for the government.

Royce Lambert, who served on the court from 1995 to 2002, claimed that anyone who knows him would say he wasn’t a rubber stamp for the spy agencies:

“You’ve had judges like me, and the public perception of me is certainly not that I’m a rubber stamp for the government,” Lamberth said in an interview, laughing. As if to underscore the point, Lamberth had issued a ruling earlier in the day ordering the government to stop genital searches of Guantanamo Bay detainees who want to meet with their lawyers.

Lamberth was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 and has been chief judge since 2008. On Tuesday, when he turns 70, he’ll step down as chief judge of the court but remain as a senior judge with a reduced caseload.

Last year, the government asked the FISA court to approve 1,789 applications to spy on foreign intelligence targets, according to a Justice Department notice to Congress dated April 30. The court approved all but one — and that was withdrawn by the government.

But Lamberth said that doesn’t mean the approval is automatic. Often, judges come back with questions or comments about the requests and require intelligence agencies to modify them to meet their standards.

He said he doesn’t remember rejecting any government request during his time on the FISA court. The overwhelming number of those “were the kinds of things we should be doing to protect our country,” Lamberth said. “They were the kinds of surveillances that I thought the executive branch was right to do. And I felt that each one was the kind of thing that we needed to do to keep our country safe — both from spies and from terrorists.”

Yes, I’m sure all the FISA court judges are as dedicated and respectful of civil liberties as this guy. And that’s what scares me. Eighteen hundred wiretap requests and not one was rejected? Since 1979, there have been 39,000 requests made to the secret court and only 11 have been turned down.

This is relevant because this same court that has rarely found the government overreaching has just renewed the telephone snooping program revealed by Edward Snowden.


The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or ODNI, said its authority to maintain the program expired on Friday and that the government sought and received a renewal from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court.

The ODNI said in a statement it was disclosing the renewal as part of an effort at greater transparency following Snowden’s disclosure of the telephone data collection and email surveillance programs.

A top official said earlier on Friday that intelligence officials were working to declassify information on the programs that Snowden had already partially disclosed.

Robert Litt, general counsel of ODNI, said he was optimistic the intelligence community could make “a lot of progress” in declassifying the information.

U.S. officials faced a public uproar after Snowden began leaking classified information about telephone and email collection programs. Intelligence officials have been pushing to justify the programs as legal, particularly under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which requires a secret court to approve the programs.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court sided on Monday with Yahoo Inc and ordered the Obama administration to declassify and publish a 2008 court decision justifying Prism, the data collection program revealed last month by Snowden.

The ruling could offer a rare glimpse into how the government has legally justified its spy agencies’ data collection programs under FISA.

“One of the hurdles to declassification earlier was that the existence of the programs was classified,” Litt said in response to questions after a speech at the Brookings Institution. “It’s very hard to think about releasing the opinion that says a particular program is legal if you’re not going to disclose what the program is. Now that the program has been declassified, we’re going back and we’re looking at these opinions.”

Litt said intelligence officials were looking across the spectrum of its activities to see what could be declassified.

“We’re trying to prioritize things that we think are of the greatest public interest,” he said. “The highest priority is getting out fuller information about the programs about which partial information is already out.”

Question: If they feel they can safely declassify a lot of this stuff, what did Snowden do that was so God-awful injurious to American intelligence that he deserves to be hounded all over the world?

Sure, revealing the existence of the program would automatically negate the need for total secrecy regarding some of it. But don’t these actions speak to the notion that at least some of these FISA rulings could be safely published?

Perhaps the ruling that renewed the telephone surveillance program could be published as well. It’s hard to trust a court that appears to grant the government wide latitude in its surveillance efforts.

Rick Moran is PJ Media's Chicago editor and Blog editor at The American Thinker. He is also host of the"RINO Hour of Power" on Blog Talk Radio. His own blog is Right Wing Nut House.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (7)
All Comments   (7)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Still waiting for an answer.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I have been asking this simple question on the NSA for the last couple of weeks now. So far, lots of answer.

What Do you Want To Do?

I don't really expect an answer, but still the question should be asked.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The real problem is that we are being asked to take his word for it, to "trust him".

Because that is implicit in secret courts issuing secret rulings that nobody gets to read. "Trust us," they are saying, ""We are diligent and protecting your rights."

Trouble is, I don't trust them, and don't believe they are protecting my rights.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Laberth has said is that they are very busy. He didn't say that they were any good at it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Since 1979, there have been 39,000 requests made to the secret court and only 11 have been turned down."
That sounds bad, but only if you are thinking of it like winning and losing lawsuits. Think of it like Eli Lilly applying for drug patents. I doubt they're *ever* turned down. But that's because Lilly knows it's expensive for them to apply for a patent, and they're old players, so they don't apply for a drug that has no chance. On the other hand, probably *the bulk* of their patent applications are sent back for modification. That's because the game is that the inventor tries to get a patent as broad as possible ("drugs that treat depression") and the patent office tells them to narrow it down ("drugs that work almost exactly the same way as the prozac molecule"). Search warrants work the same way. The main action is at the edges. The government asks for "email of all Chechen immigrants" and the court tells them to chagne it to "email of all Chechen immigrants who travel back to Chechnya and go to radical mosques and are under age 30". Or so we hope. But the mere fact that few requests are turned down completely doesn't tell us anything. We need more details.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
39,000 applications over 30 years is an average of 25 applications per week. If you are correct that the filings are fashioned to survive the court, and I suspect that you are, these applications must all be reading pretty much the same to him. That right there creates a momentum, such that if it sounds a lot like yesterday's applications and they were all approved then there is no reason to not approve the one before him.

It has got to be mind-numbing to an extreme degree. They may be judges, but they are still human. Absenting the existence of any party to challenge the judges, I question their ability to to detect shenanigans or other BS within the documents.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Secret courts issuing secret rulings which nobody can read are an absurdity in a free country. Secret courts only make sense in a totalitarian police state where justice is something defined by a self-appointed elite class.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All

One Trackback to “Secret Court that Swears it Isn’t a Rubber Stamp Renews NSA Telephone Snooping Program”