• FISA Court judges responsible for approving the NSA's secret demands to Verizon are buying Verizon s
    19 replies, posted
VICE: [URL="http://www.vice.com/read/the-judges-approving-nsa-surveillance-requests-keep-buying-verizon-stock-725"]THE JUDGES APPROVING THE NSA'S SURVEILLANCE REQUESTS KEEP BUYING VERIZON STOCK[/URL] [QUOTE]When the National Security Agency would like to take a look at all of the metadata of phone calls made by people using Verizon, a program revealed last summer by Edward Snowden, they must obtain approval from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (better known as the FISA Court), which typically grants such requests. VICE has obtained disclosures that reveal for the first time since this program was made public that FISA Court judges have not only owned Verizon stock in the last year, but that at least one of the judges to sign off on the NSA orders for bulk metadata collection is a proud shareholder of the company complying with these requests. On May 28 last year, Judge James Zagel, a FISA Court member since 2008, purchased stock in Verizon. In June of this year, Zagel signed off on a government request to the FISA Court to renew the ongoing metadata collection program. He's not the only one. We filed a request to the courts for the personal finance statements for all of the FISA Court judges. About a month ago, federal judges began turning in their disclosures, which cover the calendar year of 2013. The disclosures show that FISA Court Judge Susan Wright purchased Verizon stock valued at $15,000 or less on October 22. FISA Court Judge Dennis Saylor has owned Verizon stock, and last year collected a dividend of less than $1,000. The precise amount and value of each investment is unclear--like many government ethics disclosures, including those for federal lawmakers, investments amounts are revealed within certain ranges of value. ... Last year, Gawker reported that many FISA Court judges have owned various telecommunication stocks over the years. [B]But the ethics forms we obtained show that since the Snowden revelation, FISA Court judges have been specifically purchasing and holding stock in the company that is the only named telecom giant known for its compliance with the NSA's bulk data orders.[/B][/QUOTE]
oh HELL no
Unethical behaviour, the legal system, and the NSA.. Sounds like your average US week day.
Why the fuck do they keep getting away with corruption of this magnitude? Why is nobody stopping, or trying to stop these sacks of shit?
[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;45520970]Why the fuck do they keep getting away with corruption of this magnitude? Why is nobody stopping, or trying to stop these sacks of shit?[/QUOTE] Because money.
Land of the free of conscience
I don't see how their decision affects Verizon stock one way or another. Yes, it's unseemly, but it's not like the judges are using their position to pump up stock they own. If anything, authorizing the bulk collection warrants should push Verizon's stock DOWN because everyone knows their activity on Verizon's network is an open book to the feds.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;45521017]I don't see how their decision affects Verizon stock one way or another. Yes, it's unseemly, but it's not like the judges are using their position to pump up stock they own. If anything, authorizing the bulk collection warrants should push Verizon's stock DOWN because everyone knows their activity on Verizon's network is an open book to the feds.[/QUOTE] Judicial impartiality. Foreign concept these days.
Just another day in the US of A.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;45521017]I don't see how their decision affects Verizon stock one way or another. Yes, it's unseemly, but it's not like the judges are using their position to pump up stock they own. If anything, authorizing the bulk collection warrants should push Verizon's stock DOWN because everyone knows their activity on Verizon's network is an open book to the feds.[/QUOTE] that would be an exact reason for them to do it, then buy stocks while they are low.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;45521017]I don't see how their decision affects Verizon stock one way or another. Yes, it's unseemly, but it's not like the judges are using their position to pump up stock they own. If anything, authorizing the bulk collection warrants should push Verizon's stock DOWN because everyone knows their activity on Verizon's network is an open book to the feds.[/QUOTE] From the article: [QUOTE]Federal judges are bound by an ethics law that requires them to recuse themselves from cases in which they hold a financial stake in the outcome, or in cases in which their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." In the past, revelations about stock ownership have invalidated certain court decisions. For example, after an eye-opening investigation from the Center for Public Integrity, which revealed that a federal judge who participated in a mortgage foreclosure-related decision owned stock in Wells Fargo, a case was re-opened. The FISA Court is different. For one thing, FISA proceedings are ex parte, meaning Verizon isn't even a party for the NSA requests. However, telecom companies certainly have a stake in how they comply with government orders, and some ethicists say judges would be well served if they simply steer clear of these types of investments. "I think prudence would suggest that a FISA judge would not acquire investments in these telecommunication stocks," says Professor William G. Ross, an expert on judicial ethics at Samford University's Cumberland School of Law in Alabama. "I'm not saying there is a conflict of interest, which my impression says there's probably not," Ross says, adding, "this is between what's improper and what's prudent."[/QUOTE] It's not a 100% cut-and-dry case of ethics violations, but it is a worryingly muddy situation.
[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;45520970]Why the fuck do they keep getting away with corruption of this magnitude? Why is nobody stopping, or trying to stop these sacks of shit?[/QUOTE] Two reasons. One: If you're against the NSA you're labelled a terrorist by anyone who would dare call themselves a 'critic' of your views. Two: The people who would enact rules against this level of corruption are themselves equally corrupt and in the same manner. They'd be hit in the face with their own rules. Thus they do not make them.
To play devil's avocado: I own a crap ton of different stocks as part of my 401k, including index funds. In theory, I own Verizon stock in <10k with <1k dividends right now and I probably don't know it. I completely agree if they are pumping these into expense accounts they manage then they are shady has hell. But if it is a managed fund then they probably don't have any say in exact companies to purchase into.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;45521070] It's not a 100% cut-and-dry case of ethics violations, but it is a worryingly muddy situation.[/QUOTE] I agree with that. At the very least, a judge with significant Verizon holdings should probably recuse himself from the decision. It doesn't [I]really[/I] look like corruption yet, but it sure raises some eyebrows.
[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;45520970]Why the fuck do they keep getting away with corruption of this magnitude? Why is nobody stopping, or trying to stop these sacks of shit?[/QUOTE] we've put in place a seperate system of watchers without any oversight plus most gov't judges are partisan as fuck because to get that high you have to kiss ass, they don't get to that position by being nice
The minute they created a 'secret' court it was corrupt. If you can't state your case in open court you are up to no good.
[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;45520970]Why the fuck do they keep getting away with corruption of this magnitude? Why is nobody stopping, or trying to stop these sacks of shit?[/QUOTE] And theres not really anything we [i]can[/i] do.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;45526560]If you can't state your case in open court you are up to no good.[/QUOTE] Or you have sensitive sources that need to be protected, since publicly announcing who an informant is in the Taliban is a great way to get him beheaded. The government does not take conflict of interest lightly. Federal employees who violate conflict of interest regulations, which not only restrict their activities while employed but restrict their activities years after leaving federal employment, can face some harsh punishments or even jail time. Now that these justices have watchdogs breathing down their neck, the likelihood of them even trying to exploit the system for personal gain is basically nil. On top of that, chances are they'll be asked to sit out on cases involving substantial personal interest, even if they in theory have nothing to gain.
[QUOTE=catbarf;45526775]Or you have sensitive sources that need to be protected, since publicly announcing who an informant is in the Taliban is a great way to get him beheaded. The government does not take conflict of interest lightly. Federal employees who violate conflict of interest regulations, which not only restrict their activities while employed but restrict their activities years after leaving federal employment, can face some harsh punishments or even jail time. Now that these justices have watchdogs breathing down their neck, the likelihood of them even trying to exploit the system for personal gain is basically nil. On top of that, chances are they'll be asked to sit out on cases involving substantial personal interest, even if they in theory have nothing to gain.[/QUOTE] Ordinarily, I would agree with everything you posted. But in this sort of situation, the possibility that due process will be buried by the words "national security concerns" is very real. It's occurred before. Trusting the system to be accountable to itself is how we got into this mess in the first place. That or we'll need to assemble and trust a secret court to go, behind sealed doors, after the guys on [URL="http://www.vice.com/read/the-fisa-court-knew-the-nsa-lied-approved-its-searches-anyway"]the other secret court that's already demonstrated that it's quite happy to allow the NSA to violate the constitution on a constant basis[/URL].
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.