[jamieb]

Seems perfectly accurate to me. You seem to be quibbling over "lifetime" and "power to shape" while at the same time getting bogged down with legal issues. I find this strange since you have a reputation for being good at security, so it seems odd that you are missing what is effectively a social engineering attack on our legal code base. Everything you said makes sense from a legal point of view, and yet, this shit is clearly 100% unconstitutional. How can that happen? Because one pro-police-state judge and his hegemony have everyone buying into the narrative.

"Hello sir, this is the IT dept, can you confirm your password please?" .. "Oh sure, I believe you..."

"Hello senator, this is the FISC, can you keep this secret please because its all legal?" ... "Oh sure, I believe you..."

The icing on the cake is we don't have standing to sue because we can't prove we've been directly affected, but we can't prove it because we can't sue. As soon as a judge held this to be a lawful argument, we got rooted. The People are no longer in control.

[tptacek]

Yes, I'm quibbling over "lifetime" when the power he has isn't lifetime, "exclusive" when it's a power delegated to him by the discretion of Congress, and "unaccountable" when his role is as an instrument of Congress. Congress cannot effectively recall Roberts from the Supreme Court, but the same majority of Congress that could pass a national fuel standard law could remove Roberts from the FISC.

[jamieb]

"Lifetime" because his position is a lifetime position. Congress may in future change the law, but for now, his role in "shaping" the security state is Lifetime. Right now, this statement is accurate. The fact that you can imagine a possible future where this is no longer correct is irrelevant. Its about as useful as saying that copyright expires.

"Exclusive" does not mean "omnipotent". We negotiate "exclusive" agreements all the time. The fact that someone else agreed to give you that exclusivity doesn't make the "exclusive" part go away.

If not "Unaccountable", accountable to whom? Sure, there may be other individuals in the hegemony who can raise a flag, but its not you or I. The NSA can lie to the senate and it takes a brave senator to break ranks but even then all they can say is "I think the NSA lied on one of these points" but can't even say which one. There is real coercion going on here.

[tptacek]

It's not a lifetime position. Roberts position on the Supreme Court is a lifetime position. Absent a fundamental change to the US Constitution, Roberts is Chief Justice for life. But his position vis a vis the FISC is no more secure than that of the majority leader of the US Senate.

It's not exclusive. Exclusivity dictates that the power Roberts has is available only to him. But it's not; it's available to Congress as well. Not only that, but Congress' power over the FISC dwarfs that of Roberts. Congress could pass a law requiring FISC judges to decide while swinging upside down from a rope made of cheese curds. All Roberts can do is appoint FISC judges. Congress can un-appoint them.

It's not unaccountable. Unaccountable means that Roberts can exercise his power unchecked by any authority. Roberts power is checked the same way as the Secretary of Labor's power is: Congress can require him to testify before a committee and, if it wishes, strip him of his FISC power.

[sigzero]

Congress could even change how the whole FISC is done and Robert cannot do anything about that either. Clearly much of the article is hyperbole.

[tptacek]

Congress MUST change how FISC is done, and this article unintentionally lets them off the hook by framing FISC as if it had any of the same authority as an Article III court, where Congress has far less authority.

[fnordfnordfnord]

- Congress may impeach the Chief Justice.

- Congress may revoke the power over the FISC, so it isn't irrevocable.

But the FISC Chief is a lifetime appointment, by definition, since the Chief Justice is a lifetime appointment. It is exclusive, because he has executive authority, he does not have to take advice from anyone before making a decision. Whether it is unaccountable is a matter for debate since the operation of the court, and its activities are carried out in secret. It is certainly unaccountable in the normal sense of the word.

[smsm42]

FISC can not call senators and ask them for anything. NSA has to call FISC and ask them if it is legal, if they confirm, NSA can proceed. FISC has no power over senators - if any senator decides something is wrong with surveillance, he can initiate a bill that says you need more approval than FISC or you can't do certain things at all - FISC only confirms that NSA is acting withing the limits that the senators (and the House of course) set the last time. FISC can not create rules - unlike SC, btw, that to a large measure can interfere with the rules, even though Roberts seem to be rather restrained from doing this in many cases where he had a possibility to do so (see Obamacare decision, for example). FISC can only say if NSA follows the rules - and it is the senator that makes the rules.