By Judi McLeod ——Bio and Archives--February 5, 2018
Cover Story | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
“Trial lawyer Robert Barnes notes that the FISA court does not operate like other courts. Because the court’s jurisdiction is limited to legitimate security threats, its judges are supposed to hold the evidence they consider to a much higher standard.
Legal commentary thread on #Memo: It is important to remember that FISA courts are not like other courts; there needs to be specific evidence of a particular national security threat to circumvent regular federal courts. It is a HIGHER standard because its jurisdiction is LIMITED
— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) February 2, 2018
To spy on Americans through a FISA court, the FBI must show the target is an "agent of a foreign power," not merely in contact with a foreign power. The law makes it difficult to show someone is an "agent of a foreign power" to make sure it is not misused to spy on Americans.
— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) February 2, 2018
“As NPR noted in 2013, the FISA court has not really functioned like a typical federal court since 2008 when Obama took office.“It “became less a court than an administrative entity or ministerial clerk,” said William Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University. “They weren’t reviewing law anymore; they were simply sort of stamping papers as approved or filed.”“That a DNC sponsored document that was poorly written and riddled with spelling errors was considered to meet the court’s high standard raises serious concerns. It is also important to recognize the damage caused by the judges at the FISA court when they used their secretive status to influence America’s most important political election.”
View Comments