
The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It - luigi
http://konklone.com/post/the-door-to-the-fisa-court
======
jasonkolb
When I was doing real estate investing I ran into a kangaroo "court" that the
local corrupt city set up to handle property code violations. They would have
a cop set up at the front and an appointed "judge" (they had some other name
for him to not offend the law too mightily) who wore robes and asked everyone
to stand up and sit down. The person in the robes would arbitrarily make up
fines for the offenses according to their whims and moods. I know because
there was a $4500 "judgement" on one of the houses I bought for having a
driveway that needed to be repaired.

Anyway, it turns out that this "court" is a complete fabrication that the city
put up as a way to put up the appearance of being fair. But cities are
corporations, they aren't allowed to establish courts like this, and it was a
complete sham. That's why you have to have a real judge hear traffic cases.

This is a sham traffic court too. This is not part of the judicial branch of
government any more than the "property code violations court" presided over by
a clown in black robes. There's a reason we have a separation of powers. A
paid employee wielding a rubber stamp is not justice.

~~~
jwoah12
I agree with your sentiment, but the Constitution gives congress the power to
establish inferior courts.

~~~
jasonkolb
Thanks... I actually hadn't thought about that aspect of it (that real estate
court was still not established by Congress ;)

I've been reading up on that a bit since your comment, it's a pretty
interesting topic because it touches on one branch's ability to influence
another. It's a little troubling that a supreme court justice (Roberts, in
this case) has the ability to fill this oversight court with whoever he wants.
It seems that needs to be fixed.

~~~
maxerickson
He has to fill the court with federal judges that have been appointed by a
President and approved by the Senate. That's a somewhat higher standard than
whoever.

~~~
tracker1
I wish more people understood this... I keep seeing comments about being
appointed with no oversight... there was oversight when they were approved by
the congress(Senate). If they aren't fit to be on this court, then perhaps
they aren't fit to be federal judges.

~~~
nitrogen
Perhaps there are people one would trust to be judges when there's a full
public record of their proceedings, but not when those proceedings take place
behind closed doors with no public oversight.

~~~
tracker1
My problem is the proceedings taking place behind closed doors _and_ without
any real oversight. Especially since DOJ/NSA/FBI have been outright lying to
congress.

------
dlinder
Is anyone collecting a list of the surreal, absurd, or kafkaesque events
surrounding post-9/11 national security?

This episode reminds me of the red warning light from ksm's gitmo trial that
would sometimes light up and cut the gallery feeds on its own:
[http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/01/secrec...](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/01/secrecy-
around-ksm-guantanamo-hearings.html)

~~~
detcader
Glenn Greenwald's commentary/journalism since a few years after 9/11 is
basically such a list

------
speeder
Kinda off-topic:

Why cameras are banned on courtrooms? I remember the last US trial news all of
them had sketches like this instead of photos and videos...

EDIT about the argument below about google: I always search Google first, but
I found lots of random answers, and I don't have enough domain knowledge to
know what one (or ones) are correct or resemble how things really are, asking
here usually spark people to post very interesting information, that sometimes
are obscure even, and hard to find on Google.

Instead of telling people to use Google, why not wonder: If the person CAN
have that information, and is asking anyway, what the person wants to know,
that is not easy to find on Google?

~~~
stonemetal
The standard reason given is privacy for the victim and jury, less jury
poisoning if there needs to be a retrial, people can be a little more or at
ease, etc.

It definitely depends on the court, OJ's trial was on TV.

~~~
3825
I cannot imagine FISA Courts having victims or jury. I thought it was all
decided by the judges. Is it not so?

~~~
mindrag
That's true, but all FISA proceedings are classified, so there's no way they
would allow cameras.

~~~
dragonwriter
Well, they might allow cameras -- "classified" does not mean "no records" \--
but any photos or video would also be classified.

They certainly wouldn't allow _the media_ (or the public) in the courtroom,
with or without cameras, or allow the media/public access to anything any
cameras they did allow in captured.

------
generj
I want to thank the author for the excellent sketches. If I was forbidden
photography equipment, my sketches would be rectangles, which, if squinted at,
might construe a door.

Joking aside, it is obviously very concerning that FISA is completely
unaccountable to the public. The lack of a sign is just another symptom of the
abuse of secrecy.

~~~
konklone
You're welcome! Though Lindsay Young did the actual sketching.

------
DannyBee
Not to ruin the central point of this article, but i'd say 50% of the courts
i've been in don't have obvious signs on the doors.

They just tell you you are in room 302 for this or that, or whatever (this is
true even in appeals courts where they aren't really shifting around
courtrooms all the time. The main courtroom will just be some numbered
nameless room).

The only usually obvious signs are the names on judges chambers, and in a lot
of cases, they aren't even in the same building!

------
ferdo
No sign on the door indicates that they know they should be ashamed even
though shame doesn't appear to be one of their guiding lights.

edit: great little piece, btw. I'll pass it around.

~~~
philwelch
By law it's a secret court to begin with. Whether or not there's a sign on the
door, it's still a secret court. Would a secret court that advertised its
location be more palatable to you somehow? Because a sign on the door adds
zero significance to the substance of the FISA court's existence or powers.

And, given that it is a secret court, well it wouldn't be very secret if
everyone knew where the courtroom was, would it?

~~~
ferdo
Secret courts, secret trials, secret prisons, secret wars...maybe I need to
learn why my ancestors left Germany.

------
gcb0
[http://myweb.wvnet.edu/~jelkins/lawyerslit/exercises/kafka.h...](http://myweb.wvnet.edu/~jelkins/lawyerslit/exercises/kafka.htm)

------
tbrownaw
The lack of a sign is not the problem. Given that hand scanner by the door,
having a sign would be a bit silly -- anyone who would actually _need_ the
sign can't get in regardless. Given that (almost?) everything they do
apparently involves classified information, the hand scanner makes sense.

What is a problem, is not having anyone to answer the phones and not having
the building receptionist know what to tell people.

~~~
stephengillie
I wonder how hackable that hand scanner is. Is it any more secure than the
hotel rooms that were cracked a year or 2 back?

~~~
jerf
Yes, there are ways of making more secure hand scanners. The article links to
the exact model, if you're interested. No, it probably isn't perfect. But it's
part of a larger security system; remember, whatever you're bringing to "hack"
this door, you must have also slipped past a physical inspection. I don't
necessarily expect total brilliance from the security guards, but I suspect
they would know enough to ask you some very pointed questions if you tried to
sneak in a to-scale replica of somebody's hand.

------
aspensmonster
>...the employees in the first floor District Clerk's office (gently) laughed
at my attempts to find anything about the Court. They referred to it as the
"Room of Requirement", and said they had no idea what floor it was even on.

In a maelstrom of political chaos, it's nice to see at least a bit of humor
every now and then. It seems Life Imitates Art. This pleases the Potter fan in
me.

------
fleitz
The only person to be tried at this court was Citizen K.

