FISA warrant of Carter Page should scare all Americans and spur reform

[anatta]

As technology makes state scrutiny increasingly easy, America has seen a corresponding increase in the abuse of its surveillance tools.
With a legal framework, first created in the 1970s — before the widespread use of computers, email or cell phones — the few safeguards we have are evaporating rapidly.
The curious case of Carter Page, where the FBI used a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant to surveil the virtually unknown, unpaid foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, is only the latest example of a larger, existential threat to the American system of political discourse.

When a physical search occurs in accordance with American criminal law, law enforcement must show probable cause and obtain permission from a judge, and then present a given suspect with a warrant, and a receipt for the items removed.
When law enforcement wants to obtain a criminal wiretap, they similarly have to show probable cause to obtain a warrant, carefully collect information related to potential crimes, and then disclose that information if charges are wrought.
The key difference, is that with the latter, the suspect will only discover they've had their privacy violated after they've been indicted.
With a FISC warrant, it's possible a suspect will never find out, even if charges are eventually filed.

In the case of Carter Page, his private life was monitored, for almost a year, without his knowledge, and then placed on display for strangers at the FBI to peruse, all based on a suspicion that he was colluding with Russia.
On the basis of hearsay, business associations, and possibly Page's political opinions, the FBI received a classified surveillance warrant and then renewed it three times.
And yet, Page was never officially charged — suggesting that, even given the ability to surveil him in ways that might make the general public cringe, the FBI was never able to find enough evidence for a single crime.

It's clear that a secret process, and a complacent judiciary which has elevated prosecutors and members of law enforcement onto a dangerous perch, provides no safety.

It has become clear that a secret, non-adversarial system of judicial review is an insufficient check to our intelligence agencies and law enforcement.
When express disagreement on a foreign policy issue — namely the current sanctions against Russia — form even part of the basis of an allegation which meets the bar for a probable cause warrant, there is something terribly wrong with the current system.
The health of our political system depends on the ability to express an unpopular opinion without official recrimination.

Unfortunately the growing number of transgressions against people, like Carter Page, remain hidden behind a veil of secrecy.
Officials speak of safeguards, but it's clear that a secret process, and a complacent judiciary, which has elevated prosecutors and members of law enforcement onto a dangerous perch, provides no safety. The FISC, where the warrant for Page was issued, has grown particularly notorious for granting broad surveillance authority based on little, or in some cases, no evidence.
Out of more than 39,000 applications presented to the FISC through the end of 2016, only 51 have been rejected, with the majority, 34, of those rejections coming in 2016.

While most FISC warrants remain classified, the few which have emerged through leaks, or been forced into the public domain by First Amendment lawsuits, paint a rather bleak picture.
These warrants tell us the FISC has issued “mass” warrants which permit government surveillance based on statistical “selectors.”

For the vast majority of Americans who've been placed under this microscope — and had their life dissected by faceless government agents — the origin, and methods used to defile their privacy remain a mystery.

These documents also tell us the FISC routinely includes authorization in their warrants for the government to surveil people in contact with their target, and people in contact with the contact;
in a scheme referred to as “chaining,” these authorizations will include 2 or 3 “hops.”
While the text of the Carter Page warrant application, and court approval, remain a secret, one shudders to think this authority was used to spy upon other members of the Trump campaign team who were in contact with Page.
(The memo of the House intelligence committee’s Democrats about the warrant suggests that some unknown number of Trump campaign advisors were the subject of FBI “sub-inquiries.”)

Regardless of what the FBI and DOJ claim was the basis for the Carter Page warrant, the fact remains that he was never officially charged.
Had there been evidence of a crime, one would assume there would have been charges.
It becomes hard to reconcile his innocence with four separate findings of “probable cause.”
The inevitable result is that we must question the court's definition of the word “probable.”

Yet Page is one of the lucky ones: While he still lacks access to the warrant application that prompted his surveillance, he does have proof he was indeed spied upon.
He also knows the duration within which his privacy was assaulted, and the degree to which his life was violated.
For the vast majority of Americans who've been placed under this microscope — and had their life dissected by faceless government agents — the origin, and methods used to defile their privacy remain a mystery.

For those who suspect surveillance, but lack confirmation and the closure that comes with it, there are lingering effects.
Speaking from experience, I can say that victims of surveillance, whether legal or extralegal, are frequently traumatized by the thought that a stranger may be watching their every move.
This lingering fear, the thought that we might still be under the microscope, make it difficult to move past the associated paranoia.

Regardless of what the FBI and DOJ claim was the basis for the Carter Page warrant, the fact remains that he was never officially charged.

To date, the FBI and the FISC have failed to justify their surveillance of Carter Page.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of the accused to face their accuser, particularly when a court, like the FISC, has affirmed the accusation by granting a probable cause warrant.
Page has the right to see and hear the evidence against him, regardless whether of charges are filed.

The solution to this growing epidemic is simple: law enforcement should be required to notify any and all Americans, within one year of obtaining it, that a court-approved surveillance warrant was obtained, and once notified, those people should be able hear the accusations against them, and if warranted, set the record straight.
It is the right and duty of the people to hold a democratic government accountable, but this can only happen once sufficient light is allowed to shine on the actions of our government.

The ultimate check against government power — public opinion and our collective right to vote — has been muted by a lack of transparency that bars the body politic from providing effective oversight.
If more victims could prove how our surveillance laws are being abused for political means, it would surely lead is to a place of awareness and hopefully, a more far informed discussion about “safeguards.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...all-ncna852131

[Bourbon]

Carter Page is one dumb Fuck ... it's no wonder he was representing the Trump Campaign.

[anatta]

These documents also tell us the FISC routinely includes authorization in their warrants for the government to surveil people in contact with their target, and people in contact with the contact;
in a scheme referred to as “chaining,” these authorizations will include 2 or 3 “hops.”

[kudzu]

Before anyone jumps to defend Carter Page this comprehensive piece from the New Yorker deserves a read.

Excerpt:

A friend in Washington, D.C., was calling with bad news: two Republican senators, Lindsey Graham and Charles Grassley, had just referred Steele’s name to the Department of Justice, for a possible criminal investigation. They were accusing Steele—the author of a secret dossier that helped trigger the current federal investigation into President Donald Trump’s possible ties to Russia—of having lied to the very F.B.I. officers he’d alerted about his findings.

The details of the criminal referral were classified, so Steele could not know the nature of the allegations, let alone rebut them, but they had something to do with his having misled the Bureau about contacts that he’d had with the press. For nearly thirty years, Steele had worked as a close ally of the United States, and he couldn’t imagine why anyone would believe that he had been deceptive. But lying to an F.B.I. officer is a felony, an offense that can be punished by up to five years in prison.

The accusations would only increase doubts about Steele’s reputation that had clung to him since BuzzFeed published the dossier, in January, 2017. The dossier painted a damning picture of collusion between Trump and Russia, suggesting that his campaign had “accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals.”

It also alleged that Russian officials had been “cultivating” Trump as an asset for five years, and had obtained leverage over him, in part by recording videos of him while he engaged in compromising sexual acts, including consorting with Moscow prostitutes who, at his request, urinated on a bed.

In the spring of 2016, Orbis Business Intelligence—a small investigative-research firm that Steele and a partner had founded, in 2009, after leaving M.I.6, Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service—had agreed to do opposition research on Trump’s murky relationship with Russia. Under the arrangement, Orbis was a subcontractor working for Fusion GPS, a private research firm in Washington. Fusion, in turn, had been contracted by a law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented both Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Several months after Steele signed the deal, he learned that, through this chain, his research was being jointly subsidized by the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. In all, Steele was paid a hundred and sixty-eight thousand dollars for his work.


Steele had spent more than twenty years in M.I.6, most of it focussing on Russia. For three years, in the nineties, he spied in Moscow under diplomatic cover. Between 2006 and 2009, he ran the service’s Russia desk, at its headquarters, in London. He was fluent in Russian, and widely considered to be an expert on the country. He’d also advised on nation-building in Iraq.

As a British citizen, however, he was not especially knowledgeable about American politics. Peter Fritsch, a co-founder at Fusion who has worked closely with Steele, said of him, “He’s a career public-service officer, and in England civil servants haven’t been drawn into politics in quite the same way they have here. He’s a little naïve about the public square.”



https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...-trump-dossier

[kudzu]

Before anyone jumps to defend Carter Page this comprehensive piece from the New Yorker deserves a read.

Excerpt:

A friend in Washington, D.C., was calling with bad news: two Republican senators, Lindsey Graham and Charles Grassley, had just referred Steele’s name to the Department of Justice, for a possible criminal investigation. They were accusing Steele—the author of a secret dossier that helped trigger the current federal investigation into President Donald Trump’s possible ties to Russia—of having lied to the very F.B.I. officers he’d alerted about his findings. The details of the criminal referral were classified, so Steele could not know the nature of the allegations, let alone rebut them, but they had something to do with his having misled the Bureau about contacts that he’d had with the press. For nearly thirty years, Steele had worked as a close ally of the United States, and he couldn’t imagine why anyone would believe that he had been deceptive. But lying to an F.B.I. officer is a felony, an offense that can be punished by up to five years in prison.
The accusations would only increase doubts about Steele’s reputation that had clung to him since BuzzFeed published the dossier, in January, 2017. The dossier painted a damning picture of collusion between Trump and Russia, suggesting that his campaign had “accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals.” It also alleged that Russian officials had been “cultivating” Trump as an asset for five years, and had obtained leverage over him, in part by recording videos of him while he engaged in compromising sexual acts, including consorting with Moscow prostitutes who, at his request, urinated on a bed.
In the spring of 2016, Orbis Business Intelligence—a small investigative-research firm that Steele and a partner had founded, in 2009, after leaving M.I.6, Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service—had agreed to do opposition research on Trump’s murky relationship with Russia. Under the arrangement, Orbis was a subcontractor working for Fusion GPS, a private research firm in Washington. Fusion, in turn, had been contracted by a law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented both Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Several months after Steele signed the deal, he learned that, through this chain, his research was being jointly subsidized by the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. In all, Steele was paid a hundred and sixty-eight thousand dollars for his work.
Steele had spent more than twenty years in M.I.6, most of it focussing on Russia. For three years, in the nineties, he spied in Moscow under diplomatic cover. Between 2006 and 2009, he ran the service’s Russia desk, at its headquarters, in London. He was fluent in Russian, and widely considered to be an expert on the country. He’d also advised on nation-building in Iraq. As a British citizen, however, he was not especially knowledgeable about American politics. Peter Fritsch, a co-founder at Fusion who has worked closely with Steele, said of him, “He’s a career public-service officer, and in England civil servants haven’t been drawn into politics in quite the same way they have here. He’s a little naïve about the public square.”



https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...-trump-dossier

[anatta]

^ wall of text..is that quoting the Steele dossier for a "reason" to FISA?

The "chaining" in the OP is particularly loathesome,,this should not even be a partisan issue

[anatta]

Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic senator from Rhode Island, is a former prosecutor who also serves on the Judiciary Committee. “To impeach Steele’s dossier is to impeach Mueller’s investigation,”

yeppers

[Darth Omar]

Carter Page got the federal, illegal, rectal exam and he’s still walking around a free man.

Tells you all you need to know.

[anatta]

Carter Page got the federal, illegal, rectal exam and he’s still walking around a free man.

Tells you all you need to know.

annd. as the OP states they never tell you you were under surveillance
and they never tell you when it's over.

Secret Courts does what it wants/ It operates like a Grand Jury (non-adversarial) without a chance to defend oneself- but it has the power to act without a Grand Jury's probable cause

[domer76]

annd. as the OP states they never tell you you were under surveillance
and they never tell you when it's over.

Secret Courts does what it wants/ It operates like a Grand Jury (non-adversarial) without a chance to defend oneself- but it has the power to act without a Grand Jury's probable cause

Why would investigators tell you that you were under surveillance? Kinda defeats the purpose.

[kudzu]

^ wall of text..is that quoting the Steele dossier for a "reason" to FISA?

The "chaining" in the OP is particularly loathesome,,this should not even be a partisan issue

There's a link to read the whole thing..

Russian Spies Thought Trump Adviser Carter Page Was an 'Idiot'—But Still Tried to Recruit Him.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia...to-recruit-him

[archives]

"Yet Page was never officially charged........had there been evidence of a crime one would assume there would have been charges". - which is pretty much the basis of the point your op ed is attempting to establish, that Page was watched unnecessarily and therefore derived of his Constitutional rights

How many cases is a warrant obtained after the suspect has been official charged with a crime? It obviously happens, but the purpose of most investigations is to determine if a crime has been committed, how else was the FBI to determine if Page had, or was, accessing his previous questionable Russian contacts for illegal purposes?

[kudzu]

^ wall of text..is that quoting the Steele dossier for a "reason" to FISA?

The "chaining" in the OP is particularly loathesome,,this should not even be a partisan issue

There's a link to read the whole thing..

Russian Spies Thought Trump Adviser Carter Page Was an 'Idiot'—But Still Tried to Recruit Him.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia...to-recruit-him

[canceled.2021.2]

Why would investigators tell you that you were under surveillance? Kinda defeats the purpose.

ever heard of Due Process

[Jarod]

As technology makes state scrutiny increasingly easy, America has seen a corresponding increase in the abuse of its surveillance tools.
With a legal framework, first created in the 1970s — before the widespread use of computers, email or cell phones — the few safeguards we have are evaporating rapidly.
The curious case of Carter Page, where the FBI used a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant to surveil the virtually unknown, unpaid foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, is only the latest example of a larger, existential threat to the American system of political discourse.

When a physical search occurs in accordance with American criminal law, law enforcement must show probable cause and obtain permission from a judge, and then present a given suspect with a warrant, and a receipt for the items removed.
When law enforcement wants to obtain a criminal wiretap, they similarly have to show probable cause to obtain a warrant, carefully collect information related to potential crimes, and then disclose that information if charges are wrought.
The key difference, is that with the latter, the suspect will only discover they've had their privacy violated after they've been indicted.
With a FISC warrant, it's possible a suspect will never find out, even if charges are eventually filed.

In the case of Carter Page, his private life was monitored, for almost a year, without his knowledge, and then placed on display for strangers at the FBI to peruse, all based on a suspicion that he was colluding with Russia.
On the basis of hearsay, business associations, and possibly Page's political opinions, the FBI received a classified surveillance warrant and then renewed it three times.
And yet, Page was never officially charged — suggesting that, even given the ability to surveil him in ways that might make the general public cringe, the FBI was never able to find enough evidence for a single crime.

It's clear that a secret process, and a complacent judiciary which has elevated prosecutors and members of law enforcement onto a dangerous perch, provides no safety.

It has become clear that a secret, non-adversarial system of judicial review is an insufficient check to our intelligence agencies and law enforcement.
When express disagreement on a foreign policy issue — namely the current sanctions against Russia — form even part of the basis of an allegation which meets the bar for a probable cause warrant, there is something terribly wrong with the current system.
The health of our political system depends on the ability to express an unpopular opinion without official recrimination.

Unfortunately the growing number of transgressions against people, like Carter Page, remain hidden behind a veil of secrecy.
Officials speak of safeguards, but it's clear that a secret process, and a complacent judiciary, which has elevated prosecutors and members of law enforcement onto a dangerous perch, provides no safety. The FISC, where the warrant for Page was issued, has grown particularly notorious for granting broad surveillance authority based on little, or in some cases, no evidence.
Out of more than 39,000 applications presented to the FISC through the end of 2016, only 51 have been rejected, with the majority, 34, of those rejections coming in 2016.

While most FISC warrants remain classified, the few which have emerged through leaks, or been forced into the public domain by First Amendment lawsuits, paint a rather bleak picture.
These warrants tell us the FISC has issued “mass” warrants which permit government surveillance based on statistical “selectors.”

For the vast majority of Americans who've been placed under this microscope — and had their life dissected by faceless government agents — the origin, and methods used to defile their privacy remain a mystery.

These documents also tell us the FISC routinely includes authorization in their warrants for the government to surveil people in contact with their target, and people in contact with the contact;
in a scheme referred to as “chaining,” these authorizations will include 2 or 3 “hops.”
While the text of the Carter Page warrant application, and court approval, remain a secret, one shudders to think this authority was used to spy upon other members of the Trump campaign team who were in contact with Page.
(The memo of the House intelligence committee’s Democrats about the warrant suggests that some unknown number of Trump campaign advisors were the subject of FBI “sub-inquiries.”)

Regardless of what the FBI and DOJ claim was the basis for the Carter Page warrant, the fact remains that he was never officially charged.
Had there been evidence of a crime, one would assume there would have been charges.
It becomes hard to reconcile his innocence with four separate findings of “probable cause.”
The inevitable result is that we must question the court's definition of the word “probable.”

Yet Page is one of the lucky ones: While he still lacks access to the warrant application that prompted his surveillance, he does have proof he was indeed spied upon.
He also knows the duration within which his privacy was assaulted, and the degree to which his life was violated.
For the vast majority of Americans who've been placed under this microscope — and had their life dissected by faceless government agents — the origin, and methods used to defile their privacy remain a mystery.

For those who suspect surveillance, but lack confirmation and the closure that comes with it, there are lingering effects.
Speaking from experience, I can say that victims of surveillance, whether legal or extralegal, are frequently traumatized by the thought that a stranger may be watching their every move.
This lingering fear, the thought that we might still be under the microscope, make it difficult to move past the associated paranoia.

Regardless of what the FBI and DOJ claim was the basis for the Carter Page warrant, the fact remains that he was never officially charged.

To date, the FBI and the FISC have failed to justify their surveillance of Carter Page.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of the accused to face their accuser, particularly when a court, like the FISC, has affirmed the accusation by granting a probable cause warrant.
Page has the right to see and hear the evidence against him, regardless whether of charges are filed.

The solution to this growing epidemic is simple: law enforcement should be required to notify any and all Americans, within one year of obtaining it, that a court-approved surveillance warrant was obtained, and once notified, those people should be able hear the accusations against them, and if warranted, set the record straight.
It is the right and duty of the people to hold a democratic government accountable, but this can only happen once sufficient light is allowed to shine on the actions of our government.

The ultimate check against government power — public opinion and our collective right to vote — has been muted by a lack of transparency that bars the body politic from providing effective oversight.
If more victims could prove how our surveillance laws are being abused for political means, it would surely lead is to a place of awareness and hopefully, a more far informed discussion about “safeguards.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...all-ncna852131

As I have been saying for 15 years, the simple existence of the FISA court should scare all Americans.