# Janet Reno's abuses blasted by U.S. Intelligence Court; John Ashcroft to the rescue. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 23, 2002, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236 "2002-08-23T13:56:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/1 "2002-08-23T13:56:47Z")
Dirty deeds by the Clinton/Reno Justice Department have poisoned the well. John Ashcroft is cleaning up their mess. > [@](#): > > **Secret Court Says F.B.I. Aides Misled Judges in 75 Cases** > > The nation’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rejected a secret request made by the Justice Department this year to allow broader cooperation and evidence-sharing between counterintelligence investigators and criminal prosecutors. The court found that the request was “not reasonably designed” to safeguard the privacy of Americans. Sound like that “evil John Ashcroft” is getting his come-uppance. But wait! The article goes on to say > [@](#): > > Justice Department officials noted that the criticism of the department in the opinion referred **mostly to actions by the department and the F.B.I. in the Clinton administration** … > > At a forum in April at the University of Texas, Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who recently stepped down as the court’s presiding judge, **praised Attorney General John Ashcroft and his staff for ending abuses of the system for requesting wiretap authority** … > > … the court, which is based in Washington, documented the **“alarming number of instances” during the Clinton administration** in which the F.B.I. might have acted improperly. What we have here is a record of civil liberties abuses by the Clinton/Reno DOJ. The abuses have been ended by John Ashcroft. However, given the record of abuses under the Reno DOJ, Ashcroft now must struggle to try to get a more effective procedure approved by the courts. Meanwhile, the current procedure continues to interfere with efforts to prevent another terrorist attack. > [@](#): > > The opinion may be important in documenting why the F.B.I. was hesitant last summer to seek court authority to search the computer and other belongings of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged in the Sept. 11 attacks. > > Mr. Moussaoui was arrested in Minnesota last August, and F.B.I. officials have acknowledged that their failure to investigate him more fully was among the mistakes that allowed the Sept. 11 hijackers to operate in the United States undetected in the weeks before the attacks. All quotes from the [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/23/national/23FBI.html). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/2 "2002-08-23T14:20:09Z")
While it’s true that the abuses the court complained of were legacies fo the previous administration, I think it’s also fair to say that the reason the court issued its opinion, unclassified, was in response to Ashcroft’s Justice Department’s request for broader powers. In other words, the opinion hardly constitutes a ringing endorsement of Ashcroft. Judge Lamberth, by the way, no longer sits on the court. The _Washington Post_’s headline for this story is “Secret COurt Rebuffs Ashcroft,” which, to my mind, invites the reader to infer that Ashcroft’s policies are at fault and were criticized. Only after reading the article in detail does it become clear that the abuses criticized by the court were of the Clinton / Reno era. This is shoddy journalism, in my view. However, the OP slants as strongly in the other direction. Ashcroft is neither praised nor trusted by the opinion, except insofar as it notes that post-9/11 filings have appeared trustworthy. But the rejection of the Justice Department’s request is neither a victory for, or approbation of, John Ashcroft. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/3 "2002-08-23T14:50:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > I think it’s also fair to say that the reason the court issued its opinion, unclassified, was in response to Ashcroft’s Justice Department’s request for broader powers. This is true. > [@](#): > > In other words, the opinion hardly constitutes a ringing endorsement of Ashcroft. Right. OTOH Judge Lamberth’s statement _was_ an endorsement of Ashcroft. > [@](#): > > Judge Lamberth, by the way, no longer sits on the court. Right. The OP referred to him as “Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who recently stepped down as the court’s presiding judge…” > [@](#): > > the rejection of the Justice Department’s request is neither a victory for, or approbation of, John Ashcroft. It’s a legal defeat for John Ashcroft. It will be his challenge to try to get the ruling overturned. It’s also a defeat for public safety, since the current procedures interfere with the prevention of terrorist attacks. I’m arguing the following chain of reasoning: Reno abuses --\> Ashcroft legal defeat --\> Retention of current procedures --\> Potential dead and maimed Americans **Bricker** I admit that the OP was a bit tendentious. It’s a reaction to all the anti-Ashcroft garbage that has appeared on this web site. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/4 "2002-08-23T15:04:31Z")
december: There is no doubt - at least to me - that a considerable amount of anti-Ashcroft verbiage has appeared on the site, and that much of it has been, if not baseless, at least exaggerated. So I understand your desire to “tip the scales” by posting as you did. However, I would offer that there’s a better way. By steadily and stodgily reporting and commenting in as unbiased a manner as possible, you will better serve the cause of truth. If your cause has a chink in the armor, concede it. I generally participate in these boards not as an advocate of any particular ideology. But it’s often the case that when two sides of a proposition are well and vigorously argued, it clarifies my own thinking and I emerge with a position that I’m comfortable holding and defending - often it’s not the same position I started with. When advocates shade their presentations to such a degree that I’m no longer confident in the truth of what they say, their subsequent arguments lose a certain ground with me. This is, I suppose, a bit of a hijcak, but I thought there might be some value in sharing that reaction with you. Insofar as the OP goes, I believe that the FISA court made the correct call. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/5 "2002-08-23T15:07:45Z")
> [@](#): > > …the current procedures interfere with the prevention of terrorist attacks. Well, of course they do, **december**. The restrictions against torture, against presumption of guilt and against unwarranted search and seizure interfere with the prevention of terrorist attacks as well. Fortunately, the intent and real effects of all of these restrictions (to interfere with the government’s ability to be oppressive) are quite beneficial. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/6 "2002-08-23T15:09:41Z")
If the quotes are from the New York Times, they must be erroneous, due to the bias of that newspaper. Sua ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/7 "2002-08-23T15:27:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > **If the quotes are from the New York Times, they must be erroneous, due to the bias of that newspaper.** Was there bias? You be the judge. The article appeared on Page 1. I credit the Times for mentioning “Clinton-Era Problems” in the sub-sub headline at the top of Page 1. However, a reader would have to go all the way to the middle of page 17 to learn that Ashcroft was praised for ending the abuses. **Bricker** , I’d be interested in your reasons for agreeing with the court decision. I’d also be interested in the opinions of **Sua** and other lawyers on this board. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/8 "2002-08-23T16:52:31Z")
The FBI under Louis Freeh was hardly part of the Clinton Administration in reality, with Freeh devoting most of his time to trying to embarrass Reno into appointing special prosecutors for every wild rumor under the sun. Also, the agency has never been subordinate to the Attorney General even on paper. But the right’s never-ending effort to blame everything on Clinton, regardless of fact, continues, doesn’t it? Of course the court’s call was right - and would be right no matter the names involved. We do still stand for something here in the Western democracies. ---
**Author:** ![stofsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dfb087/32.png) [@stofsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stofsky)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/9 "2002-08-23T17:22:51Z")
What’s the name for the logical fallacy that states, “If someone under Clinton did it, you can’t get pissed that someone under Bush does?” If there’s not one, may I suggest the term “Clinton Phallusy?” Because I might overtax (Ha! get me, the liberal, saying “overtax”) the hamster by trying to find one thread critical of our current president that doesn’t have a statement equivalent to, “But Clinton \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/10 "2002-08-23T17:24:28Z")
The court correctly pointed out that _foreign_ intelligence gathering was the raison d’etre of the § 1801(e) legislation that authorizes the existence of FISA. The legislation specifically manadtes procedures to ensure the privacy rights of Americans are protected (see § 1801(h) and § 1821(4)). Moreover, Congress expressly vested in the FISA court the discretion to approve or disapprove changes in procedures (§1805(a)(4)). The rationale for this approach is consistent with the spirit of search and seizure law: while the applications for warrants are not open to public scruntiny, they at least have the benefit of analysis of a neutral, detached magistrate. In other words, Congress’ clear intent was to remove from the executive complete and unbridled discretion to effectuate searches, while maintaining the secrecy that is necessary for successful foreign intelligence operations. The broad mandate granted by the above procedures was acceptable because, again, they applied to foreign intelligence gathering efforts. Because search techniques such as those above often also uncover evidence of a crime, the court had previously approved a procedure to “wall off” the information. Information gained could be used by counter-intelligence operatives, but could not be shared with federal prosecutors. The Constitution’s safeguards against unreasonable searches, such as the exclusionary rule, protect against criminal liability for those implicated by unreasonable government searches. By creating such a wall, Congress and the FISA court ensured that criminal liability did not ordinarily attach unless independent, legally obtained evidence was gathered. And because the FISA court operated with classified information, the ability of persons whose property was searched to fail motions to quash warrants was effectively non-existent; indeed, persons monitored would often never know they were the targets of investigation. As a method for gathering intelligence, this is highly desirable; as a method of administering criminal justice, it was contrary to traditional Constitutional protections. The FISA “wall” protected aginst the possibility that the government would seek to use intelligence surveillance as a _sub rosa_ method of conducting a criminal investigation, unhindered by criminal probable cause standards. Against this historical backdrop, we now turn to recent events. The Justice Department requested the FISA court’s approval of revised procedures. The summary effect of the requested changes was that the FISA-type surveillance procedures, with their lower standard of proof, could be used for criminal investigations, as long as a substantial intelligence aspect of the case existed as well. In denying this request, the FISA court pointed out that the “wall” had been breached many times in the past. The FBI had, in over 75 cases, passed information to criminal investigators and prosecutors that it had gained through intelligence surveillance. Dspite the Court’s efforts to uncover how and why these breaches occurred, the malefactors remain unidentified and unremonstrated after more than a year. The Government, said the court, essentially seeks to legalize its prior, and future, bad faith treatment of FISA-type surveillance information. Given Congress’ clear expressed intention to authorize strategically necessary wiretaps while still protecting Americans against criminal liability from such searches, the court was correct to continue to enforce a “wall” limitation of FISA-derived information. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/11 "2002-08-23T17:35:39Z")
Wow, gotta hand it to **december** for one thing. He needs to be a newsreader at EIB network 🙂 He beat Rush Limbaugh’s opening monologue this morning by 2 hours, and made the same remarks as Rush about the _Times_ misleading headline a full 30-40 minutes before Mr. Limbaugh opened up on it. Clearly **december** shares with the famous radio host the ability to scan through the news of the day, disseminate the hot-button issue, and provide quick analysis. That **december** ’s position foreshadowed that to come on Rush, I think he has a future in talk radio ahead of him 😉 As to the issue itself, I’m not exactly a fan of Ashcroft’s policies…as a libertarian, I really can’t be. So I’d rebuke him too. Still, it’s nice for us to be reminded that the previous AG was no saint herself, and Ashcroft has still never done anything as bad as the stunts Ms. Reno pulled, though hers were just one-shot butcherings and his will have more lasting effects. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/12 "2002-08-23T17:36:15Z")
Thank you **Bricker**. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/13 "2002-08-23T17:51:32Z")
So, correct me if I’m wrong, we have Reno doing illegal or improper wiretaps, and we have Ashcroft locking people up and denying them right to counsel. And you think “Ashcroft to the rescue?” Yeah, maybe he can lock Reno up with no trial and throw away the key. I certainly don’t like improper wiretapping, but locking people up without letting them talk to a lawyer and denying them a trial chills me to the bone. Neither abuse should occur, but I’d rather have my phone illegally tapped then be chucked into jail with no lawyer, no trial, no charges, and no indication when I might be set free. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/14 "2002-08-23T18:10:09Z")
\<\\> OK. The FBI (mostly) under Reno “misled” judges in 75 cases. I.e., they _lied_ in order to justify electronic surveillance. Ashcroft has detained people in a way that may be legal. In any even, there’s no final ruling that what he did is illegal. He has told the truth about what he has done (as far as we know.) If a court requires that these people be released, I presume he will follow their orders. Particularly after 9/11 it’s reasonable for the Justice Dept. to use their legal investigative powers aggressively. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/15 "2002-08-23T19:43:37Z")
It seems to me that Ashcroft’s decison to appeal the courts ruling constitutes an endorsement of Clinton’s policy. It’s duplicitous to give Ashcroft credit for limiting civil rights abuse, when he has publicly proclaimed his intent to expand the scale of those abuses beyond even the intent of the so-called patriot Act. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/16 "2002-08-23T20:13:15Z")
\<\\> You have a point. Still, it’s an ugly practice for the FBI to routinely lie in their wiretap applications. Ashcroft deserves credit for ending the policy of prevarication. [sub]How appropriate is it that Clinton’s FBI was routinely lying?[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/17 "2002-08-23T21:47:29Z")
> [@](#): > > december says: How appropriate is it that Clinton’s FBI was routinely lying? What, you put it in a light color in the hopes you could say it and no one would notice ? Have some courage man. Tell us what you mean. In what way is it “appropriate” ? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/18 "2002-08-23T21:54:06Z")
> [@](#): > > december says: How appropriate is it that Clinton’s FBI was routinely lying? What, you put it in a light color in the hopes you could say it and no one would notice ? Have some courage man. Tell us what you mean. In what way is it “appropriate” ? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/19 "2002-08-23T22:31:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \*\<\\> > OK. The FBI (mostly) under Reno “misled” judges in 75 cases. I.e., they _lied_ in order to justify electronic surveillance. That’s indeed bad, and I see no excuse for it. > [@](#): > > Ashcroft has detained people in a way that may be legal. In any even, there’s no final ruling that what he did is illegal. He has told the truth about what he has done (as far as we know.) If a court requires that these people be released, I presume he will follow their orders. Well, I’m certainly hoping that it’s found illegal at some point, and the fact that it hasn’t been ruled illegal yet doesn’t make it right. Even if it somehow is allowed, I find it morally wrong. And telling the truth about it doesn’t make it any better. > [@](#): > > Particularly after 9/11 it’s reasonable for the Justice Dept. to use their legal investigative powers aggressively. That’s your opinion, which I strongly disgree with (assuming that the detentions described above are found to be legal). ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236/20 "2002-08-23T22:48:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*asks **december** : > How appropriate is it that Clinton’s FBI was routinely lying? Funny how it was “Clinton’s FBI” and “Reno’s FBI” which acted improperly prior to 2001, but in your [other thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=130436) reviling the FBI’s handling of the anthrax/Hatfill investigation neither Bush nor Ashcroft bear any responsibility… Just funny’s all. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/janet-renos-abuses-blasted-by-u-s-intelligence-court-john-ashcroft-to-the-rescue/125236.md?page=2)