John “Bates Stamp” Lives Up to the Name

On February 19, 2013, John Bates approved a Section 215 order targeting an alleged American citizen terrorist. He hesitated over the approval because the target’s actions consisted of protected First Amendment speech.

A more difficult question is whether the application shows reasonable grounds to believe that the investigation of [redacted] is not being conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment. None of the conduct of speech that the application attributes to [4 lines redacted] appears to fall outside the ambit of the first amendment. Even [redacted] — in particular, his statement that [redacted] — seems to fall well short of the sort of incitement to imminent violence or “true threat” that would take it outside the protection of the first amendment. Indeed, the government’s own assessment of [redacted] points to the conclusion that it is protected speech. [redacted] Under the circumstances, the Court is doubtful that the facts regarding [redacted] own words and conduct alone establish reasonable grounds to believe that the investigation is not being conducted solely on the basis of first amendment.

He alleviated his concerns by apparently relying on the activities of others to authorize the order.

The Court is satisfied, however, that Section 1861 also permits consideration of the related conduct of [redacted] in determining whether the first amendment requirement is satisfied. The text of Section 1861 does not restrict the Court to considering only the activities of the subject of the investigation in determining whether the investigation is “not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment.” Rather, the pertinent statutory text focuses on the character (protected by the first amendment or not) of the “activities” that are the “basis” of the investigation.

Later in the opinion, Bates made it clear these are activities of someone besides the US citizen target of this order, because the activities in question were not being done by US persons.

Such activities, of course, would not be protected by the first amendment even if they were carried out by a United States person.

If I’m right that behind the redactions Bates is saying the activities of associates were enough to get beyond the First Amendment bar for someone only expressing support, then it would seem to require Association analysis. But then, Bates, the big fan of not having any help on his FISC opinions, wouldn’t consider that because the government never does.

Ah well. At least we can finally clarify about whether or not the FISC is a rubber stamp for Administration spying. No. It’s a Bates stamp — in which judges engage in flaccid legal analysis in secret before approving fairly troubling applications. Which is just as pathetic.

3 replies
  1. Garrett says:

    There is also something especially absurd about legal discussion whether [redacted] is or isn’t speech within the ambit of the first amendment.

  2. overthrow-r1b says:

    A very typical situation. They do this everywhere they’ve ever gone. Can we all see why I’m on r1b’s unilateral “terrorist watch list”?

    Do they include in my notes that they use intel apparatus to steal from me whenever they feel like it, give me severe limitless torture sessions since a baby, hand out high tech precision brain damage like candy… even to infants.?

    Do they include on their notes that they allow people to sit in front of you, antagonize you intentionally and then simply record your response out of context and with half sentence quotations…?

    I’d be interested to know which blatant lies they use to “target” me.. why am I so adamant about my innocence? Because I know for a fact that I’ve never done anything wrong in my entire life. Every single thing they accuse me of or get mad at me about is a direct result of their previous abuses. ‘Compound problems’. They systematically set up premeditated “incidents” and record it while at the same time using high-tech methods to manipulate your behavior or actions.

    Allow me to see my list and I can pinpoint the exact abuses from the exact people.
    To be honest I’ve actually “marked” the abusers repeatedly, that is when they’re just sitting there committing abuse which is unavoidable I do or say something intentionally that I know they’ll record (which is always 100% perfectly legal) in this way I’ve “marked” many of the criminals who have “flagged” me.

    They basically just let people attack me whenever they feel like. Whenever I get back on my feet and into a perfect state they viciously attack me out of jealousy and their retarded logic.

    If you consider that “muslims” could be “terrorists” then you also proclaim all native americans in the entire western hemisphere terrorists, and black slaves, Australian aborigines, eskimo’s, jews, etc etc etc terrorists. because obviously r1b’s are the only terrorists, they’ve had the exact same problem with every population they’ve encountered on every corner of the earth. They’re simply using government to commit theft, torture, rape and genocide like they’ve always done everywhere they’ve ever went.

    All they do is go around injuring everyone and stealing everything. Nobody else does it because it’s retarded and nobody wants to evolve in a retarded way and a trash society except them because they can’t tell because they’re already retarded. everybody else knows better, they can’t see what they’re doing because they’re retarded and addicted to stealing everything.

  3. earlofhuntingdon says:

    “Fellow traveler” the propaganda lie and political tool that keeps on giving.
    During the not so cold war (starting really in 1917), Congress and the executive wanted to attack constitutionally protected speech and association. Direct attacks were problematic. An alternative was to concoct the notion that you are whom you associate with, regardless of your own behavior and beliefs. Consequently, you could be “rightfully” penalized for wanting, doing or reading about whatever one’s “associates” wanted, did or wrote about. Doing what one’s associates did made one “guilty”, of course. So did reading about their views (having their books, pamphlets, being on a newsletter list) or expressing support for them. Friends checked your bookshelves, the post office your mail, the FBI your phones, mail and associates. Gossip was just as good as facts and evidence, since the purpose was to exact political and social consequences more often than criminal.
    Social ostracism, loss of security clearance or passport, loss of employability (and access to a pension and health care) by government and a mimicking private sector were among the common penalties. It worked wonders in ensuring conformity and in restricting public access to alternative views of the world, what government should focus on and how it should act.

Comments are closed.