Talk:United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:39, 21 June 2013

United States: Government C‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

United States courts and judges C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Espionage Unassessed

	United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

On May 17, 2002, the court rebuffed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, releasing an opinion that alleged that FBI and Justice Department officials had "supplied erroneous information to the court in more than 75 applications for search warrants and wiretaps, including one signed by then-FBI Director Louis J. Freeh".[2] What about In Re Sealed Case? Amcfreely 00:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical error

The word "lead" is used incorrectly:

It reads: As a result of the minimal number of requests that are modified by the court, it has lead experts

It should read: As a result of the minimal number of requests that are modified by the court, it has led experts

Thenonprophet (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court → FISA Court – Rationale for the proposed page name change:WP:COMMONNAME. Evidence: in ~all the citations and references, it's called the FISA Court. Intend to change article to match after move: 'FISC' to 'court' or 'FISA Court', as most appropriate for that particular replacement. Also, google news search engine results: https://www.google.com/search?q=fisa+court&tbm=nws vs https://www.google.com/search?q=fisc+court&tbm=nws ~ 8:1. Elvey (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment several of the FISA also have courts. Perhaps U.S. FISA Court instead. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" has 48,000 hits compared to "FISA Court" which has 18,000. It also doesn't follow the consistency aspect in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA being that there are other FISA courts out there. For one instance, United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. So if the article was moved there be one named "FISA Court" and the other named "United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review". — -dainomite 03:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh Oppose. This thing has a *correct* name. And the proposed name is unduly acronymous. FISA is the act, anyway. It's all wrong. -- Y not? 18:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see any use in reliable sources of "FISA Court" as a name for this court, let alone as a WP:COMMONNAME. I see it being referenced as the "FISA court"; not as a proper noun, but merely as a point of identification, i.e., the court associated with FISA. If the 'C' in "court" were capitalized, that might suggest it's being used as a name, but that does not occur. The only time I see "FISA Court" with a capital 'C' is in headlines, as a stylistic consequence of every significant word being capitalized, not as an indication it's used as a name. TJRC (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Factcite - re. "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" has 48,000 hits compared to "FISA Court" which has 18,000. - where?

FISC vs FISA Court

TJRC: Are you serious? What part of "Evidence: in ~all the citations and references, it's called the FISA Court." did you not understand? When I see you say "I don't see any use in reliable sources of "FISA Court" I can't help think you're acting like an ostrich. And yet apparently that's your justification for reverting my edit! I see a contradiction. --Elvey (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adversarial court

The article says the court is not an adversarial court, but various sections of the official rules of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (found here: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/FISC2010.pdf) make reference to adversarial proceedings.

Notably these sections:

Rule 7 Filing Applications, Certifications, Petitions, Motions, or Other Papers ("Submissions ") Section i: "Information Concerning Security Clearances in Adversarial Proceedings. A party other than the government must: "

Rule 7 Filing Applications, Certifications, Petitions, Motions, or Other Papers ("Submissions ") Section j: "Ex Parte Review. At the request of the government in an adversarial proceeding, the Judge must review ex parte and in camera any submissions by the government..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.193.2 (talk) 19 June 2013

Here's an example of an adversarial case in the court:

Snyder, Brett (June 19, 2013). "Google Challenges NSA Gag Order, Cites 1st Amendment". Findlaw news. Retrieved June 20, 2013.
in re Motion for Declaratory Judgment of Google Inc.'s First Amendment Right to Publish Aggregate Information About FISA Orders, No. ________ (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Ct. June __, 2013).

The court is so secret there's not even a Bluebook rule for citing to it! TJRC (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 *'''Oppose'''.  I don't see any use in reliable sources of "FISA Court" as a name for this court, let alone as a [[WP:COMMONNAME]].  I see it being referenced as the "FISA court"; not as a proper noun, but merely as a point of identification, i.e., the court associated with FISA.  If the 'C' in "court" were capitalized, that might suggest it's being used as a name, but that does not occur.  The only time I see "FISA Court" with a capital 'C' is in headlines, as a stylistic consequence of every significant word being capitalized, not as an indication it's used as a name. [[User:TJRC|TJRC]] ([[User talk:TJRC|talk]]) 15:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->
+::{{factcite}} - re. "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" has 48,000 hits compared to "FISA Court" which has 18,000. - where?
+===FISC vs FISA Court===
+TJRC:  Are you serious?  What part of "Evidence: in ~all the citations and references, it's called the FISA Court." did you not understand?  When I see you say "I don't see any use in reliable sources of "FISA Court" I can't help think you're acting like an ostrich.   And yet apparently that's your justification for reverting my edit!   I see a contradiction.  --[[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 07:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 ==Adversarial court==