Senate Confirms Former FBI Lawyer For Judgeship, Despite Long Record Of Papering Over Abusive Surveillance Tactics
from the this-vetting-process-seems-even-weaker-than-the-NSA's dept
The overreach of intelligence agencies has generated tons of news and commentary. So much, in fact, that even our normally gridlocked representatives have been propelled into action. More than 20 pieces of legislation are currently in the works, aimed at rolling back the abuses of intelligence agencies and the expanded PATRIOT Act.
With so much attention being paid to the fact that agencies like the NSA and the FBI trampled all over Americans' civil liberties, you'd think that a few of our Senators might have found former FBI counsel Valerie Caproni's oversight of a decade's worth of abusive tactics by the FBI to be a bit problematic. In the current climate, one would have expected the Senate to shoot down her nomination for a seat as a judge on the Southern District Court of New York -- especially considering the court's history as the go-to venue for terrorist-related cases.
But no, her nomination sailed through 73-24, thus placing another judge aligned with the administration's "see no evil [in our intelligence agencies]" viewpoint. If you're bringing a suit against any number of overreaching government agencies for violation of your rights, you'd better hope your case gets assigned elsewhere.
Here's the vote breakdown.
Worth noting: there's pretty much a partisan split on the vote. Only one of the 24 "nays" was a Democrat -- something not too surprising considering she was the administration's nominee. Some Republicans just enjoy voting against Obama, no matter what's at stake. What's more surprising is some of the names that voted for Caproni, including most of the sponsors of a bill aimed at ending the secret legal interpretation that makes it legal for the NSA to sweep up huge amounts of phone data.
Of the bill's seven sponsors and co-sponsors (Merkley, Leahy, Heller, Begich, Franken, Tester and Wyden), only Merkley and Heller voted against the former FBI lawyer. All of these sponsors should have voted down the nomination, if for no other reason than maintaining a consistent tone on surveillance overreach. Caproni acting as head counsel for the FBI during a near-decade-long run where the agency completely dismantled the legal framework surrounding requests for phone records, starting with free-flowing National Security Letters before steadily devolving to the point agents were issuing requests via Post-It notes or simply calling up service providers and asking them to send over the requested records.
For senators concerned the NSA is abusing its power to collect phone data, they certainly don't seem too concerned about placing someone who defended even worse behavior in her own agency in the position to create damaging precedent.
Maybe Caproni had some redeeming qualities that haven't made it to the public eye quite yet or maybe they're more convinced than I am that she'll recuse herself from cases dealing with untargeted data collection, the FBI or anything conceivably related. Or maybe this is exactly what it looks like -- a vote along party lines intended to mark something, anything off the "To Do" list and allow the reps to move on to more pressing matters, like their own legislation.
No matter what the excuse, Caproni's new position is a win for intelligence agencies and the administration that loves them.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: confirmation, fbi, judge, senate, valerie caproni
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Republicans
I hope this is an attempt at humor to the effect of saying that Democrats just enjoy voting for Obama no matter what's at stake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Republicans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Republicans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Republicans
There was even a news story a few years ago when a Democrat from New Jersey became the first democrat after several years of Obama in office to oppose one of Obama's judge nominees. The judge he voted against had previously investigated that same senator on possible corruption charges and came up empty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why would anyone who pays even rudimentary attention to politics find this even remotely surprising?
Despite the protests, saber rattling, or attempts to "roll back" excessive overreach (at least until the heat is off) the repeated actions (which speak far louder than their words)of these people has shown time and time again they are entirely complicit, and if truly ignorant of abuses are only so intentionally and deliberately.
The fact that they are so brazen, in even in the face of current scrutiny, should be more than enough evidence to show where their real loyalties lies. As should the fact that while the public is so focused on this topic, TPP and other treaties (that essentially make world governments increasingly subservient to corporate interests) continue unhampered by the sort of backlash that accompanied SOPA, and afterwards ACTA (which at that point was already a done deal for intents and purposes). Not to mention the fact that attempts are being made to quietly resurrect SOPA while attention is diverted elsewhere.
No, this confirmation, while appalling, does not surprise me in the slightest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surprising
You know who John Conyers is—the representative from Michigan—ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.
I tell you, I don't always agree with that man. In fact, sometimes he just makes me angry. He can be so wrong at times, on some issues. But I tell you… or maybe I can't even tell you… I have more respect for Mr Conyers than you can possibly imagine. I value his opinion, right or wrong as it may be. I value that man's opinion.
When John Conyers tells me that someone ought to be fired from a high-ranking position in the federal government, I think that deserves to be taken seriously. It should be taken seriously. You don't say things like that speaking through your hat. You just don't.
Well.
Anyhow.
I thought John Conyers had more juice than that. Really. More juice than it looks like he does after all.
Washed-up old fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stunned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should read:
"...BECAUSE OF Long Record Of Papering Over Abusive Surveillance Tactics"
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]