conservatives negotiating constitutional "slope" 
Liberals negotiating same slope
Conservatives must face the reality of the terrain....and act accordingly.
Posted on 12/27/2005 10:47:23 AM PST by Pragmatic_View
WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate.
A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by Hearst newspapers shows the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four previous presidential administrations combined.
The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation.
But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.
I was just following the lead of the other poster, who seemed to be suggesting that FISA was inadequate, and thereby implying that the President felt the need to disregard it. Was he giving a false impression?
Executive powers, like legislative powers and judicial powers are limited by the Constitution. The President and the Executive Branch, just like the Congress and the Judiciary have only the powers delegated to them by the Constitution and no others. The Constitution makes the President commander-in-chief of the armed forces and of the milita when called into service of the United States. It does not give him the power to negate the Bill of Rights even if for a good cause.
But in wartime, does not the President have more authority?
There are two possible conclusions from your data. One possibility is that the court became more strict after 9/11. The other is that the agencies tried to push the court further to see what they could get away with. Offhand, the second one seems more plausible.
Clearly a sign of an out of control judiciary.
Somebody posted a good article, let me see, if I can find it.
Ah, here it is:
Unwarranted complaints
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/27/opinion/edcasey.php
Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, President George W. Bush ordered surveillance of international telephone communications by suspected members of Al Qaeda overseas, even if such calls also involved individuals within the United States. This program was adopted by direct presidential order and was subject to review every 45 days. Judicial warrants for this surveillance were neither sought nor obtained, although key members of Congress were evidently informed. The program's existence has now become public, and howls of outrage have ensued. But in fact, the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself.
The U.S. president has the constitutional authority to acquire foreign intelligence without a warrant or any other type of judicial blessing. The courts have acknowledged this authority, and numerous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have espoused the same view. The purpose here is not to detect crime, or to build criminal prosecutions - areas where the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements are applicable - but to identify and prevent armed attacks on American interests at home and abroad. The attempt, by Democrats and Republicans alike, to dismantle the president's core constitutional power in wartime is wrongheaded and should be vigorously resisted by the administration.
Even if Congress had intended to restrict the president's ability to obtain intelligence in such circumstances, it could not have constitutionally done so. The Constitution designates the president as commander in chief, and Congress can no more direct his exercise of that authority than he can direct Congress in the execution of its constitutional duties. As the FISA court itself noted in 2002, the president has "inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."
===
I think they express it very well. It was written by David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey. David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey are lawyers who served in the Justice Department in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.
See post 366.
Exactly. The NYT just has a Liberal agenda and an axe to grind with this administration.
As far as the liberals and the NYT are concerned, American history began in 2001. They don't want to compare Bush with Clinton, because they know their Bush-bashing gig is up if the facts were to escape through their newspaper.
conservatives negotiating constitutional "slope" Liberals negotiating same slope
Conservatives must face the reality of the terrain....and act accordingly.
From another thread, both of you were wondering why the Executive branch of the government didn't trust U.S. Secret Court.
"Bill of Rights" - for Al Queda???!! unbelievable!!
Not in this case. Judges often modify requests for warrants. It's the judge who makes the final call as to what the warrant does and does not authorize. It's always been that way with search warrants.
Thanks for that post. The dims will look really stupid if they continue to try accusing Bush on this.
This is a diversion - the issue is not foreign intelligence gathering but using the tools of the intelligence gathering in the US without judicial oversight which is a violation of the Constitution. The President simply can't determine who does and doesn't get the protection of law. As repeatedly pointed out, the President has command of the armed forces and only in very limited circumstances can that military authority be used domestically - the war on terror doesn't count as "insurrection". If terror suspects are in the US then domestic law enforcement should be used as was during the Cold War when we managed to capture and try spies in the civilian court system or the numerous terror convictions obtained without a declaration of war.
Can we now a list of groups of people in the US who don't get the protections of law as guaranteed by the Constitution? Who gets to decide what groups get trials and who gets summarily executed? As said before, do you believe that the government always gets it right? That everyone the government believes is a terrorist is one? The whole reason of having a system of checks and balances is to provide mutual oversight of the powers of government. Yes, it is inefficient, but on balance it makes for a better society.
You apparently don't know the limitations imposed on those powers.
Terrorism could be effectively fought within the laws of the land. Due to many reasons, most government agencies fail their charters. Providing even more power to the already reckless and incompetent is the recipe for tyranny. Given the choice of tyranny or anarchy, I choose the latter.
I would like a demonstration of comptetance on the part of the "organizations" as they are now enpowered. I have seen to evidence of this for quite some time.
Actually it is Bush today and Hillary yesterday. Don't you recall that she had all the secret FBI files that were not to be abused for the same reason as wiretaps and everyone in her administration had access. Even Livingston whom nobody knows who hired him. What about the liberty of Americans who Hillary had spied on and "surveiled" without court approval by the FBI?
I believe the Roman Republic did give the Consul (executive) dictatorial powers during time of war.
And Lincoln ignored the constitution when it inteferred with his conduct of the Civil war.
Good info!
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.