Posted on 12/21/2005 6:27:50 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration's decision to sometimes bypass the secretive U.S. court that governs terrorism wiretaps could threaten cases against terror suspects that rely on evidence uncovered during the disputed eavesdropping, some legal experts cautioned.
These experts pointed to this week's unprecedented resignation from the government's spy court by U.S. District Judge James Robertson as an indicator of the judiciary's unease over domestic wiretaps ordered without warrants under a highly classified domestic spying program authorized by President Bush.
Neither Robertson nor the White House would comment Wednesday on his abrupt resignation from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the little-known panel of 11 U.S. judges that secretively approves wiretaps and searches in the most sensitive terrorism and espionage cases. But legal experts were astonished.
"This is a very big deal. Judges get upset with government lawyers all the time, but they don't resign in protest unless they're really offended to the point of saying they're being misused," said Kenneth C. Bass, a former senior Justice Department lawyer who oversaw such wiretap requests during the Carter administration.
"This was definitely a statement of protest," agreed Scott Silliman, a former Air Force attorney and Duke University law professor. "It is unusual because it signifies that at least one member of the court believes that the president has exceeded his legal authority."
Robertson's surprise resignation added to a chorus of pointed questions in Washington over the propriety of the surveillance, which the White House said had successfully detected and prevented attacks inside the United States.
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he intends to begin oversight hearings in January to assess the stated justifications for the spying.
"When the attorney general says the force resolution gives the president the power to conduct these surveillances, I have grave doubts about that," Specter said.
Separately, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman of California, said she was informed about the program in 2003 and believes it is "essential to U.S. national security." But Harman also complained it was inappropriate for the White House to discuss the secret program only with leaders of the intelligence committees.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (news, bio, voting record), R-Mich., the committee chairman, said he participated in at least six briefings on the spying program since August 2004. He said he is comfortable the surveillance was aimed at al-Qaida terrorists and people associated with al-Qaida inside the United States. Hoekstra also said lawmakers who were notified about the surveillance won't resign like Robertson.
"We all decided that we are going to stay, and we are going to keep our jobs," he said.
Under the spying program, secretly authorized by President Bush in October 2001, the National Security Agency was permitted to eavesdrop without a judge's approval on communications between suspected terrorists overseas and people inside the United States.
Officials have said they only performed such wiretaps when there was a reasonable basis to conclude that the conversation included a suspected terrorist and one party was overseas. Citing national security, officials have declined to say how many times they have done so.
A court-approved wiretap under traditional surveillance law requires a higher legal standard, demonstrating probable cause to the spy court that the target is an agent of a foreign power, such as a terrorist group. That law also says no such wiretaps can be performed except under its provisions.
Since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, the government has focused on preventing and disrupting attacks rather than building court cases against suspected terrorists. But experts cautioned that future legal prosecutions could be tainted if evidence was uncovered about a terror plot using a wiretap determined to be improper.
"Imagine if there is evidence critical to a criminal prosecution and the defendant challenges the evidence because it is constitutionally suspect," said Beryl Howell, former general counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It could jeopardize any criminal case."
For example, we heard someone, UNKNOWN, discussing destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge.
We didn't know who it was but we got on the bridge and caught some ba$tard with bolt cutters.
Their method wasn't sophisticated enough to work but once they realized we were on to their scheme, that was the end of their plans.
Perhaps they might get off.. but thats still better than even one building being toppled. They better keep their nose clean the rest of their lives.
Isn't this all a LOT OF CRAP. Bush has not broken any law - BRING IT ON DEMONRATS!! LETS HAVE ANOTHER INVESTIGATION SINCE YOU HAVE SO MUCH TIME ON YOUR HANDS - BUT first why don't you get down to business and pass the Defense appropriations bill, finish the precious Valerie Flame investigation, Re-authorize the Patriot Act, pass a bill authorizing drilling in Anwar, etc., etc., etc. I am not interested in hearing whether Bush broke some foreign spying law that Carter, Reagen, and Buba Clintoon also used. Period, end of story - continue this nonsense at your own peril, both to the country and to your party. The DemonRAT party is marching right off the left side of the cliff - good riddance. Maybe there will arise a new political party out of the ashes.
And I think that's the key point. The purpose here is to impinge or stop an impending attack before it happens. It's sad to say, but our system has always been mostly reactionary rather than proactive...we usually need the crime committed (and its sad results) before we can do anything. While an attempted murder charge is nice...it's nothing compared to a murder charge, which can only happen after someone has died. Heck, other than Visa violations, I don't think there was ever anything we could've convicted the 9/11 terrorists of prior to their attacks. At least this gives us tools to prevent the deaths from occuring.
"unprecedented resignation from the government's spy court by U.S. District Judge James Robertson..."
OMG! It's the first time in history that a US District Judge has resigned! I did not know that. I guess Bush must really be extreme. </sarc>
Oh, somehow I don't think they're relying on this information for court cases.
No truer words could be spoken - Congresscritters - Argh! What do you think about that Rocky writing a handwritten note and putting it in his vault? He claims he had no one to talk to about his concerns - ha ha. Why not talk to Roberts? Rockefeller's handwritten note
Precisely. It is not the purpose of the program to gather evidence for a court trial.
Instead, the program's purpose is to give us a heads up about who to kill, plus where and when we might accomplish this satisfying task at the greatest profit.
"But no-one ever resigned over what Bubba was up to."
Kind of unusual to find a Dim with that much principle, isn't it?
We don't tend to view them as having a strong collectivity of moral or ethical standards.
The pr!cks quoted in this story claim they are worried about tainted evidence if we bring a terrorist to trial.
Trial? These terrorists are planning on blowing up whole cities or using bio-war on whole states. The President is trying to stop terrorists in their tracks from doing us harm. The trial phase is farther down on the to do list.
Get a clue we are at war, not trial lawyers looking for a buck from someone's hair in a Big Mac.
I question the accuracy of this profile.
I think GWB should declassify his info even though it may jeapardize cases and operations to prove that the PA is necessary and the wiretapping procedures are legititmate and needed. If current cases are blown and operations messed up, I would blame the Dems for it, because GWB has no choice but to defend the operations in order to preserve it for the future. Otherwise he has to remain silent and look guilty.
Robertson has been on this panel of judges for some time now. He is just now having doubts about the legitimacy of these warrant-less searches?
Yeah... Right...
There are NO domestic wiretaps. Can't be very good legal experts if they can't even get the false NY Times story correct.
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.