Secret court modified wiretap requests

Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | 12/24/05 | Stewart M. Powell

[right-wingin_It]

I wouldn't be suprized if the leaker here is this Clinton appointed FISA judge that just resigned (or one of his posse).

[right-wingin_It]

Pretty amazing. These Clinton appointees are like "sleepers" spead throughout the government. How many cockroaches are there?

[petitfour]

Maybe the FISA judge told somebody who told somebody. It wouldn't surprise me. When was the last time a federal judge in DC was raked over the coals for anything? They are above the law.

[Textphile]

"..he is a "Vietnam-era Navy veteran", so that makes his opinion about as useful as John Kerry's." Thank you for comparing us all to Kerry.

[SittinYonder]

Told the terrorists "we're watching you"

So you think the terrorists were operating under the assumption that we'd decided not to pay any attention to them any more? Bizarre.

Furthermore, if we are wiretapping and gaining intelligence from those wiretaps, why would we want to deliberately alert the terrorists to that? If I'm a terrorist in San Diego and I've been calling an Al Qaeda safe house in Yemen, then thanks to the NYT I know the gig is up. Time for me to find a new method of communication or, more likely, go to ground.

I'm not saying that it is impossible that Bush planted the leak. It could be disinformation. But I haven't seen a reasonable explanation for why he would have done so.

But then again, the folks at the NYT are such patriots and known for their cooperation in protecting the country, so why would they leak information that might hurt the nation's security or, even more surprising, hurt the president.

[Peach]

This explains beautifully why the Bush administration bypassed the FISA courts. Add to that the judge who resigned unexpectedly and was possibly one of the sources of the leaks, and we have a situation where the left has made it nearly impossible for this administration to work within the system.

[jwpjr]

re: As long as radical Islam still has a geopolitical vision this is their achilles heel.

I agree! I don't think anyone in the terrorist camps though 9/11 would be a successful as it was. My guess is they hoped one aircraft might make it through the entire plan. I would bet good money that the fact that four planes were actually hijacked, and that three of them struck a target, was as big a surprise to the terrorists as it was to us.

My bet is that they would not do it again if they had the gift of hindsight. They were much better off pre-9/11, while they still had the ability to move about.

I agree with you that the biggest deterrent to another strike here in the US is the fact that Dubya is a cowboy and they fear him. I know that's an idea that's beyond the mental capacity of most liberals, but I feel certain they weigh anything they consider doing now with the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq in mind.

[Publius6961]

... were they obeying the law in narrowing the requests? if so, then blame the law, not the court.

A distinction without a difference, since a) no law can be bulletproof; if anyne can "misinterpret" it, he will. And b) guess who get to misinterpret it?

The courts are not charged with National Security, and they do not get free rein to hamper the branch of government which needs to address it.

[Publius6961]

You keep spelling your name wrong, HiRed TechNeck

[norwaypinesavage]

"Has Robertson actually come out now and said that's why he resigned?"

No, but some are speculating that he is the leaker.

[K-oneTexas]

Fine. If they are a US Citizen when the evidence is compiled charged will be brought in a criminal court. For what ever crime or treason, at this time they get a lawyer.

If they are not a US Citizen but rather a foreign national the US Constitution and Bill of Rights/Amendments does not apply to them.

Our forefathers and founders of this country did not write a document that pertains to the world, only its citizens. And conversely, other countries laws have no place in American jurisprudence.

[marblehead17]

ping for later

[K-oneTexas]

That is a question I did not find a quick and easy answer to in the article.

It might be as post #37 suggests, that FISA needs to be updated for technological advances. Then again it might be that the court has many judges if the ilk that just resigned (Clinton appointees). Or possibly judges that are trying to be so conservative that they must dot every "i" and cross every "t".

But I'm leaning to the fact that technology has expanded the 'brush stroke' so much that the actual gathering now encompasses so much more. Still these judges should be on erring on the side of safeguarding the public. I have not doubt all these decisions will be reviewed in another court when a trail happens. This trial court can have the facts just not the details of the methods of collection.

[Mo1]

"The FISA court has shown its displeasure by tinkering with these applications by the Bush administration."

Is the Court allowed to do this??

I thought it was Congress' job to write and amend the rules?

Or does tinkering mean the fudged with the original application

[The Red Zone]

So you think the terrorists were operating under the assumption that we'd decided not to pay any attention to them any more? Bizarre.

Well if they looked at the Mejican problem they could hardly be blamed for coming to such a conclusion.

[The Red Zone]

If they are not a US Citizen but rather a foreign national the US Constitution and Bill of Rights/Amendments does not apply to them.

Oh yes they do, says the Supreme Court.

[airborne]

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined

Very relevant!!

No wonder they couldn't work with FISA.

Could be the judge that rsigned was still working for Clinton.

[The Red Zone]

The courts are charged with applying law not policy.

[The Red Zone]

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress

OK, who leaked these. What, they're unclassified?

[K-oneTexas]

In that instance they are wrong. The Constitution applies to a US Citizen. Some justices have "bastardized" it so much it applies to the family pet.