Skip to comments.
Secret Court's Judges Were Warned About NSA Spy Data (Shhhhh...it's a secret)
Washington Post ^
| 2/8/06
| Carol D. Leonnig
Posted on 02/08/2006 8:14:28 PM PST by frankjr
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
To: onyx
And looks who's complaining, James A. Baker.
21
posted on
02/08/2006 8:44:52 PM PST
by
hipaatwo
To: frankjr
this is exactly why the 9-11 commission, apparently one of the few issues they got right, identified the FISA court as a major problem. this court wants to make the constitution a suicide pact, wants to make it impossible to do any pro-active law enforcement regading terrorism. all courts are essentially "after the crime" institutions - designed to deal with issues that occur AFTER a crime is commited. with terrorism, the people want it stopped before it happens, and the judicial system is not structured to support that.
To: hipaatwo
He alerted Kollar-Kotelly, who complained to Justice, prompting a temporary suspension of the NSA spying program, the sources said. They had the program shut down????
23
posted on
02/08/2006 8:46:59 PM PST
by
Mo1
(Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
To: Enchante
This is foolish, obtuse, PRE-9/11 thinking
You just nailed it. This would be funny if it were not so utterly stupid and dangerous. I am beginning to think every FISA court act should be proceeded by the judges being required to watch 45 minutes of video of Americans jump burning to their death from the Twin Towers or listening to a tape of the cell phone calls from the planes. Maybe THAT would wake them up to the fact this is NOT some Law School role playing game in Judaical purity being played out here.
24
posted on
02/08/2006 8:47:22 PM PST
by
MNJohnnie
("Vote Democrat-We are the party of reactionary inertia".)
To: hipaatwo
I'm trying to discern which way Royce Lamberth was leaning. I always liked him.
25
posted on
02/08/2006 8:47:23 PM PST
by
onyx
To: frankjr
at least this article is telling us something we had wondered - the chief judge is actually acknowledging that this court was making it harder to obtain warrants.
"...prompted Kollar-Kotelly to issue a stern order to government lawyers to create a better firewall or face more difficulty obtaining warrants"
To: hipaatwo
Yep, this story reaks of politically motivated leaks to try to spin the issue in the press. Somehow, when these judges were pissed off that Clinton was inventing new "constitutional rights" like Secret Service Privilege we didn't get a single leaked story to the NYT or WaPo questioning how illegal those claims were and how the constitution was being bastardized.
But now, a few judges are whining because we are wiretapping terrorists? Hey, here's an idea. The WH just doesn't bother to go to the FISA court for any reason in the future. That would solve everybodies problem. The judges don't want 'tainted' evidence in FISA application and the WH doesn't want to have to submit to FISA for every freaking thing it does. Sounds like an easy solution is just to skip FISA unless we are working on a criminal case and the evidence needs to be admissible.
27
posted on
02/08/2006 8:48:10 PM PST
by
bpjam
(Now accepting liberal apologies.....)
To: MNJohnnie
Come on scum. Run with this. You think the American people spanked you in 2002 and 2004? Come on and show them which side you all REALLY are on. How many of US have to die before YOU self important Democrat activist morons wake up?You're a spiker, aren't you? Does anybody post comments like that for real? Best laugh I had all day!
28
posted on
02/08/2006 8:48:28 PM PST
by
mumps
To: crushelits
why Rehnquist selected her, I have no idea. he slipped up, bigtime.
To: Mo1; onyx
I don't know what to say anymore. They're gonna get us killed. I want to call the Justice tomorrow and scream STOP THE LEAKS!
30
posted on
02/08/2006 8:49:01 PM PST
by
hipaatwo
To: Mo1; Howlin
From the article:
Baker declined to comment through an office assistant, who referred questions about his FISA work to a Justice Department spokesman.
If the Justice Department lawyer refuses to comment, how does the WaPo know what he thinks or how he expressed any reservations about the program?
The reported source for this article is "government officials familiar with the program". I'll give you two guesses about which committee held a closed door breifing on intelligence matters today. They meet again tomorrow, according to their
website.
To: oceanview
If FISA doesn't allow for constitutional authorities, like article 2, then FISA becomes unconstitutional because they can't trump the constitution without a congressionally passed amendment. It appears that Gonzales was right about FISA being limited in authorities.
32
posted on
02/08/2006 8:49:58 PM PST
by
Wasanother
(Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
To: onyx
Goofball! I checked my mail first and thought WTF? LOL!!
33
posted on
02/08/2006 8:50:29 PM PST
by
BigSkyFreeper
(Proud to be a cotton-pickin' Republican on the GOP Plantation)
To: Mo1
They had the program shut down????
I think that was, as the New York Times would say "previously known".
To: oceanview
"courts are essentially "after the crime" institutions"
A brilliantly insightful observation OV. The legal system is fundamentally incapable of dealing with this. Bush is Right. Terrorism will have to be treated as a problem that falls under the President's duties as Commander in Chief. Neither the Judiciary nor the Legislative is competent or structured to deal with it sufficiently
35
posted on
02/08/2006 8:50:47 PM PST
by
MNJohnnie
("Vote Democrat-We are the party of reactionary inertia".)
To: hipaatwo; Mo1
Our enemy within. Damn them.
36
posted on
02/08/2006 8:51:40 PM PST
by
onyx
To: frankjr
They only engage in this activity, because there are no consequences for doing so. Executing a few guilty US Senators would reduce the number of leaks most significantly.
37
posted on
02/08/2006 8:52:07 PM PST
by
TheDon
(The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
To: csn vinnie
Wait a minute Your Honor. Do I have this right? We were monitoring the enemy's wireless communications and found out they were talking a lot to somebody in the United States. So, we came to you for a warrant. Now, you say we can't have the warrant because the information that forms the basis for the request for a warrant was obtained without a warrant? That sums it up
Let thousands be killed ... because terrorists have civil rights and the courts are going to protect them
38
posted on
02/08/2006 8:52:11 PM PST
by
Mo1
(Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
To: BigSkyFreeper
Hold your horsies! I corrected my error!
39
posted on
02/08/2006 8:52:22 PM PST
by
onyx
To: frankjr
40
posted on
02/08/2006 8:53:20 PM PST
by
demlosers
(Kerry: "Impeach Bush, filibuster Alito, withdraw from Iraq, send U235 to Iran, elect me President!")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson