Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FISA JUDGES SAY BUSH WITHIN THE LAW (Why Has the MSM Ignored This Story?)
The Washington Times ^ | 03/29/06 | Brian DeBose

Posted on 03/29/2006 9:28:16 AM PST by MikeA

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101 next last
Hey Dems, impeach this! Even the FISA court's judges, to say nothing of their prior rulings, say that Bush was within the law, the constitution and his powers as president in wiretapping your Al Qaeda friends. It's too bad though really. Nutcase Democrats impeaching Bush over doing due dilligence in keeping tabs on Al Qaeda threats within our borders would have paid political dividends to the GOP for a decade. GOP candidates wouldn't even have had to campaign, they'd have just won!

Amazing the exhoneration of Bush has gotten ZERO attention from the MSM, although I hear the treasonous New York Slimes tried to spin this testimony to somehow favor their anti-Bush line on wiretapping. These people are utterly shameless. And as always happens when they create a firestorm against a Republican, the lapdog news media has totally underplayed the mitigating testimony and information which undermines the overplayed initial story.

Well, now that we have that out of the way and Bush has been cleared of any cloud from this FISA wiretapping, we can now get on with the important business of having the FBI frog march the editors of the New York Slimes out of their offices for having revealed this top secret national security program all for the benefit of feeding their Bush hating psychosis.

1 posted on 03/29/2006 9:28:20 AM PST by MikeA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MikeA

BTTT


2 posted on 03/29/2006 9:29:57 AM PST by AliVeritas (“Pacifism is objectively pro-Islamo-Fascist.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

Thanks for the post Mike!


3 posted on 03/29/2006 9:31:35 AM PST by MNJohnnie (The Left has their own coalition, "The Coalition of the Whining". ---Beagle8U)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

See this?


4 posted on 03/29/2006 9:31:55 AM PST by MNJohnnie (The Left has their own coalition, "The Coalition of the Whining". ---Beagle8U)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

PING


5 posted on 03/29/2006 9:32:00 AM PST by bcsco ("He who is wedded to the spirit of the age is soon a widower" - Anonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tony Snow; holdonnow; old_sage_says; alice_in_bubbaland; used2BDem; Neverforget01; MOgirl; ...

ping


6 posted on 03/29/2006 9:33:26 AM PST by AliVeritas (“Pacifism is objectively pro-Islamo-Fascist.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repub4bush; rightinthemiddle; andyk; defconw; tiredoflaundry; Txsleuth; sono; MOgirl; hattend; ...

ping


7 posted on 03/29/2006 9:34:24 AM PST by AliVeritas (“Pacifism is objectively pro-Islamo-Fascist.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

**Why has the mainstream media ignored this story...**

Uh...could it be because they are the free propaganda wing of the Democrat Party? Ya think?


8 posted on 03/29/2006 9:35:10 AM PST by Galveston Grl (Getting angry and abandoning power to the Democrats is not a choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas

Bump - another one I wouldn't have heard if it weren't for FreeRepublic.


9 posted on 03/29/2006 9:35:11 AM PST by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
Why Has the MSM Ignored This Story?

You're a funny guy, Mike. HI-lariuus.

10 posted on 03/29/2006 9:35:23 AM PST by AngryJawa ({NRA}{IDPA})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay

Ditto.


11 posted on 03/29/2006 9:35:30 AM PST by L98Fiero (I'm worth a million in prizes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
The judges, however, said Mr. Bush's choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril," because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security.
Pretty much the thrust of my comments on the subject. The surveillance may well be within Constitutional parmeters, even if outside the structure of FISA, but there is no way to tell except on a case by case basis, as the cases come into the courts.

One of my concerns is bad guys getting off because of a violation of the 4th amendment.

12 posted on 03/29/2006 9:35:53 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security.

He'd have a helluva lot more to answer to had he NOT authorized these activities...and the 'Rats and media damn well know it.

13 posted on 03/29/2006 9:36:45 AM PST by ErnBatavia (Meep Meep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

Did Arlen Specter find their testimony "preposterous?"


14 posted on 03/29/2006 9:39:14 AM PST by rightwingintelligentsia (No coded message in my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
OH! OH! OH! OH! OH! Pick me!! Pick me !!! I have an answer to the question.

The MSM ignored this story because ............................................... ........................................................it wasn't leaked to them by Karl Rove.

15 posted on 03/29/2006 9:40:53 AM PST by bpjam (Now accepting liberal apologies.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
One of my concerns is bad guys getting off because of a violation of the 4th amendment.

I'm sure that the defense attorneys will use that reasoning, as they should, but I just don't see it going anywhere post-Patriot Act.
16 posted on 03/29/2006 9:41:18 AM PST by P-40 (http://www.590klbj.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=1854)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
"The panel of judges unanimously agreed that the law should have been changed before now to deal with new threats from terrorists and new communications technologies, a point made by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat."
---
Hummm....
Sen. Feinstein, aren't you one of them responsible for making new laws?
The President had to act unilaterally because Congress has dropped the ball.
17 posted on 03/29/2006 9:41:52 AM PST by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Galveston Grl
>>>**Why has the mainstream media ignored this story...** <<<

Ahhh....their spell checker is hung?

18 posted on 03/29/2006 9:42:59 AM PST by HardStarboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
Same hearings, different set of reports ...

March 28, 2006 - Joshua Pantesco at 8:11 PM ET
Federal judges support Specter surveillance supervision bill at hearing

[JURIST] Five federal judges appearing Tuesday before the US Senate Judiciary Committee expressed approval of committee chairman Arlen Specter's proposal [JURIST report] to require the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret panel established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [text], to conduct regular reviews of the National Security Administration's warrantless surveillance program [JURIST news archive]. The judges,all familiar with the FISA court, said they were unfamiliar with the latest NSA program, but insisted that the court has struck the correct balance between civil liberties and national security concerns since its establishment and would continue to do so. Specter's proposed bill would also require the NSA to obtain a judicial warrant under FISA before conducting any domestic surveillance.

A group of Republican Senators led by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) have introduced a competing bill [JURIST report; PDF text] that would permit warrantless wiretapping for 45 days before court approval is required. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has also introduced a resolution to censure President Bush [JURIST report] over the program, which will be the focus of Judiciary Committee hearing [JURIST report] Friday. Read Judiciary Committee Ranking Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy's statement at today's hearing. AP has more.

I haven't checked the Judiciary Committee website today to see if they have posted any transcripts, either of statements or of yesterday's Q&A.

See also Byron York's "Arlen Specter and the White House's 'Preposterous' Defense", discussed briefly at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1604901/posts.

19 posted on 03/29/2006 9:43:04 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

The media make me sick. They will never report this story as prominantly as they did with the story by a FISA judge who resigned the panel.


20 posted on 03/29/2006 9:44:05 AM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
In other words, the five FISA judges said the President did what was best for the country and the Dems try to crucify him. Nothing new about that.
21 posted on 03/29/2006 9:44:43 AM PST by jazusamo (Excuse me Helen, I'm answering your first accusation. - President Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
"Hey Dems, impeach this!"

Perfect.
22 posted on 03/29/2006 9:44:46 AM PST by Liberty Valance (Money will buy you a fine dog but only love can make it wag it's tail :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

Great post, Mike!

This will probably be the only place it will be seen.

The Democrats are such whining maggots. I wouldn't trust them with a three-minute egg? How about you?


23 posted on 03/29/2006 9:49:29 AM PST by RexBeach ("There is no substitute for victory." -Douglas MacArthur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-40
One of my concerns is bad guys getting off because of a violation of the 4th amendment.

I'm sure that the defense attorneys will use that reasoning, as they should, but I just don't see it going anywhere post-Patriot Act.

Probably true that most of the "interesting" discussion is academic, in that enough evidence and probable cause will exist independently from any "outside the 4th" material.

But absent a fact pattern and legal justification for surveillance, there is no way to reach a reasoned opinion - and that's pretty much where the situation lies. All the conclusions relating to how and why a court would rule on the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program are based on guesswork and assumptions.

I don't think the Patriot Act has much, if anything to do with it - FWIW. I think that post 9/11, the government is more likely able to impose on the individual, with the Court, being part of the government, upholding the legitimacy of the incursion. It's for our own good, after all.

24 posted on 03/29/2006 9:49:47 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

where the ef is the criminal lame-stream-media on this one?????


25 posted on 03/29/2006 9:50:03 AM PST by God luvs America (When the silent majority speaks the earth trembles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

I'm not convinced - read the quote: "If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now,"

President Bush didn't have applications refused. I think the reporter may be interpreting the remarks of the former FISA judge too broadly...


26 posted on 03/29/2006 9:53:02 AM PST by Barringer (I'm just sayin...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay
Another one I wouldn't have heard if it weren't for FreeRepublic.

That could be FreeRepublic's motto.

27 posted on 03/29/2006 9:54:36 AM PST by jigsaw (God Bless Our Troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas

Schummer is now on the Senate floor presenting a bill about the wiretapping

He says he's doing it so that the wiretapping case will get to the USSC faster


28 posted on 03/29/2006 9:55:07 AM PST by Mo1 ("Stupidity is also a gift from God, but it should not be abused." Pope John Paul II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

oops...sounds like the dimbulb's may need a little ice for this one!


29 posted on 03/29/2006 9:55:17 AM PST by harpu ( "...it's better to be hated for who you are than loved for someone you're not!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-40; Cboldt

I'm sure that the defense attorneys will use that reasoning, as they should, but I just don't see it going anywhere post-Patriot Act.




Plus, it is really tough to build an argument of the wiretapping being an "unreasonable" search or seizure when you're receiving phone calls from known Al Qaeda agents abroad. To me that falls well within the bounds of a probable cause argument.


30 posted on 03/29/2006 9:55:20 AM PST by MikeA (Not voting in November because you're pouting is a vote for Democratic Congressional control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

"... the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."


This is the KEY. The democrats in congress want to USURP the power and authority of the President. They will take power any way they can get it.

I wonder what Specter will do now that former FISA people have said that the President has the authority to spy on foreign callers who are known or suspected to be terrorists.


31 posted on 03/29/2006 9:57:55 AM PST by CyberAnt (Democrats/Old Media: "controversy, crap and confusion" -- Amen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
Great post!

But c'mon Mike... you know this won't make the cut of the MSM commissars!

32 posted on 03/29/2006 9:59:42 AM PST by johnny7 (“Nah, I ain’t Jewish, I just don’t dig on swine, that’s all.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas

I'm waiting to hear if this gets ANY coverage at all my the MSM in a significant way. This story illustrates the expression "like a horse with blinders on"...


33 posted on 03/29/2006 10:00:29 AM PST by SE Mom (God Bless those who serve..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All

Sen. Schumer was just up on the Senate floor proposing a resolution to "fast track" this to the SUPREME COURT...so we can get a ruling on the legality of Bush's actions quickly...

He had to do quite a pretzel twist to try to explain how there "could" be Americans with "standing" to bring this case...that their "rights" were abused by the NSA program that Bush used...


34 posted on 03/29/2006 10:01:47 AM PST by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dark Wing

ping


35 posted on 03/29/2006 10:02:25 AM PST by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Beggingthe question about the constititionality of FISA.


36 posted on 03/29/2006 10:03:32 AM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

IMPEACH THE FISA COURT! /sarcasm


37 posted on 03/29/2006 10:03:39 AM PST by ShandaLear (Announcing you plans is a good way to hear God laugh. Al Swearengen, 1877—Deadwood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

". . .FBI frog march the editors of the New York Slimes out of their offices for having revealed this top secret national security program. . ."

And I REALLY want the traitors who LEAKED it to the slimes in the first place.


38 posted on 03/29/2006 10:04:24 AM PST by used2BDem (Navy Vet (Navy Mom))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

Thanks Mike! I wonder if this will be on the evening news tonight!


39 posted on 03/29/2006 10:04:42 AM PST by alice_in_bubbaland (New Jersey gets the corrupt government it deserves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Barringer

"I think the reporter may be interpreting the remarks of the former FISA judge too broadly..."




But neither did these judges indicate in any way that the president is precluded by FISA laws or the constitution from doing what he did. To assume that in saying "I'm not convinced" is to read what's not there into what is. Indeed, I think those remarks you cite are specific to a particular scenario and are not being stated as the ONLY instance where warrants can be waived. That I think is borne out by what the judge then goes on to say...

"the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."

Clearly this particular judge is applying his remarks to the president's actions outside of a court refusing a warrant. That is clear by what he states. He was not confining his remarks merely to the specific instance of their being a refusal by the courts. And timeliness continues to be a key issue. When a phone call is being intercepted going to a new source within the US, there is simply no time to apply for a warrant.


40 posted on 03/29/2006 10:05:27 AM PST by MikeA (Not voting in November because you're pouting is a vote for Democratic Congressional control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas

Thanks for the ping! I am sure this will be on the front page of papers across the country and the lead story on the evening news.

Yes, I am delusional. . .


41 posted on 03/29/2006 10:07:13 AM PST by used2BDem (Navy Vet (Navy Mom))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

This is getting coverage in the MSM. It's in the NYT and the AP, but the over-arching message is that the five judges are backing the legislation to increase scrutiny.


42 posted on 03/29/2006 10:07:38 AM PST by Barringer (I'm just sayin...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Begging the question about the constitutionality of FISA.

I agree. But that too can go either way in any given case - unconstitutional as too restrictive on executive power, or unconstitutional impingement on the 4th. Of those two, the latter is highly unlikely, given the genesis of FISA itself and the language therein. But my bigger point is there is no way to tell, outside of a fact patter that involves the surveillance and a prosecution that depends on said surveillance for evidence.

I'd like to see (and think we will) a bit more cooperation between the President and Congress on fighting terrorism. As it is, it seems each side (President and Congress) is goading the other.

43 posted on 03/29/2006 10:10:51 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Ah, yes, but he has gone to the heads of the intelligence committees on the incidents. That should more than take care of oversight.


44 posted on 03/29/2006 10:13:07 AM PST by McGavin999 (The US media is afflicted with Attention Deficit Disorder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MikeA; All
(Why Has the MSM Ignored This Story?)

For the same reason they ignored the entirely successful conclusion of Operation Swarmer, after wetting their collective pants over it when it started.

You all DO remember Operation Swarmer, don't you? It was the one that completely disappeared from the MSM radar when it became apparent it would succeed -- contrary to their paranoia and bias.

45 posted on 03/29/2006 10:15:31 AM PST by JennysCool (Liberals don't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I see the 4th as providing protections in case of criminal charges. But I take your point of the need for case law.


46 posted on 03/29/2006 10:17:31 AM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
it is really tough to build an argument of the wiretapping being an "unreasonable" search or seizure when you're receiving phone calls from known Al Qaeda agents abroad. To me that falls well within the bounds of a probable cause argument.

I think that's a slam dunk winner. Or even getting calls from suspected (not known) terrorists (not just al Qaeda) abroad.

I suspect any issues will relate to "probable cause" as to how the government concluded (in the first place) that the "foreigner" (could be a US citizen overseas, in a global sense) is apt to engage in a conversation that represent a foreign intelligence interest. If it reached that conclusion in the first place based on secret surveillance, the case is a harder one to get past a judge. It resembles "precrime," where any and all surveillance is justified, based on the "successes" where surveillance is the only activity that creates the reasonable suspicion.

47 posted on 03/29/2006 10:19:18 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Probably true that most of the "interesting" discussion is academic

It sounds like much of the discussion will remain academic...unless someone in Congress really wants to tackle all of the Constitutional issues involved...and I can't see that happening.

I mention the Patriot Act because perhaps its biggest purpose was to tear down "The Wall" and all more sharing between the intelligence and law enforcement communities. With that sort of cooperation I think there will be more than enough evidence to satisfy any issues raised over the Fourth...or we had better hope so.
48 posted on 03/29/2006 10:19:26 AM PST by P-40 (http://www.590klbj.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=1854)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

It not clear. I think we'd have to go to the transcript to see whether Judge Kornblum's comment was connected to or independent of the qualifer "if a warrant is refused..."

I also think that given the judges disclaimer ("unfamiliar with the latest NSA program), for DeBose to state that the judges are saying Bush is within law is to read what's not there into what is.

The existing FISA laws allows for after the fact warrant applications. Although I think the time period should be extended...


49 posted on 03/29/2006 10:20:24 AM PST by Barringer (I'm just sayin...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Congress...with BOTH parties...seem less inclined to work with President Bush the closer to the election it gets...

However, I do have to chuckle when I hear the Dem Senators bragging about how the Judiciary Bill is "great" because Specter and Bush agree with it...LOL


50 posted on 03/29/2006 10:21:43 AM PST by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson