It’s Legal: The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program

NRO (National Review Online) ^ | March 15, 2006 | Byron York

[oldtimer2]

It's legal

In early September 2002, just before the first anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, a group of lawyers gathered in a heavily protected, windowless room in the Department of Justice building in Washington. There were three federal appeals-court judges, Laurence Silberman, Edward Leavy, and Ralph Guy. There was Theodore Olson, the U.S. solicitor general. There was Larry Thompson, the deputy attorney general. And there was John Yoo, the Justice official who had closely studied questions of war powers and presidential authority.

The purpose of the meeting was to argue a case whose details remain so classified that they are known by only a few people, but whose outcome, a decision known as In re: Sealed Case, has become one of the key documents in the hottest argument in Washington today: the fight over what President Bush calls the "terrorist surveillance" of persons with known al-Qaeda connections, and what the president's opponents call "domestic spying.

The entire session lasted just a few hours, and the Justice Department waited for the Court of Review's ruling. When it came, in November 2002, it was a slam-dunk win for the government.

In its opinion, the Court of Review said the FISA Court had, in effect, attempted to unilaterally impose the old 1995 rules. "In doing so, the FISA Court erred," the ruling read.

After the decision was handed down, the American Civil Liberties Union, which had submitted a brief in support of the FISA Court's actions restricting the administration, asked the Supreme Court to review In re: Sealed Case. The justices declined to take any action. That is not the same as the Court's upholding the ruling, but it does mean that the justices looked at the decision and chose not to intervene

[oldtimer2]

This is a highly exerpted copy of an editorial in NRO today. It is worthwile to read it in its complete form. If you are having a hard time explaining to liberal friends, this will give you a lot of amunition. Read it and go forth and tell the truth.

[frogjerk]

And yet, another brick in the DNC wall of lies, falls to the ground, smashed into dust...

[smoothsailing]

Good post.Byron York is one of the brightest bulbs at the NR,IMO.

[Lakeshark]

*whiney liberal voice*

"Liar!.......creepy liar!"

:-)

[frogjerk]

Not only could the FISA Court not tell the president how do to his work, the Court of Review said, but the president also had the "inherent authority" under the Constitution to conduct needed surveillance without obtaining any warrant -- from the FISA Court or anyone else.

LIBS: "What's a Constitution?"

[lepton]

bookmark bump

[SwatTeam]

I think the FISA court is an usurpation of presidental powers and should be abolished. It was created by a stacked democrat Congress that was trying to abolish our intelligence community. And it seems they are still working at that by trying to dictate and manipulate the law to suit THEIR agenda. And at least one of them seems to stay in close contact with the ACLU.

[advance_copy]

Since when did DemocRATS care what the law actually says?

[thegreatbeast]

A great takedown of the "unconstitutional" argument & the FISA dilettantes.

[SoFloFreeper]

BRILLIANT FIND!!
Bottom line is that the Court of Review has ALREADY GIVEN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH BROAD POWERS TO CONDUCT SURVEILLANCE.

Of course, we won't hear about any of this because Russ Feingold and NBC and ABC and CBS and MSNBC and National Public Radio and CNN don't have access to National Review.

Well, either that or they don't care about the facts.

[GW and Twins Pawpaw]

The answer is they don't care about facts.

[SoFloFreeper]

I agree. :)

[Soul Seeker]

And then the Court of Review did one more thing, something that has repercussions in today's surveillance controversy. Not only could the FISA Court not tell the president how do to his work, the Court of Review said, but the president also had the "inherent authority" under the Constitution to conduct needed surveillance without obtaining any warrant — from the FISA Court or anyone else. Referring to an earlier case, known as Truong, which dealt with surveillance before FISA was passed, the Court of Review wrote: "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

Someone send this to Judge Napalitano.

[Mo1]

FYI Ping

[jveritas]

Excellent find. I wonder why it took so long for this to show up.

[mystery-ak]

WOW...thanks for the ping...

[OXENinFLA]

ping..

[Mo1]

Someone send this to Judge Napalitano.

To Arlen Specter too

[Howlin]

Remember this?

Appeals panel rejects secret court's limits on terrorist wiretaps

From Terry Frieden
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) --The United States has broad authority to use wiretaps and other surveillance techniques to hunt for suspected terrorists, a federal appeals court panel ruled Monday.

In a 56-page opinion overturning a May decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the three-judge panel said the expanded wiretap guidelines sought by Attorney General John Ashcroft under the new USA Patriot Act law do not violate the Constitution. (More on the USA Patriot Act)

The ruling by the special panel from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia gives broad surveillance authority to counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism investigators to track individuals considered potential national security threats.

"Our case may well involve the most serious threat our country faces," the panel declared.

The reversal of May's decision by a federal judge represents a victory for the Justice Department and the FBI, which were harshly criticized by the lower court judge for its handling of wiretap applications, and their interpretation of the authority granted the government by the USA Patriot Act.

CNN ARCHIVES

[Cboldt]

I wonder why it took so long for this to show up.

It didn't. It showed up long ago. It's just "registering" again, fresh.