Posted on 03/29/2006 11:20:50 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
WASHINGTON, March 28 — Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.
In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
March 29, 2006
Verdict: The New York Times Blew the Story
*************************************** An EXCERPT ************************
Yesterday, five former judges of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the subject of the amendments to FISA that have been proposed by Senator Arlen Specter. Earlier today, we noted a remarkable contrast in the reporting on the hearing by the Washington Times and the New York Times. The Washington Times headlined its story, "FISA Judges Say Bush Within Law," and reported:
A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).
The New York Times headlined its article, "Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program," and wrote:
Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order.
We promised to obtain the transcript of the hearing and figure out who was right. The transcript is available here.
Having reviewed the transcript, I conclude that the Washington Times' characterization was fair, but arguably overstated. The New York Times, however, badly misled its readers. Here are the exchanges where the judges talked about the President's constitutional authority to order warrantless surveillance:
See the powerline link for the rest of the commentary.
There are not supposed to be "criminal prosecutions" from this spying program which is supposed to be about the WOT. So why is anyone claiming that they would be imperiled.
**************************************************
New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau has a considerable career investment (and, I suspect, an ideological investment as well) in the idea that the NSA program is illegal. It would seem that Lichtblau's preconceptions and biases prevented him from accurately reporting what happened in the Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday. His suggestion that the main thrust of the judges' testimony was to "voice skepticism about the president's constitutional authority" is simply wrong; in fact, I can't find a single line in more than 100 pages of transcript that supports Lichtblau's reporting. It's a sad thing when a once-respected newspaper can't be counted on for a straight account of a Congressional hearing.
Posted by John at 08:17 PM
WOW See #4.
"There are not supposed to be "criminal prosecutions" from this spying program which is supposed to be about the WOT."
Terrorists are criminals.
That's not how it was sold
,a href=http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006637.php> March 29, 2006
Gary Lady Misrepresents FISA Testimony
*******************************AN EXCERPT *****************************
The New York Times has panicked into a serious misrepresentation of the testimony given to the Senate Judiciary Committee by five former FISA judges. Power Line looks at the transcript of the committee hearing and discovers that reporter Eric Lichtblau, who predicated his new book on the supposed illegality of the secret NSA terrorist surveillance program, wrote dishonestly about their appearance in yesterday's hearing.
******************************************
Instead of expressing skepticism, the judges confirm that the matter is far from settled, and in fact told Congress that they don't have the jurisdiction to make the judgment. What they did tell the Judiciary members is that President Bush's arguments have a strong element of validity and probably are correct. Unfortunately for Lichtblau, that undermines the whole premise of his book -- and apparently that can't be tolerated.
That's ridiculous. What do you think should happen to a person in this country who is caught by a NSA intercept conspiring with a terrorist outside of this country? They are criminally prosecuted. You might have even seen such prosecutions in the news recently.
You are answering an objection I did not pose
NY Slimes steps in it again!
Yeah. "apparent"
It's been over a month, and the scumbags at the New York Times STILL assume that the Democrat judge quit in "protest". The fact is, he never said that's why he quit. Too bad the disgraced and dying former "paper of record" doesn't have a crack reporter on staff who could simply ask the guy.
Then what did your post 7 mean?
This suggestion is BS. That is not the job of the court to oversee surveillance programs. It is their job to rule on law and not to oversee programs. Just more of the court wanting more of the power.
Perhaps the message to the mediais: We see what we want to see not what is there....
In short the NY Times is pathetic
Kind of nice for them to document that fact one more time!
One of the blogs did a great job describing just how the NYT distorted what the judges actually said.
What are judges on a 'Secret Court' doing reporting to the NY Slimes?
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.