Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program ~~ NY Time distorts what they said

The New York Times ^ | March 29, 2006 | ERIC LICHTBLAU

[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.

[CPOSharky]

...crack reporter on staff who could simply ask the guy.

They have lots of "crack" reporters, that's why they are too stupid to ask simple questions. (Plus, they might not like the answer.)

[Mo1]

Thanks for the ping

[Dan(9698)]

Terrorists are criminals.

Terrorists are not necessarily criminals. Under the Geneva Conventions, which the left refers to all the time, they are spies and saboteurs.

They are unlawful combatants, who should be summarily executed.

[Dan(9698)]

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.

In a ruling, the FISA Court of Review stated that to try to order how the intelligence gathering is to be done, is an infringement on the executive branch. They also stated that Congress also couldn't infringe because of the "Separation of Powers" thingy

[Marine_Uncle]

"NY Slimes steps in it again!"
They must truely be slimy at this point. The remarks indicating this sh*tball has his career investment and ideological view at stake really describes the situation rather well.