Posted on 12/19/2005 4:25:09 AM PST by angkor
Actually they amazingly haven't. Of 20,000 requets for wiretaps, the FISA court has rejected a grand total of 5. It's probably the best court in the US.
Seems I heard some LSM reporter 'claim' that during the Prez presser this morning, but why should we trust anything that comes out of their mouths anymore? LOL
Just because the media intentionally mischaracterizes this as 'domestic' spying, does not make it so. The President and the attorney general have both made it clear that no one was authorized to montitor U.S. citizens, end of story.
In fact both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have stated, on the record, that they were briefed on this program and signed off on it's legality.
This is a political game, and it embarasses me to think that there are people on FR whom are obtuse of the facts.
Who has stated that in those cases the governmnet used 50 USC 1801 or 1802? I would assume they used laws already on the books and obtained the appropriate warrants. No one has said warrants were never issued.
Actually, the President has done nothing of the sort. He has said that the spying covered US persons (citizens and/or legal residents) communicating with foreigners oversees.
In fact both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have stated,
Those two are supposed to reassure me? My opposition to this is based on US law and the Constitution, not on what some loony left botox queen from San Francisco tells me.
I have read the text of the President's radio address, Sunday speech and his press conference and nowhere does he state anything of the sort. Please show me where the President has said this program was used against U.S. Citizens or any Permanant residents under the guise of 50 USC 1801 or 1802.
National Review's Jim Robbins says AQ does meet the law's definition of "foreign power":
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200512190859.asp
Cool...I hope eveyone realizes that the "Prez" consulted multiple government attorneys for full legal opinions and consulted congress before taking action...
This wasn't done in a vacuum nor without the legislative branch's buy-in....
This was legal and within his (the Prez's) authority, I just wasn't sure of the poster's quoted federal law as the basis.....
I agree with you. I also don't see why the administration wouldn't notfy the FISA court within the 72 hours like the lasw calls for. I mean, I don't see the big deal in ordering the surveillance then going to the FISA court in the next 24-72 hrs and getting the retroactive warrant? It just appears like there's something to hide.
Do you, or anyone else know anything about the FISA court? How many members does it have? How is someone nominated to it? What's the confirmation process? What's the current makeup? How many Clinton appointees? Has Bush appointed anyone?
FISA is a court made up of seven district court judges personally selected by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for staggered terms. Their names are kept secret in the interests of US national security. FISA has a reputation for being a rubber stamp --- in 20,000 requests for wiretaps, they've turned down five. They also process requests nearly instantaneously.
FISA is not a liberal court by any stretch. And it's a tremendously powerful tool for any anti-terrorism agent.
Thanks. I actually found the info on google. FISA is a court with 11 members, ALL named by Bill Rehnquist. There's also a 3 judge FISA appeals court, again all named by Rehnquist. The site actually listed the names of the judges and who they are but I won't here. It's interesting that during Roberts' hearings I think only DeWine asked him like 1 question about FISA. It's a pretty important issue and a big deal since as Chief he'll be naming FISA judges for the next 25-30 yrs. But I guess abortion is more important.
You're absolutely right. The likelihood of you or I being monitored for a call to a terrorist is nil. In other words, they can't monitor all of us and the surveillance is "limited" by the law.
IMHO...I believe going to FISA within 72 hours is for "continuing" surveillance.
20,000 requests.......over what period of time. FISA has existed for a long time......(I think 20 years).
FISA does not process requests immediately. The 9/11 Commission stated, after taking testimony from the FBI, that warrants can take weeks.
I read that somewhere too and I also remember that this 2 week lag was the problem with the current FISA court process making it hard to do effective modern surveillance.
The 9/11 Commission took testimony from FBI agents to that effect.
The FBI whistleblower (Coleen Crowley?) testified to the Commission that FISA applications can take weeks. It's gotten somewhat better, but it's certainly not immediate, which the left loves to claim.
Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...
...shall be the supreme law of the land....Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."Certainly, all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature [Congress] repugnant to the Constitution is void."
Marbury v Madison, 1803
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.