Bush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them (FISA Court denied them in unprecedented numbers)

UPI ^ | Dec. 27, 2005 | UPI

[Pragmatic_View]

WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate.

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by Hearst newspapers shows the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four previous presidential administrations combined.

The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation.

But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.

[NewLand]

If the President wants expanded powers then he needs to tell us what the clear well-defined exit strategy for the War on Terror is

He has told us. The strategy is for victory. Most Americans do understand that, and most Americans want that from their CIC.

BTW, the President has not expanded power, he has utilized all available avenues within the law.

[ndt]

if you believe Bush broke the law, then you are de-facto arguing for impeachment.

Totally untrue, congress has the discretion to ignore it or even OK the behavior after the fact by changing the law. Impeachment is an option, not a requirement.

if you believe that "US persons" dialing/receiving calls from certain foreign phone numbers linked to AQ merit warrants that were not obtained - then its no different then learning that Bush used wiretaps on purely domestic communications without warrants."

As the law is, there is no difference whether one party or both parties are U.S. Persons. Both conversations would require a warrant.

"so if we found out tomorrow (hypthetically) that Bush had ordered FBI wiretaps without warrants on Ronnie Earle's calls to the DNC, would that be an impeachable offense?"

Absolutely, and being a case of purely political wiretapping, I would fully support an impeachment and even criminal prosecution in that specific hypothetical. Please tell me that you do not support unlimited wiretapping powers for political gain.

[ndt]

"And if their integrity is compromised?"

What do you mean by "integrity compromised"?

[oceanview]

this is starting to sound like the "perjury in a civil case about sex" approach.

[ndt]

"this is starting to sound like the "perjury in a civil case about sex" approach."

Can you expand that thought a bit.

[oceanview]

Clinton committed perjury, whether it was perjury in a civil case, or had it been perjury someplace else - its perjury.

are we now saying the Bush can violate the foreign wiretap laws (as you claim), but its "different" then violating other wiretap laws?

the reason the left is so "gung ho" about this issue is because they want to use it for impeachment, they know full well how these foreign intelligence matters have been handled in the past, what the NSA routinely does with all foreign traffic, etc. its not about the facts, the left simply wants to see some case get to the 9th circuit and obtain a politically motivated favorable ruling they can wave in the air as "Bush broke the law" to get the impeachment ball rolling. You will soon see (next week) a flood of cases entering the system challenging convictions/pleas that were based on evidence obtained via these wiretaps.

[ndt]

"Clinton committed perjury, whether it was perjury in a civil case, or had it been perjury someplace else - its perjury. "

Gotcha, I understand what you're saying now.

Assuming that both Clinton and Bush are both guilty for a second, then yes they are both crimes and both impeachable in the same way. Supporting one but not the other would depend on how seriously you viewed the crime (good reason) or pure politics (bad reason).

[pepsionice]

From the Review Court...these are all Ronald Reagan's appointees...and most of the main court members have been appointed in the past five years. What they represent...is mostly the Republican view of a judge...that they observe the constitution and not make new laws out of thin air. And it would appear that they stayed true to their word. I'm betting that the administration used highly classified information to point toward to the targets of the surveillance, and they refused to fully brief the members of FISA as to the complete picture...they simply demanded an approved and stamped document...and the court shook their head in disbelief at the limited information provided. The term "trust us"...probably was used a number of times.

What happens in January....based on various blogs around the internet...is a meeting where the court will meet and possibly determine that they have no ability to control or administer the laws of the country...and they may all step down. A very drastic step and probably would guarantee senate hearings that really drag down this president.

The president really needs to step up to the plate and ensure that this relationship with the FISA court is reestablished and they work with them...otherwise, I see 2006 as a very dark year for the administration and virtually no escape from lengthly senate affair. You can talk about freedom and security all you want...but they only exist because of our dedication to the constitution over 200 years. I will stand by Ronald Reagan's ideals...they are even more worthly today than they were in 1985...we don't need courts inventing laws out of thin air, and we don't need administrations dissolving laws into thin air.

[sinkspur]

The president really needs to step up to the plate and ensure that this relationship with the FISA court is reestablished and they work with them...otherwise, I see 2006 as a very dark year for the administration and virtually no escape from lengthly senate affair.

You need to read "FISA vs. The Constitution" in the WSJ opinionjournal.com. It lays out the argument cogently that the FISA court cannot trump the President's executive authority to protect the country that is inherent in his office.

Let 'em quit. From all appearances, they were obstructing the NSA anyway.

[oceanview]

work with them to accomplish what? to allow the FISA judges to decide for themselves what the NSA's mechanism for handling foreign communications should be?

[oceanview]

if we cannot check the judiciary on these matters - then where can we check them? if we can't elect an executive, accountable to us through the vote, to conduct matters involving war and foreign powers, what powers do we want our elected executive to have? do we have to cede these powers to the courts as the final arbiters too?

[pepsionice]

If FISA is null and void...then any "unstamped" surveillance document is worthless when the FBI actually arrests an American citizen. The court handling the situation will toss out the charges. So the only thing that this adminstration can do with US citizens charged in this case...is hold them...hold them for as long as they want...because they can never enter a courtroom to defend themselves. Whether it be in a military jail or some special facility in Virginia...it doesn't matter...you can't take the individual into any court and process charges on them...because the court will immedately demand the court-approved surveillance paperwork.

Can you see where this goes? If you are the arrested individual...your constitutional rights go out the front door on arrest day. And the funny thing is that Jefferson and the Philly gang...in all of their wisdom in writing the significant parts of the constitution...never wrote an exemption to the constitution. They never said the president has the power to bypass and "white-out" portions that don't fit the situation. Perhaps there was a reason for that logic...hint: the Brits and their method of government in the new world...did as they please, and citizens were left with no protection. I truely believe in the war on terror...it has to be fought. But I also believe that we can fight it and win...by doing things the right way, and not maneuvering in the shadows and dumping laws when we think they are supporting our mission.

[oceanview]

"limited information" you claim? the information provided, from what we know about this, was likely quite straightforward:

"we want to wiretap anyone calling from or calling into these X hundred phone numbers obtained from laptops and cellphones captured from terrorists, as well as other communications traces".

imagine you are a FISA judge and the executive comes to you with that simple one sentence request - do you grant or deny it?

let's say you deny it. what the hell do you expect the executive to do next?

[sinkspur]

...you can't take the individual into any court and process charges on them...because the court will immedately demand the court-approved surveillance paperwork.

Uh, the court demands a warrant and probable cause for arrest. This is the first I've heard that any kind of paperwork is demanded for surveillance.

You've got your facts wrong. Besides, you are confusing law enforcement actions with actions during a time of war.

[oceanview]

these agents of foreign powers shouldn't be getting US civilian trials - they should be getting military tribunals, or perhaps special non-jury trials in the FISA court. that's where you argument falls apart regarding "everbody's rights being thrown away" because of these foreign intercepts being handled without warrants.

[Dolphy]

It's sort of like asking what's the harm of violating the humans rights of innocent people.

It's nothing of the sort. If the stated purpose is the electronic surveillance of al Qaeda operatives what is the consequence of getting that wrong (as in intruding on an innocent conversation)?

If you have to ask the question then you need to look at your value system.

Certainly you have more confidence in your position than to resort to this, don't you?

[doug from upland]

If this president does not intercept transmissions from al Qaeda associated groups to people in this country, I want him impeached. This is what a commander in chief does.

[ndt]

"This is the first I've heard that any kind of paperwork is demanded for surveillance."

That is what FISA warrants are.

"Besides, you are confusing law enforcement actions with actions during a time of war."

Declaring war is a power of congress and therefore Presidential discretion to wage war can be limited by congress. A limitation to presidential discretion is specifically applied by Congress in the FISA clause baring anyone to attempt to avoid it.

[ndt]

"If this president does not intercept transmissions from al Qaeda associated groups to people in this country, I want him impeached. This is what a commander in chief does."

I have not seen anyone argue that they should not intercept these communications, only that it be done within the bounds of the law.

[Cboldt]

What happens in January....based on various blogs around the internet...is a meeting where the court will meet and possibly determine that they have no ability to control or administer the laws of the country...and they may all step down.

Pure speculation, but as you note, that sort of event would elevate the discussion relating to the 4th amendment in general (rather than the current debate that boils down to "terrorists have no 4th amendment") into public consciousness.

I doubt the FISA panel will resign its FISA assignment though.