Replies

One reason this case is not mentioned is that it has nothing to do with the NSA targeting communications to and from US issues which are in the news today.

1) The case referred to by PBS involved the Patriot Act, passed by Congress, which does not mention non-FISA Court approved NSA action. As Ashcroft noted in article "Today's ruling is an affirmation of the will of Congress, a vindication of the agents and prosecutors of the Department of Justice, and a victory for liberty, safety and the security of the American people." Congress has not expressly approved of NSA's taps. They DID pass the Patriot Act.

2) This case involved participating US DOJ prosecutors (who appear before FISA court). NSA targeting can apparently be approved by a supervisor in NSA. No FISA. No federal prosecutor involved, DOJ not even notified.

Whitehouse and AG recognize that the authority to control these NSA taps lies in Congress. That is why Whitehouse and AG are arguing that Congress approved NSA taps w/o either FISA or US District Court orders when it passed the use of force resolution.

IMHO Congress did not authorize the NSA taps, (just like they didn't authorize govt agents shooting people in the streets) when they authorized Pres to use all force necessary to defeat terrorism. FISA works fine, allows immediate taps by NSA. (Justice Rhenquist appointed the judges.) NSA shoulda used DOJ prosecutors and judges like Congress authorized.

This is NOT an Iraq war issue. This is NOT a terrorism issue. This IS a Constitutional issue.

What could be troubling is if US Courts are pissed enough at Whitehouse and NSA to start requiring Fed Prosecutors to establish that evid in terrorism prosecutions is not tainted by NSA taps. Whitehouse did DOJ no favors and did not assist terrorism prosecutions when it authorized these taps.
Which is why AG Ashcroft and AAG John Comey reportedly refused to sign off on these NSA taps.
Just One Man's Opinion.