All the proof I needed that Bush needs to use whatever means he can--without some black robed jackasses approval--came on September 11, 2001:
Posted on 01/05/2006 4:59:50 PM PST by smoothsailing
January 05, 2006, 3:59 p.m.
Now Judges Are Leaking
FISA judges discuss NSA surveillance with the Washington Post.
On Thursday morning, the Washington Post published an article ("Surveillance Court Is Seeking Answers — Judges Were Unaware of Eavesdropping") that is jaw-dropping in the matter-of-factness with which reports on an outrageous impropriety by at least two FISA court judges.
The backdrop is that of the eleven judges who sit on the special court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, only one, Chief Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, was briefed by administration officials about the NSA's warrantless eavesdropping program prior to its exposure last month by the New York Times. At least some of the other judges are upset about this. Consequently, the administration has evidently agreed to brief the full court next Monday.
The paragraph that will be stunning to litigators and honorable federal judges (who, fortunately, constitute the vast majority of the bench) is the following:
Some judges who spoke on the condition of anonymity yesterday said they want to know whether warrants they signed were tainted by the NSA program. Depending on the answers, the judges said they could demand some proof that wiretap applications were not improperly obtained. Defense attorneys could have a valid argument to suppress evidence against their clients, some judges said, if information about them was gained through warrantless eavesdropping that was not revealed to the defense.
This is eye-popping on several different levels.
First of all, judges speaking to the press regarding matters that may end up in litigation is always a major impropriety, regardless of what kind of matters are involved. Canon 3 of the federal Code of Judicial Conduct expressly admonishes: "A judge should avoid public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action, requiring similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control." This is so elementary to fairness and impartiality — the hallmarks of the judicial function — that it is almost surprising to find a rule about it.
But let's leave that aside for a second. These are the judges of the FISA court. Of the hundreds of federal judges in the United States, there are, as already noted, less than a dozen specially chosen for these weighty responsibilities. They are selected largely because they are thought to be of unquestionable rectitude, particularly when it comes to things like leaking to the press.
To find federal FISA court judges leaking to the Washington Post about an upcoming closed meeting with administration officials about the highest classified matters of national security in the middle of a war is simply shocking.
Even more mind-blowing, though, is to find them discussing what they see as the merits of the issue. Without having heard any facts or taken any submissions on the governing law — and in the cowardice of anonymity — here they are speculating for the media about what positions they might take depending on how the administration answers their questions. Here they are preliminarily weighing in on the validity of defense claims in cases where FISA evidence was introduced. This is an inexplicable judicial misconduct.
If a judge pulled a stunt like this in a run-of-the-mill criminal case, it would be grounds for his removal. To have FISA court judges doing it is astounding. The administration would be well within its rights to decline to provide the briefing the FISA court has asked for — at least until the judges who spoke anonymously to the press come forward and explain themselves (if there can be any explanation for this).
A major problem of the whole FISA enterprise is the questionable constitutionality (not to mention the wisdom) of Congress's delegating judges — who have no particular expertise by virtue of being judges — to exercise what are executive-branch national-security powers.
Regardless of what you think of FISA, though, judges who leak anonymously to the press on matters of this nature are unfit to sit on a national-security court.
— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200601051559.asp
disgusted ping
...*These*....*Frigging*....*Traitors!*...
They all need to get dead!
Presidential Order Time: To the Direct Action
Teams Boys & Girls...Roll Out! Save our country
from it's internal enemies!
Thanks for posting this thread and pinging me -
I heard Mark Levin with Andrew McCarthy earlier tonight
I also hear Mark play Lee Greenwood singin "God Bless The USA" afterwards
Mark Levin and his producer read Free Republic threads and your posts
Let Mark know how much you appreciate him
He is on 6pm-8pm M-F at WABC 770am NYC and nationally syndicated - Mark was in the Ronald Reagan DOJ
El Rushbo brought him to national prominence as his guest "F. Lee Levin"
As for David "Lord Haw-Haw" Letterman at CBS -
Recall all the times when Letterman has brought on US sailors on NYC shoreleave - and our Army. Air Force, and Marines - to help Davis's ratings by helping him do his "Top 10" routines?
"I support out troops - but why are you running down Cindy Sheehan?" - Letterman to O'Reilly
To do what David?
Give out food in New Orleans?
Build roads in Haiti?
Get ambushed in Somalia?
=
Letterman better keep up his running
I was a miler and sprinter too - and if I see him in NYC or CT I will run his butt down and teach him what "the troops" think of traitors
Suspend every one of the judges until the ones who leaked admit it. Prosecute them for violating their security clearances. Appoint replacements for the whole damn court in the mean time. Judges who understand the role the president plays in defending this country.
Unfortunately, Congress is a group of idiotic cretins more worried about reelection and their own personal power to ever really worry about the fate of the nation.
Somebody needs to go to jail over this flap so that the rest of them finally get the message that they are aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war.
wait....
Let's all face it, the left...whether they be politicians, journalists, garden variety radical assholes, or judges do not take seriously that there is a war on terror or a threat to the U.S. that is serious enough to put their politcal rant to the side. But, in keeping with their 24/7 politics will be the first to blame the Administration should we get hit again.
Is this sick, or what?
Time for the Senate to CONVICT those Judges!!
Agreed. But not just some party hack or staff flunky.It's needs to be many people, and some who are well known to the general public.
I wouldn't mind seeing Jay Rockefeller leading the march of the frogs.
"I wouldn't mind seeing Jay Rockefeller leading the march of the frogs."
Roger that! Jay has been playing awfully fast and loose in all of this, but I think there may be bigger fish involved. Time will tell. On the other hand, when was the last time that a sitting US Senator was indicted for something like this?
In the meantime, if the Rebublicans are smart, they will start acting like thay have at least one pair between them all and start holding some people accountable.
There is another possibility....the Washington Post is just making this up and they never talked to any judges.
What prevents them from just making up whatever lie they want and claiming it came from an "un-named source", thier "ethics" ????. I think it is just a little to convenient that every "unnamed source" tends to support whatever the Democratic Party talking point of the day is.
There is a precedent for this. I believe it was Abe Fortas that use to make late nite visits to the Whitehouse to "leak" to LBJ.
All the proof I needed that Bush needs to use whatever means he can--without some black robed jackasses approval--came on September 11, 2001:
Mark Levin is truly one of the good guys.
His Landmark Legal Foundation is fighting the good fight for conservative principles.
Clarke then spoke of when he first received "this extraordinary responsibilty". Despite how we might feel about his testimony in the 9-11 hearings, from this dissertation on the FISA site, you could tell from what he said that maintaining this "Secrecy" was uppermost in his mind in all his dealings and that he did not violate it at any time.
Not much.It would be a closer "precedent" if Abe Fortas was "leaking" to the Washington Post in an attempt to undermine national security and harm the Johnson administraton.
I agree, but once he does find out, I'd like to see some quick retribution. This is way out of control.
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.