Posted on 02/08/2006 8:14:28 PM PST by frankjr
Twice in the past four years, a top Justice Department lawyer warned the presiding judge of a secret surveillance court that information overheard in President Bush's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to obtain wiretap warrants in the court, according to two sources with knowledge of those events.
The revelations infuriated U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly -- who, like her predecessor, Royce C. Lamberth, had expressed serious doubts about whether the warrantless monitoring of phone calls and e-mails ordered by Bush was legal. Both judges had insisted that no information obtained this way be used to gain warrants from their court, according to government sources, and both had been assured by administration officials it would never happen.
The two heads of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court were the only judges in the country briefed by the administration on Bush's program. The president's secret order, issued sometime after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, allows the National Security Agency to monitor telephone calls and e-mails between people in the United States and contacts overseas.
Yet another problem in a 2005 warrant application prompted Kollar-Kotelly to issue a stern order to government lawyers to create a better firewall or face more difficulty obtaining warrants.
The two judges' discomfort with the NSA spying program was previously known. But this new account reveals the depth of their doubts about its legality and their behind-the-scenes efforts to protect the court from what they considered potentially tainted evidence. The new accounts also show the degree to which Baker, a top intelligence expert at Justice, shared their reservations and aided the judges.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
And looks who's complaining, James A. Baker.
this is exactly why the 9-11 commission, apparently one of the few issues they got right, identified the FISA court as a major problem. this court wants to make the constitution a suicide pact, wants to make it impossible to do any pro-active law enforcement regading terrorism. all courts are essentially "after the crime" institutions - designed to deal with issues that occur AFTER a crime is commited. with terrorism, the people want it stopped before it happens, and the judicial system is not structured to support that.
They had the program shut down????
You just nailed it. This would be funny if it were not so utterly stupid and dangerous. I am beginning to think every FISA court act should be proceeded by the judges being required to watch 45 minutes of video of Americans jump burning to their death from the Twin Towers or listening to a tape of the cell phone calls from the planes. Maybe THAT would wake them up to the fact this is NOT some Law School role playing game in Judaical purity being played out here.
I'm trying to discern which way Royce Lamberth was leaning. I always liked him.
at least this article is telling us something we had wondered - the chief judge is actually acknowledging that this court was making it harder to obtain warrants.
"...prompted Kollar-Kotelly to issue a stern order to government lawyers to create a better firewall or face more difficulty obtaining warrants"
But now, a few judges are whining because we are wiretapping terrorists? Hey, here's an idea. The WH just doesn't bother to go to the FISA court for any reason in the future. That would solve everybodies problem. The judges don't want 'tainted' evidence in FISA application and the WH doesn't want to have to submit to FISA for every freaking thing it does. Sounds like an easy solution is just to skip FISA unless we are working on a criminal case and the evidence needs to be admissible.
You're a spiker, aren't you? Does anybody post comments like that for real? Best laugh I had all day!
why Rehnquist selected her, I have no idea. he slipped up, bigtime.
I don't know what to say anymore. They're gonna get us killed. I want to call the Justice tomorrow and scream STOP THE LEAKS!
If FISA doesn't allow for constitutional authorities, like article 2, then FISA becomes unconstitutional because they can't trump the constitution without a congressionally passed amendment. It appears that Gonzales was right about FISA being limited in authorities.
Goofball! I checked my mail first and thought WTF? LOL!!
Our enemy within. Damn them.
They only engage in this activity, because there are no consequences for doing so. Executing a few guilty US Senators would reduce the number of leaks most significantly.
That sums it up
Let thousands be killed ... because terrorists have civil rights and the courts are going to protect them
Hold your horsies! I corrected my error!
What an activist --tch:
The coming crackdown on blogging
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.