Posted on 02/10/2006 4:21:58 AM PST by yoe
We'd like to thank the Washington Post for publishing a story yesterday that so quickly proved our editorial point of the same day about the folly of putting judges in control of national security decisions. That's what we call service.
The front-page story reported that on rare occasion the Bush Administration has used information from the NSA's warrantless foreign-linked wiretaps to seek domestic wiretapping authority from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This was said to have upset chief FISA judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, and the tenor of the story is that this is one more example of how the warrantless wiretaps are an abuse of power. But the better question is, Who elected Ms. Kollar-Kotelly?
[snip] In any event, why is an unelected judge such as Ms. Kollar-Kotelly making these decisions? Under the Constitution, those calls ought to be made by the President, who swears to defend the U.S. and can be held accountable by the voters if he fails. Under the current FISA court process, Judge Kollar-Kotelly answers essentially to no one.
[snip] GOP Senator Arlen Specter is saying he wants to write legislation putting even more power in the hands of FISA judges. This isn't merely unconstitutional. As the Post story shows, in a world of WMD and fast-moving transnational terrorists, it's dangerous.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Great article. No thanks again to the powers that be that came here to PA and campaigned relentlessly for specter.
We all know about Senator Spectre. POS.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly was appointed to the United States District Court in May 1997.
A Clinton appointee. Now everything makes sense.
US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly rules on a lawsuit filed by three Kuwaiti detainees at Guantanamo: Mohammed Ahmed al-Kandari, Khalid Abdullah Mishal al-Mutairi, and Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad al-Odah. She rules that detainees should be permitted to communicate with their lawyers without the government listening in on their conversations. She says the government's attempt to wire-tap detainee-attorney communications threatens to “erode [the] bedrock principle” of attorney-client privilege. She says the government is defending its position with “a flimsy assemblage” of arguments. “The government has supplied only the most slender legal support for its argument, which cannot withstand the weight of the authority surrounding the importance of the attorney-client privilege.” [Reuters, 10/20/2004] The three Kuwaitis, Judge Kollar states, “have been detained virtually incommunicado for nearly three years without being charged with any crime. To say that their ability to investigate the circumstances surrounding their capture and detention is ‘seriously impaired’ is an understatement.” [Associated Press, 10/21/2004]
It's beginning to sound like the reason the FISA suddenly began to deny requested wiretaps under Bush, after 30 years and only one or two denials to other Presidents, is that the Clinton appointees did not want to cooperate with Bush in the War on Terror.
Politics in the Judiciary ???
No Way (BARF)
This is one more outrageous example of the short sighted thinking of our elected representatives and senators.
It was bad enough that judges throw out evidence in a trial, but when they throw out everything that could find terrorists because the rules weren't followed, we need to revolt and throw out anyone who holds such stupid ideas.
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.