Skip to comments.It’s Legal: The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program
Posted on 03/15/2006 6:52:15 AM PST by oldtimer2
In early September 2002, just before the first anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, a group of lawyers gathered in a heavily protected, windowless room in the Department of Justice building in Washington. There were three federal appeals-court judges, Laurence Silberman, Edward Leavy, and Ralph Guy. There was Theodore Olson, the U.S. solicitor general. There was Larry Thompson, the deputy attorney general. And there was John Yoo, the Justice official who had closely studied questions of war powers and presidential authority.
The purpose of the meeting was to argue a case whose details remain so classified that they are known by only a few people, but whose outcome, a decision known as In re: Sealed Case, has become one of the key documents in the hottest argument in Washington today: the fight over what President Bush calls the "terrorist surveillance" of persons with known al-Qaeda connections, and what the president's opponents call "domestic spying.
The entire session lasted just a few hours, and the Justice Department waited for the Court of Review's ruling. When it came, in November 2002, it was a slam-dunk win for the government.
In its opinion, the Court of Review said the FISA Court had, in effect, attempted to unilaterally impose the old 1995 rules. "In doing so, the FISA Court erred," the ruling read.
After the decision was handed down, the American Civil Liberties Union, which had submitted a brief in support of the FISA Court's actions restricting the administration, asked the Supreme Court to review In re: Sealed Case. The justices declined to take any action. That is not the same as the Court's upholding the ruling, but it does mean that the justices looked at the decision and chose not to intervene
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
And yet, another brick in the DNC wall of lies, falls to the ground, smashed into dust...
LIBS: "What's a Constitution?"
I think the FISA court is an usurpation of presidental powers and should be abolished. It was created by a stacked democrat Congress that was trying to abolish our intelligence community. And it seems they are still working at that by trying to dictate and manipulate the law to suit THEIR agenda. And at least one of them seems to stay in close contact with the ACLU.
Since when did DemocRATS care what the law actually says?
A great takedown of the "unconstitutional" argument & the FISA dilettantes.
Of course, we won't hear about any of this because Russ Feingold and NBC and ABC and CBS and MSNBC and National Public Radio and CNN don't have access to National Review.
Well, either that or they don't care about the facts.
The answer is they don't care about facts.
I agree. :)
Someone send this to Judge Napalitano.
Excellent find. I wonder why it took so long for this to show up.
WOW...thanks for the ping...
To Arlen Specter too
From Terry Frieden
WASHINGTON (CNN) --The United States has broad authority to use wiretaps and other surveillance techniques to hunt for suspected terrorists, a federal appeals court panel ruled Monday.
In a 56-page opinion overturning a May decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the three-judge panel said the expanded wiretap guidelines sought by Attorney General John Ashcroft under the new USA Patriot Act law do not violate the Constitution. (More on the USA Patriot Act)
The ruling by the special panel from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia gives broad surveillance authority to counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism investigators to track individuals considered potential national security threats.
"Our case may well involve the most serious threat our country faces," the panel declared.
The reversal of May's decision by a federal judge represents a victory for the Justice Department and the FBI, which were harshly criticized by the lower court judge for its handling of wiretap applications, and their interpretation of the authority granted the government by the USA Patriot Act.
It didn't. It showed up long ago. It's just "registering" again, fresh.
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.