Posted on 03/15/2006 6:52:15 AM PST by oldtimer2
It's legal
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 ...
Could it be because the Court's ruling was and is classified?
Should have read farther into the thread. Always a danger that not doing so will make you look like an idiot. Most of the ruling was not classified, only a brief section apparently containing the specifics of the case at hand.
At first I thought maybe it didn't come out until the Supreme Court had denied cert on the case, but I found that occurred in early 2003, so that's not the reason it took so long to show up either.
The case did show up on the ACLU's website in march of 2003 when the Supreme Court refused to hear their appeal of the case. Thus the only explanation for most of us not to have heard of it, is the same reason we hear about a civil war in Iraq that folks on the ground can't find. The media wants it that way. IOW, it was suppressed, by conspiracy, or just by common interest and motivations. Which doesn't matter much.
Marking.
Hi SmartA, 3 days of company gone and my 'hosted' Club session is over. I'm FREE again, lol. Had a good time thought.
Yes, you're right, they upheld the Constitution. My point was mainly on the settlement of the issue. :) SFF
bump for later
Ayah, free again....
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.