FISA JUDGES SAY BUSH WITHIN THE LAW (Why Has the MSM Ignored This Story?)

The Washington Times ^ | 03/29/06 | Brian DeBose

[MikeA]

Hey Dems, impeach this! Even the FISA court's judges, to say nothing of their prior rulings, say that Bush was within the law, the constitution and his powers as president in wiretapping your Al Qaeda friends. It's too bad though really. Nutcase Democrats impeaching Bush over doing due dilligence in keeping tabs on Al Qaeda threats within our borders would have paid political dividends to the GOP for a decade. GOP candidates wouldn't even have had to campaign, they'd have just won!

Amazing the exhoneration of Bush has gotten ZERO attention from the MSM, although I hear the treasonous New York Slimes tried to spin this testimony to somehow favor their anti-Bush line on wiretapping. These people are utterly shameless. And as always happens when they create a firestorm against a Republican, the lapdog news media has totally underplayed the mitigating testimony and information which undermines the overplayed initial story.

Well, now that we have that out of the way and Bush has been cleared of any cloud from this FISA wiretapping, we can now get on with the important business of having the FBI frog march the editors of the New York Slimes out of their offices for having revealed this top secret national security program all for the benefit of feeding their Bush hating psychosis.

[AliVeritas]

BTTT

[MNJohnnie]

Thanks for the post Mike!

[MNJohnnie]

See this?

[bcsco]

PING

[AliVeritas]

ping

[AliVeritas]

ping

[Galveston Grl]

**Why has the mainstream media ignored this story...**

Uh...could it be because they are the free propaganda wing of the Democrat Party? Ya think?

[AD from SpringBay]

Bump - another one I wouldn't have heard if it weren't for FreeRepublic.

[AngryJawa]

Why Has the MSM Ignored This Story?

You're a funny guy, Mike. HI-lariuus.

[L98Fiero]

Ditto.

[Cboldt]

The judges, however, said Mr. Bush's choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril," because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security.

Pretty much the thrust of my comments on the subject. The surveillance may well be within Constitutional parmeters, even if outside the structure of FISA, but there is no way to tell except on a case by case basis, as the cases come into the courts.

One of my concerns is bad guys getting off because of a violation of the 4th amendment.

[ErnBatavia]

ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security.

He'd have a helluva lot more to answer to had he NOT authorized these activities...and the 'Rats and media damn well know it.

[rightwingintelligentsia]

Did Arlen Specter find their testimony "preposterous?"

[bpjam]

OH! OH! OH! OH! OH! Pick me!! Pick me !!! I have an answer to the question.

The MSM ignored this story because ............................................... ........................................................it wasn't leaked to them by Karl Rove.

[P-40]

One of my concerns is bad guys getting off because of a violation of the 4th amendment.

I'm sure that the defense attorneys will use that reasoning, as they should, but I just don't see it going anywhere post-Patriot Act.

[Stark_GOP]

"The panel of judges unanimously agreed that the law should have been changed before now to deal with new threats from terrorists and new communications technologies, a point made by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat."
---
Hummm....
Sen. Feinstein, aren't you one of them responsible for making new laws?
The President had to act unilaterally because Congress has dropped the ball.

[HardStarboard]

>>>**Why has the mainstream media ignored this story...** <<<

Ahhh....their spell checker is hung?

[Cboldt]

Same hearings, different set of reports ...

March 28, 2006 - Joshua Pantesco at 8:11 PM ET
Federal judges support Specter surveillance supervision bill at hearing

[JURIST] Five federal judges appearing Tuesday before the US Senate Judiciary Committee expressed approval of committee chairman Arlen Specter's proposal [JURIST report] to require the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret panel established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [text], to conduct regular reviews of the National Security Administration's warrantless surveillance program [JURIST news archive]. The judges,all familiar with the FISA court, said they were unfamiliar with the latest NSA program, but insisted that the court has struck the correct balance between civil liberties and national security concerns since its establishment and would continue to do so. Specter's proposed bill would also require the NSA to obtain a judicial warrant under FISA before conducting any domestic surveillance.

A group of Republican Senators led by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) have introduced a competing bill [JURIST report; PDF text] that would permit warrantless wiretapping for 45 days before court approval is required. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has also introduced a resolution to censure President Bush [JURIST report] over the program, which will be the focus of Judiciary Committee hearing [JURIST report] Friday. Read Judiciary Committee Ranking Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy's statement at today's hearing. AP has more.

I haven't checked the Judiciary Committee website today to see if they have posted any transcripts, either of statements or of yesterday's Q&A.

See also Byron York's "Arlen Specter and the White House's 'Preposterous' Defense", discussed briefly at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1604901/posts.

[george wythe]

The media make me sick. They will never report this story as prominantly as they did with the story by a FISA judge who resigned the panel.