Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Secret Court Goes on Extra Duty
Fox News ^ | Friday, October 12, 2001 | By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

Posted on 10/12/2001 8:48:32 PM PDT by tomball

Edited on 04/22/2004 12:31:24 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: William Terrell
Please pardon me for being redundant, but can any one please tell me which "one" warrant application was denied?
There is this line:

Since its debut in 1978, the FISA court has denied only one of the roughly 10,000 warrant applications sought by the feds.

Then there's this:

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth, chief of the seven-member FISA court, would not agree to be interviewed, but has bristled at accusations that the court rubber-stamps federal warrants.

And Lamberth has often been critical of the government from his bench. He is said to have censured an FBI lawyer in March for one FISA warrant request, according to The Washington Post, a censure that set off a department-wide investigation into the way the FBI was requesting the warrants.

Was this the same "one" request as above?
21 posted on 10/13/2001 6:58:50 AM PDT by Stand_Up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Stand_Up
Was this the same "one" request as above?

If the writer did the proper research, it would have to be. Only one in 10,000 denied in 22 years, and the judge uses that one to "bristle" over rubberstamp accusations?

It implied to me that the judge knows this is wrong and thereby becomes a perpetrator of an evil.

22 posted on 10/13/2001 7:17:04 AM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sargon
I will simply not tolerate such an America

They would get bored to death listening in on me, besides it
will take up a lot of time. Ain't goin to happen.

23 posted on 10/13/2001 8:02:42 AM PDT by itsahoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CDHart
"Mr. Ashcroft is a disappointment."

I agree, but remember he works for and at the pleasure of
the President, who wants to move on.

24 posted on 10/13/2001 8:05:57 AM PDT by itsahoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tomball
There is precedent to draw on that argues against United States officials operating behind closed doors in matters such as these.

It's Britian's Official Secrets Act of 1911

In the months leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor, a young code officer (his job) working in the U.S. Embassy in London had collected several hundred documents, some exchanced between President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill (as head of the British Navy.

The U.S. Ambassador in those days was Joseph Kennedy (father to future President John Kennedy). The code officer, Tyler Gatewood Kent, worked for Kennedy. And to be sure, Kennedy had been appointed to his Ambassadorship by Franklin Roosevelt.

Kent, from his reading of the secret documents, believed that Roosevelt and Churchill were secretly working to bring the United States into the war waging in Europe. As it's reported, Kent took the classified papers with the notion of going to the American public to expose this sub rosa activity.

Kent was found out and arrested in London by Scotland Yard Detectives. The date was 20 May 1940. Roosevelt was running for his thrid term as President. In the next three days the UK made plans to deport Kent.

News that Roosevelt was working to bring the U.S. into an unpopular war would have been very damaging to Roosevelt's run for President. Joe Kennedy, unsolicited and unilaterally, waived Kent's diplomatic immunity as an American citizen.

With the full sanction of his own U.S. government, Kent became a political prisoner with no American rights. A man without a country.

Kent was tried in secret under the Official Secrets Act, convicted, and sentenced to a 7-year prison term.

Kent served just over 5 years of that term, and returned to the U.S. about the time investigations into Pearl Harbor were in session.


Putting aside for the moment the question of right or wrong regarding the withholding of documents, Kent should have been returned home for a public trial.


Source: Toland, J. (1983). Infamy; Pearl Harbor and it's aftermath.

From the folks at CAMI.

Citizens Against Military Injustice

25 posted on 10/13/2001 9:00:31 AM PDT by CAMI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
"Mr. Ashcroft is a disappointment."

I agree, but remember he works for and at the pleasure of the President, who wants to move on.

move on to what? unchallenged police state powers, and I was told that my vote for Harry Browne was a vote for gore! horse hockey, a vote for bush was a vote for gore, 9/11 is just the mechanism to push it faster then bush originally planned. the lessor of two evils my foot.

26 posted on 10/13/2001 9:33:27 AM PDT by IRtorqued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
The biggest shock of all , even more then this actually exists is the fact that so many Americans want to close their ears,eyes and turn off their brain to what is really going on.
Then one day they will be the loudest to complain and whine and ask when did this happen, how did this happen.........

And it will be too late.

27 posted on 10/13/2001 10:24:49 AM PDT by Snow Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Snow Bunny
Exactly CORRECT!
28 posted on 10/13/2001 10:34:42 AM PDT by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
Actually, President Bush has been a large disappointment as well.

Carolyn

29 posted on 10/14/2001 5:14:34 AM PDT by CDHart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: IRtorqued
the lessor of two evils my foot.

Absolutely no argument from me on that issue.

30 posted on 10/16/2001 2:17:20 PM PDT by itsahoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
The powers given to the government by the "terrorist-apprehension" act will remain long after Bush is gone. Other presidents (Gore, Daschle, Kerry, Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, Clinton, etc.) may decide that new terrorist groups should be targeted.

Exactly which of the powers available to the government under the new laws would have prevented the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center?

31 posted on 10/16/2001 2:29:33 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Snow Bunny
And it will be too late.

It probably already is.

32 posted on 10/16/2001 2:37:53 PM PDT by Jefferson Adams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jefferson Adams
You are right , I think it is too late too.
33 posted on 10/16/2001 4:29:49 PM PDT by Snow Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson