Posted on 12/21/2005 7:38:50 AM PST by Carl/NewsMax
The press is breathlessly reporting that U.S. District Judge James Robertson has resigned from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - "apparently" in a fit of conscience over news that President Bush was using the National Security Agency to monitor the telephone conversations of terrorists.
If the reports are correct, Judge Robertson's conscience has evolved considerably since the days when he was dismissing one criminal case after another against cronies of Bill Clinton - the man who appointed him to the bench in 1994.
Old Arkansas media hand Paul Greenberg has long had Robertson's number. In a 1999 column for Jewish World Review, Greenberg described the honorable judge as "one of the more prejudiced Clintonoids on the bench."
As Accuracy in Media noted in 2000, Judge Roberston's conscience wasn't particularly troubled by the crimes committed by one-time Clinton Deputy Attorney General Webb Hubbell.
In two cases involving Hubbell, AIM reported, "Judge James Robertson threw out a tax charge and another for lying to federal investigators. Appellate courts overruled in both cases, and Hubbell then plead guilty to felonies in each case."
Judge Robertson's conscience also seemed to go AWOL when it came to the case of Archie Schaffer, an executive with Tyson Chicken - the company that had showered Mr. Clinton with campaign contributions and helped steer Mrs. Clinton to her commodities market killing.
Critics said Judge Robertson was merely returning the favor on behalf of the man who appointed him, when - as CNN reported in 1998, he "threw out the jury conviction of Tyson Foods executive Archie Schaffer for providing gifts to former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy."
Robertson had "granted a motion by Schaffer to overturn the verdict which found him guilty of giving Espy tickets to President Bill Clinton's first inaugural dinner and gifts at a birthday party for the firm's chief executive, Don Tyson."
In the context of his past performance on the bench, Judge Robertson's media fans will surely understand why some of us aren't buying their claims that he stormed off the FISA court in a fit of outrage over perceived law breaking.
Looks like he was the last Clinton appointee, am I wrong?
Oh, you're right. I didn't factor that in.
It's a good question. I'm just not buying that he resigned out of "good conscience". This is a liberal we are talking about, and Clinton appointed one at that, and they don't have a history of doing things out of "good conscience".
Am I cynical? Damn right I am.
bttt
"Well, if the judge had a problem with this, why didn't he have a problem when Toon was doing it?"
Who is Toon?
"We don't know if any of those with contacts to Al Qaeda, developed through the surveillance of foreign targets, are U.S. Citizens, no one has actually said that any were, AFAIK. I doubt if any of the critics actually know one way or the other."
That is an excellent point. But it certainly sounded to me from the president's and Alberto Gonzales' statement that we are talking about U.S. citizens. I hope that you are right and that the president will say that no citizens were targets.
"Given the security environment our country is in right now, that is somewhat naive. By the time they'd effectively change the law, we might not have a country to worry about. Additionally, precedent has been set time and time again for the President to assume extraordinary powers during times of war."
What you say is true...but who ultimately does the country belong to? We were at war when the last abuses were done. The public knew this and still wanted the power of domestic spying without warrants taken away from the government and they got laws enacted to that effect.
If the President faces a new situation and decides to assume extraordinary power i can understand that. But this is case where the law was changed while we were finishing one hot war and still in a cold war specifically to prevent the President from doing this.
Thanks for that source. I'll look it up.
And BTW, I've assumed all along that this was going on... I just thought they limited it to non-citizens.
Ifing I was the MSM...I'd avoid talking about this guy as much as possible. Once you dig an inch into his 10-year career...you got funny issues that can't be explained very cleanly. Even the Sunday talk show hosts can't bring up the guy...because he has so much baggage attached to himself.
As Accuracy in Media noted in 2000, Judge Roberston's conscience wasn't particularly troubled by the crimes committed by one-time Clinton Deputy Attorney General Webb Hubbell.This "judge" is just a political hack. He should never be allowed near any national security issue.In two cases involving Hubbell, AIM reported, "Judge James Robertson threw out a tax charge and another for lying to federal investigators. Appellate courts overruled in both cases, and Hubbell then plead guilty to felonies in each case."
Good riddance.
"Jabara v. Webster (1984) and U.S. v. Troung, the NSA does have that power "
I've just read Jabara v. Webster and cannot find where wiretapping is involved at all. This is about mail and the Freedom of information act as far as I can see.
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1990/sg900940.txt
U.S. v. Troung seems to involve local law enforcement and methamphetamine manufacture not domestic spying
http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2005/10/04-5094.htm
Am I looking at the wrong cases or did you perhaps give the wrong cite?
"This "judge" is just a political hack. He should never be allowed near any national security issue.
Good riddance."
I hear people saying that but then why would Rhenquist have appointed him?
I don't recall us being at war when Clinton assumed the same extraordinary powers that President Bush is assuming. The main difference is that Bush is doing it to protect the people of this country. Clinton did things to protect Clinton.
The President IS facing a new situation, a new enemy who is ruthless and will stop at nothing to destroy this country. Why do Democrats insist on giving them the upper hand while they try to accomplish that? Why tie the hands of those that are supposed to protect us?
As a former Air Force OSI Special Agent duing the last 1970's and early 80's, we were repeatedly stopped from being able to gather intelligence on groups attempting to gain access to our nuclear weapons facilities in Montana. Know why?? They were US citizens. We were restricted from being able to gather information about their activities. How many degress of separation do you think it takes to go from a violent group hostile to the US and actual US citizens. One. Let's not give them any more help than we have to by restricting our military and law enforcement agencies.
"I don't recall us being at war when Clinton assumed the same extraordinary powers that President Bush is assuming. The main difference is that Bush is doing it to protect the people of this country. Clinton did things to protect Clinton.
The President IS facing a new situation, a new enemy who is ruthless and will stop at nothing to destroy this country. Why do Democrats insist on giving them the upper hand while they try to accomplish that? Why tie the hands of those that are supposed to protect us?"
If Clinton did this it was wrong too. Is there source for that? the way i remember it was that he said he had to right to do but lost the ruling. I don't remember any evidence that he went ahead with domestic spying in citizens.
So what did y'all do when somebody tried to break in, call the FBI?
And yes it's a new enemy but the war in Iraq is not bigger than Vietnam and Al Quaida is not any more threatening than the Soviet union. But even if this is new and threatening then we need to get the law changed... THAT would be the proper response.
No. He only removed himself from the FISA court, not from his lifetime appointment.
This case you cite is a brief filed on behalf of one Todd Patterson in Patterson v. FBI, not Jabara v. Webster. It is not a ruling by a court, nor is it case law.
http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2005/10/04-5094.htm
Yes that is the wrong case, the one in reference was filed prior to 2002, in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, not the Tenth. I will try and dig up the actual case as I have only read briefs, not the actual case. My Bad - though from what I see from other legal pundits the position taken that these rulings support the NSA's postion seems very solid.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/092502sup.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_hr/103003yoo.pdf
I knew I had heard that name before...
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.