Posted on 12/27/2005 10:47:23 AM PST by Pragmatic_View
WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate.
A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by Hearst newspapers shows the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four previous presidential administrations combined.
The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation.
But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.
But we better not debate so long, so as to paralize the nation and wake up to the smell of a nuke one morning.
Because the bush administration was quietly roasting his chestnuts on an open fire...
And notice the Appeals Court didn't agree with them.
I swear every President from now on will be impeached until it does not mean anything because people are calling on impeachment for every single issue. I know it might not be true, but it just seems to be the writing on the wall. It will get to the point where a person will be questioned as to why he/she was not impeached during their tenure as President.
This is a very slipperly slope that we are going down...and the ONLY reason the FReepers are behind it is because they feel that they can trust this administration.
I, on the other hand, tend to look at these issues with my Clintonista glasses on...and through those lenses, this troubles me....because some day, you and I are going to be labelled "terrorists"....
This is the case that the appeals court reversed in 2002.
Only if you're taking calls from Uncle Fizel in Kabul...
You nailed them, Howlin.
Looks like they've had over three years for their bitterness to roil.
From the looks of things they all were appointed by President Bush and not the democrats. Am I reading this right?
Haven't you read that previous administrations have done the exact same thing, without a word of complaint from the press?
Carter used NSA to spy on Iranians in contact with Americans. Clinton used NSA to spy on Americans, especially white supremists, after the Oklahoma City bombing.
So we've already slid down any slipper slope you're worried about.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec02/bkgdcourt_8-23.html
Just scanned the posts, not sure if this info helps the discussion or not.
And yet now we are cheering it on?
They were all appointed by Rehnquist. Someone posted some detailed info about the FISA court.
Rehnquist was probably trying to be "fair and balanced".
It's time for Republicans to stop trying to be "fair and balanced" and appoint those who share their philosophy. The Dems would never be caught appointing Republicans to anything.
You beat me to it. We are definitely of like minds! See my post to Howlin in #108.
From that link:
"PHILIP SHENON: The cases in which the court was clearly upset involved principally incident that happened during the Clinton Administration."
Was it an accidental typo that left off the "s" in the word incident?
If we chose a panel at random, the probability that you would get one of these rogue judges is 0.0545.
Multiply this by 3000 and you get 164 -- very close to the number of rejections in this era.
I am conjecturing that nearly all the modifications and rejections resulted from the same two judges being on the panel.
That was my first thought. Their collective memories are very short it appears.
I know you and I usually agree, but think of it this way: you're right about the slippery slope, but it's not caused by US, it was caused by 40 years of unchecked LIBERALISM in the government. Think of all the outrageous rulings giving criminals/crooks/terrorits/illegals more rights than we have!
I see these moves as rectifying years and years of liberals run amuck -- and I swear I don't think Bush would do anything or ask for any rule that would hurt the general public, even in another administration.
Think of it this way: if George Bush and Dick Cheney had been in charge, do you think the trial against the first WTC bombers would have been in a civil court? Do you think that a district attorney appointed by George Bush would have handed over the BLUEPRINTS to the World Trade Center to the defense in that case? Hell no, because it wouldn't have been in a civil courtroom!
Wonder how long it took the "defense" in that case to photocopy those blue prints and send them to Osama bin Laden (hell, that lawyer, Lynn what's her name that was convicted of passing messengers with her clients in that trial, probably hand delivered them to him!)
Using that logic, there may not BE any tomorrow.
Please, please, please STOP, people, from referring to a Hillary presidency as inevitable. It is NOT inevitable. In fact, it's a long shot, UNLESS people start accepting it as an inevitability.
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.