Bush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them (FISA Court denied them in unprecedented numbers)

UPI ^ | Dec. 27, 2005 | UPI

[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.

[Mo1]

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.

What exactly is meant by "modified"??

The Court changed the application or the rules??

And if so .. are they allowed to change or amend them??

[ContemptofCourt]

Because going around the court when it denied your requests isn't exactly a stirring defense. Regardless of how justified it may have been. We always must remember that it's Bush today, Hillary tomorrow.

I miss the days of a Clinton presidency, when FReepers challenged the extent of executive power.

Unfortunately, it is going to take a Hillary Clinton for some FReepers to snap out of it and start bemoaning this nonsense.

[CondorFlight]

I'm sure the MSM and the leftist bureaucracy in Washington (which includes the CIA) will be trying full bore to get an impeachment out of this.
That's where their focus is--getting rid of Bush and getting a demo in the White House in 2008.
No matter that we are at war, and may suffer the greatest damage our country has ever suffered in war, or that the threat is greater than it has ever been. . .

[Howlin]

Members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review

>>> Created in 1978 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is a star chamber that secretly issues warrants for US agencies to electronically surveil or physically search parties thought to be engaged in terrorism. The court operates in complete secrecy. We don't even know the identities of the eleven judges who make up the FISC. The only publicly-available information it releases is the number of warrants it grants per year. To date it has received over 13,000 requests, and it has granted every single one of them.

In a recent, unprecedented action, the Court declared that the "Justice Department's plan to allow prosecutors to become involved in intelligence investigations goes too far" [CNN]. (It also revealed that the FBI has lied to it in 75 cases.) Ashcroft has appealed this stinging rebuke, thereby invoking the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which--as you might guess--reviews the decisions of the FISC. The Review Court has never met before now, since no agency or department has had reason to object to the Court's rubberstamping ways.

Although the judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court are a mystery, the three judges who comprise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review have been revealed. In the San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko lists them:

"--Presiding Judge Ralph Guy. A semi-retired judge on the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, to which he was appointed in 1983, he turned 73 on Friday.

--Judge Edward Leavy. Also 73, he is a semi-retired judge on the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, appointed in 1987.

--Judge Laurence Silberman. At 66, he is a semi-retired judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, appointed in 1985."

Egelko also writes:

"The three judges are all Republicans, named to the bench by President Ronald Reagan and appointed to seven-year terms on the special review court by Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist....

Guy, a former federal prosecutor, and Leavy have reputations as moderate conservatives. The outspoken Silberman is a conservative along the lines of Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, his longtime friends."

[WatchYourself]

Brilliant! They allowed everything before 9/11 and started stopping them after. Let's up more of these Fisa judges "quit in protest"

[Recovering_Democrat]

I agree the President didn't need the FISA judges' permission--he tried to play ball with them, and since they denied it, SCREW 'EM.

[Pragmatic_View]

And in between, a US city or two get nuked.

There was NO FISA court until the 70-s, are you claiming that all previous presidents ignored the Constitution?

Not to mention that Bush DOES have the presidential authority to do what he did.

We are at war and he has powers to do what is necessary to protect us.

[JimSEA]

Of course now the question becomes WHY were 179 requests modified and six rejected. The left will claim the Bush Administration was violating peoples civil rights and Bush will not be able to effectively refute the charge without releasing sensitive information. I fear that the judge who resigned will have something to say and the Administration, for good reason, will not. Lacking loyalty or concern for the people who would be targeted for terrorist attack, as the left does, gives them an advantage in the public debate.

[Howlin]

Appeals panel rejects secret court's limits on terrorist wiretaps

From Terry Frieden

CNN
Tuesday, November 19, 2002 Posted: 1:24 AM EST (0624 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States has broad authority to use wiretaps and other surveillance techniques to hunt for suspected terrorists, a federal appeals court panel ruled Monday.

In a 56-page opinion overturning a May decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the three-judge panel said the expanded wiretap guidelines sought by Attorney General John Ashcroft under the new USA Patriot Act law do not violate the Constitution. (More on the USA Patriot Act)

The ruling by the special panel from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia gives broad surveillance authority to counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism investigators to track individuals considered potential national security threats.

"Our case may well involve the most serious threat our country faces," the panel declared.

The reversal of May's decision by a federal judge represents a victory for the Justice Department and the FBI, which were harshly criticized by the lower court judge for its handling of wiretap applications, and their interpretation of the authority granted the government by the USA Patriot Act.


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/18/spy.court.ruling/

[Dog]

What exactly is meant by "modified"??

Bush asked the court to do X...they court ordered him to do Y.....understand?

[txhurl]

Happy late b-day to you and me, and here comes S. Hannity, K. Rove's and R. Limbaugh's b-days. Caps rule!

[Howlin]

Table I. FISA Surveillance and Physical Search Orders 1979-1997<8>

 

1979	1980	1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
199	319	431	473	549	635	587	573	512	534
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997
546	595	593	484	509	576	697	839	749

[Dog]

Howlin who was the Judge that was reversed??

[H. Paul Pressler IV]

I recall reading about FDR's plan to pack the Supreme Court but Clinton was able to pack the FISA Court with ACLU types without anyone noticing.

[airborne]

Why didn't Bush say this when he was justifying his actions?

If the Dems want to hang themselves, let them have all the rope they want!

The 2006 elections will be interesting, with plenty of ammo for those Republicans not afraid to fire back!

[Howlin]

I'm not having ANY MORE birthdays! :-)

[Ben Mugged]

FISA Court members are appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, not the President. Can't blame Clinton for this one. (I'll now go puke for defending BJ).

[Howlin]

I do not know, Dog.

[peyton randolph]

When people bring up the Contstitution, that's a red herring. The entire wiretapping was unrestricted until 26 years ago, when Congress made a law and created FISA

No, it is not. To the extent that Congressional legislation interferes with the executive branch's national defense powers under the Constitution, the legislation must give way to the Constitution.

It is not the President's responsibility to demand repeal of the statute. Congress has enacted unconstitutional restrictions on the President's power. They can voluntarily repeal it, try to enforce it in court, complain and do nothing (like now), or complain and prepare articles of impeachment. As noted on prior threads, every President, from Carter to the present, has engaged in similar activity under the President's constitutional authority to do so.