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.
soon he will also tell you he has a "right" to open a bank account or get a post office box without providing identification.
This has the potential to backlash against the Dems and the MSM. It needs to be repeated LOUD AND OFTEN who Bush was wiretapping. TERRORISTS of course. It will be impossible to show where any law-abiding Americans rights were violated, because that is not what happened. Most people and sheeple can see this.
It doesn't matter to me who appointed the judges.
It matters that the judges are endangering our safety.
Why are judges above the law?
Why can't we investigate them to be sure they haven't been compromised?
I am so tired of hearing this word "oversight". courts have become the final arbiters in this system - they make law, one day you wake up and your right to protect your property from seizure for private purposes is gone because 5 judges on the SCOTUS say it is. any decisions made by men are arbitrary, and the federal courts have become highly politicized.
you want the FISA court to be the ultimate decision maker on what foreign intercepts can be done? are they accountable to anyone if they deny a warrant on a person who turns out to be a dirty bomber? I find it amazing that alot of people here want to give the ultimate power to the branch of government that is the most arbitrary, and the most unaccountable to the people.
good point, it what I was trying to say in #504. alot of people here believe the judiciary are like gods. they are not gods, they are men, making arbitrary decisions, which are highly politicized.
Looks like the Court of Review will have the final say.
Besides the American people, that is.
"soon he will also tell you he has a "right" to open a bank account or get a post office box without providing identification."
I have about 40 posts on this thread and still you choose to make stuff up rather that argue against what I have actually said.
there are plenty of impeachment threads over at DU for you to join. that seems to be where you want to go with this, so have at it.
the bank account and post office box issues were the general theme of the "I lost my rights" crowd on the Patriot Act threads from last week. if the shoe fits....
"there are plenty of impeachment threads over at DU for you to join. that seems to be where you want to go with this, so have at it."
So are you admitting that you are incapable of arguing facts and law and need to resort to sticking your head in the sand?
"the bank account and post office box issues were the general theme..."
Show me where I said anything regarding post offices or bank accounts on this or any other thread that. Lies are where you run when you have no argument.
as I said, it was the "general theme" of the "I lost my rights" crowd.
sure, let us know when the Kelo SCOTUS justices are impeached. or any of the ones on the 9th circuit who routinely invent new rights and ignore others, under the guise of "interpretation".
if you believe Bush broke the law, then you are de-facto arguing for impeachment. if you believe that "US persons" dialing/receiving calls from certain foreign phone numbers linked to AQ merit warrants that were not obtained - then its no different then learning that Bush used wiretaps on purely domestic communications without warrants. the crime of failing to obtain warrants would be the same in both cases (different statutes aside). so if we found out tomorrow (hypthetically) that Bush had ordered FBI wiretaps without warrants on Ronnie Earle's calls to the DNC, would that be an impeachable offense?
And if their integrity is compromised?
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.