Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-54 next last
To: Pragmatic_View
To: Pragmatic_View
Hmmmm......Clinton appointees? Carter appointees? Why would judges reject so many more requests *after* 9/11?
To: Pragmatic_View
Why didn't Bush say this when he was justifying his actions? He seems to have no interest in defending himself.
4 posted on
12/27/2005 10:51:54 AM PST by
speedy
To: Pragmatic_View
It would be interesting to know how many on the FISA court are Clinton placements.
5 posted on
12/27/2005 10:52:03 AM PST by
Clara Lou
(A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. --I. Kristol)
To: Pragmatic_View
Oh, but there's no bias or hatred towards GWB. None whatsoever!
Wonder if this will make the front page of NYT's? NOT.
6 posted on
12/27/2005 10:52:14 AM PST by
jw777
To: Pragmatic_View
As they say, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. If the leftists want to commit suicide by jihad, I urge them to buy one-way tickets to Iran.
9 posted on
12/27/2005 10:52:41 AM PST by
peyton randolph
(<a href="http://clinton.senate.gov/">shrew</a>)
To: Pragmatic_View
10 posted on
12/27/2005 10:52:46 AM PST by
My2Cents
(Dead people voting is the closest the Democrats come to believing in eternal life.)
To: Pragmatic_View
No wonder Bush used his Constitutional Authorities rather than the FISA Courts. Any President in their right minds would have done the same thing and skip this sham court.
12 posted on
12/27/2005 10:54:19 AM PST by
Wasanother
(Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
To: Pragmatic_View
U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate. Great grounds for impeachment.
15 posted on
12/27/2005 10:56:35 AM PST by
GingisK
To: Pragmatic_View
Something steenks at Justice??
16 posted on
12/27/2005 10:56:44 AM PST by
xcamel
(a system poltergeist stole it.)
To: Pragmatic_View
Bush needs to protect us. Are the courts going to take responsibility for the next attack? NO, just like they take no responsibility for letting rapists and child molesters walk the streets to attack us again.
17 posted on
12/27/2005 10:57:15 AM PST by
tioga
(Happy New Year!)
To: Pragmatic_View; onyx; ohioWfan; Texasforever; BigSkyFreeper; Tamzee; mrs tiggywinkle; EllaMinnow; ..
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??
21 posted on
12/27/2005 10:58:36 AM PST by
Mo1
(Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
To: Pragmatic_View
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.
26 posted on
12/27/2005 11:00:11 AM PST by
Recovering_Democrat
(I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of Dependence on Government!)
To: Pragmatic_View
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.
28 posted on
12/27/2005 11:01:04 AM PST by
JimSEA
(America cannot have an exit strategy from the world.)
To: Pragmatic_View
So, 97% of the requests were approved as is, without modification. This is an "unprecedented" rate of rejection?
What's the number of annual requests that were approved, as compared with previous administrations?
To: Pragmatic_View
So, the President went through the proper channels on these wiretaps, and the court rebuffed him? Puts a new spin on things.
47 posted on
12/27/2005 11:07:24 AM PST by
rdb3
(This is a ch__ch. What's missing?)
To: Pragmatic_View
U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate. There is nothing in this story to support this statement other than the crack(pot) analysis of the modification of a small percentage of the warrant requests.
179 of the 5,645
I'm calling B.S. on this conclusion. Three percent of your warrant requests get modified and that is your motivation to not consult the FISA court? That's a pretty weak piece of evidence upon which to base a conclusion. How many of the wiretaps authorized were domestic only in nature? How many total wiretaps were conducted without a warrant from the court?
It could be possible that the warrants discussed in this article were all domestic and that the number of warrantless taps were a small percentage of the taps conducted. We will never know because that would derail this whole story.
This is a perfect example of a journalist taking one fact, building some unsupportable conclusions from it, and writing a story around those conclusions. The Jayson Blair School of Journalism.
I will cease ranting.
54 posted on
12/27/2005 11:10:07 AM PST by
USNBandit
(sarcasm engaged at all times)
To: Pragmatic_View
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark that the judge mostly responsible is no longer on the FISA court. And he might be afraid that we might just find out.
To: Pragmatic_View
Where was the outrage from the Left when Hillary Clinton was found in illegal possession of 500 FBI files?
63 posted on
12/27/2005 11:13:59 AM PST by
weegee
(Christmas - the holiday that dare not speak its name.)
To: Pragmatic_View
Thank goodness for America that FISA is not in charge of our national security, President Bush IS.
66 posted on
12/27/2005 11:17:15 AM PST by
goresalooza
(Nurses Rock!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-54 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson