Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Mo1

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/


30 posted on 12/27/2005 11:01:55 AM PST by Howlin (Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. - GWB, 12/18/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Mo1
What exactly is meant by "modified"??

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

31 posted on 12/27/2005 11:02:32 AM PST by Dog ( ABMcM(Anybody but McCain....except Bill Frist))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Mo1

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

 


33 posted on 12/27/2005 11:03:36 AM PST by Howlin (Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. - GWB, 12/18/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Mo1

I didn't know they could modify the warrants and don't know how it is they can do it.

And this:

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.

So FISA rejected more applications during the Bush administration than in the previous 4 administrations (24 years).

And in view of 9/11, this tells me EVERYTHING I need to know about the court.


78 posted on 12/27/2005 11:22:27 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Mo1; NormsRevenge; Grampa Dave; SierraWasp; Marine_Uncle; Brad's Gramma; A CA Guy; Coop; ...

Thanks for the ping....lots to chew on with this thread....


143 posted on 12/27/2005 11:51:44 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Mo1
The way I look at it, the Judicial branch overreached into the Legislative branch's jurisdiction of power. Instead of interpreting the laws and rules of this country, they modified some or perhaps even created new ones.

Clearly a sign of an out of control judiciary.

365 posted on 12/27/2005 6:46:20 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper ("Tucker Carlson could reveal himself as a castrated, lesbian, rodeo clown ...wouldn't surprise me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson