Here's another article that touches on it.
Not for commercial use. Solely to be used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion.
Washington Monthly
April 1, 2002
Lone-star justice: conservatives thought Clinton-bashing Judge Royce Lamberth was on their team--until he went after the bushies
Mencimer, Stephanie
(snip)
Last fall, Lamberth came under fire for sanctioning Justice Department lawyer Michael Resnick for failing to provide sufficient documentation for a wiretap application in the FISA court. The FISA court is a top-secret institution created in 1978 to oversee warrants for domestic wiretaps issued for national security reasons rather than criminal investigations. When the FBI wants to tap a phone, break into a house, hack into a computer, or bug the rooms of a suspected terrorist on American soil, it applies to the FISA court for a secret warrant.
A FISA court warrant does not require the same burden of proof that a search warrant in a criminal case does, which is one reason civil libertarians believe the FISA court is unconstitutional. Not only does it allow the government to secretly spy on its own citizens with little evidence of their guilt, its entire book of business is conducted in secrecy, leaving very little public insight into its workings. The statute creating the court contains protections to ensure that the government, in prosecuting criminal cases, does not simply go to the FISA court when it has too weak a case to secure a wiretap from a regular judge. But critics have charged that the seven-judge court is simply a rubber stamp for the government, because, since its inception, the court has denied just one wiretap application out of more than 12,000 made.
At a 1997 meeting of the American Bar Association, Lamberth, the FISA court's chief judge, said he resented the "rubber stamp" charge. He insisted that even if judges did not reject wiretap applications outright, they closely scrutinized and even revised them before approving them. "I ask questions. I get into the nitty-gritty. I know exactly what's going to be done and why," he said. "I have pen-and-inked changes myself on the things."
Lamberth proved he wasn't kidding in March last year when he censured Resnick. Unfortunately for Lamberth, after September 11, when the FBI received unexpected criticism for shoddy counterterrorist investigations, law enforcement officials blamed Lamberth. They argued that his censure had a chilling effect, making lawyers leery of seeking new wiretaps--such as the one critics say the bureau should have requested for Zacarias Moussaoui. Thought to be the "20th terrorist," Moussaoui is the Moroccan man arrested in August after he tried to learn how to fly a plane but not how to land it. (Officially, the FBI has denied that Lamberth had anything to do with the decision not to surveil Moussaoui.)
Because the whole episode is classified, it's impossible for the public to really know whether this was another case of Lamberth going ballistic over a minor bureaucratic snafu or a serious screwup by the Justice Department. Either way, civil libertarians were reassured simply to know that the judge really was exercising his oversight role on the court with an eye towards protecting constitutional rights.
"Lamberth has demonstrated a refreshing willingness to scrutinize government claims and to demand absolute accuracy from the government filings. You'd be surprised how rare that is," says Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and one of the few lawyers actually to set foot inside the FISA court.
Turley says that with its windowless, soundproof, super-secret chamber on the sixth floor of the Justice Department, the FISA court can dangerously warp a judge's perspective. "The trappings of the court can make judges feel like an extension of the intelligence agencies. That would not be the case with Lamberth. He has a healthy skepticism_ It takes a great deal of self-confidence for a judge to send back a FISA application. The good thing about Lamberth is that he has never flinched. He possesses independent judgement that makes him a real protector of constitutional rights. The criticism that has been heaped on him should be a badge of honor."
The Bush administration has apparently been less pleased with Lamberth's independence. Last fall, Attorney General John Ashcroft's office sent Congress the "U.S.A. Patriot Act," sweeping anti-terrorism legislation that called for far-reaching changes in federal law enforcement. Those changes included overturning many of the rules put in place at the FBI, like those creating the FISA court, designed to protect Americans against Hoover-era domestic spying abuses. The bill (which Bush signed in October) also attempted to eliminate the provision that allowed Lamberth to send back Resnick's wiretap application.
(snip)
Requesting a court order to search the possesions of a Man who French Intelligence officially claimed was a member of Al Qaeda couldnt have been hampered by Lambeth's decision to censure someone else [or at the least...it shouldnt have]....it smells of passing the buck to me.
If they search his computer they find Atta's roommates phone number....they track down his roommate and things begin to shake out...at the very least it would have put Atta on FBI radar...and considering that there were conversations going back and forth between the INS & FBI about Atta prior to September 11th....who knows what would've/could've/should've happened.
One judge rebukes one man for apparent discrepancies and it has a chilling affect so profound that it stops FBI officials from doing their basic job description?
I dont think so.
Frasca has a boss....I would like to know who that is.
I would also like to know "who" reassigned Frasca to Cleveland after September 11th.
All these accusations of one judge bringing operations to an implied halt seems like smoke to me that cannot be proven or disproven given the confidential nature of the proof that would need to be brought to public light in order to completely address the issue.
The Lamberth accusations give off a "Potomac two-step" vibe to me.
Frasca and his immediate supervisors needs to answer for their decisions....reasons vs. excuses.
The implication here might be that Lamberth (who was appointed under Reagan, BTW), was pre-disposed to find fault with Resnick. The fact that he pursued the matter into the Ashcroft Justice Department, tends to make me skeptical of Lamberth's motives, and to question whether it was limited to one agent, or whether it extended to Hamas and warrants investigating Muslim/Arab groups in particular, or to the principle of civil rights in general.
Too bad we didn't have more info on exactly what Resnick was doing, in investigating Hamas, that suddenly became so offensive to Lamberth.
I do remember Fox News commenting, soon after 9/11, that a "judge" blocked the warrant for Moussaoui's computer, but, in light of Crowley's memo, I assumed the FBI was simply covering its posterior with that statement. My gut feeling is that it was a combination of CYA and careerism by FBIHQ, and possible obstruction, for motives yet unknown, by Lamberth.
American Muslim/Arab groups have long had lobbyists in Washington, and they have outspoken friends in Congress. It's also no secret that they have been and continue to be courted by elements within the Bush administration. These groups have for years been fighting to eliminate FISA and so called "secret evidence" (with good reason, considering what has come to light about these groups' financial and ideological support of terrorism).