NYT: Judges on Secretive (FISA) Panel Speak Out on Spy Program

[UpInArms]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/politics/29nsa.html?hp&ex=1143608400&en=613c10e38b20055a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

(free registration or try www.bugmenot.com)

WASHINGTON, March 28 — Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.

In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.

Judge Harold A. Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said the president was bound by the law "like everyone else." If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, Judge Baker said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril."

<snip>

The intelligence court, created by Congress in 1978, meets in a tightly guarded, windowless office at the Justice Department. The court produces no public findings except for a single tally to Congress each year on the number of warrants it has issued — more than 1,600 in 2004. Even its roster of judges serving seven-year terms was, for a time, considered secret.

But Mr. Bush's decision effectively to bypass the court in permitting eavesdropping without warrants has raised the court's profile. That was underscored by the appearance on Tuesday of the four former FISA judges: Judge Baker; Judge Stanley S. Brotman, who left the panel in 2004; Judge John F. Keenan, who left in 2001; and Judge William H. Stafford Jr., who left in 2003. All four sit on the federal judiciary.

...more...

[rodeodance]

1. they questioned Bush 'inherant' power also!

......In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.

[badgervan]

2. FISA is Law, Despite the shrub's Avoidance of That Law

It might take a good long while, but I believe that bush is going to rue the day that he decided to take our laws into his own hands. We have a system of checks and balances for good reason, as we are now seeing with our little would-be dictator. When that balance gets out of whack too far, it is up to us to restore it - by vote, or by impeachment. bush is pushing his luck.

[CottonBear]

3. Judge Baker said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril."

Damn. The judiciary is revolting. Good. A sign of hope.

[leftstreet]

4. Interesting statement!

Judiciary revolt would be nice.

[CottonBear]

5. How would it happen from the highest levels?

How can they override Bush's run-arounds of the judicial branch?

[reprobate]

9. I consider Bush the revolting one. The judges are doing their job.

[babylonsister]

6. The prez is bound by the law like everyone else!!! And I use the

phrase 'prez' guardedly, because he isn't mine.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. There go those damn activist judges again.

I guess they'll just have to take the case to the Scalito/Roberts/Scalia/Thomas Supreme Court to get the FISA Law fixed.:eyes:

[Theduckno2]

8. It is nice to see members of the judiciary weighing in on this.

Silence of the judiciary would have played to Bushco's advantage for any final decision would rest with SCOTUS.

I just wish this statement would get the same airtime as Bush's reassurances that everything he did was legit.

Well, at least I can help keeping this kicked.

[enough]

10. k&r

[salin]

11. While I believe that review would be a first step.... I don't believe

that this administration would offer up legitimate accounting of what has been done thus far per the fisaless spying. They have proven their lawlessness, they have proven that politics trumps all and security, the constitution, the courts, and congress are to be ignored when they are inconvenient.

I suspect that there has been abuse in this program, and that the spying is more widespread than the BUsh assurances that it only effects communications with "suspected al qeada"; and I suspect that we are back to the "enemy list" (using spying to collect dossiers on citizens perceived as not friendly - politically - to the administration) - and I suspect we won't get any information about what has been done through this program under bush until many years after his administration has faded into the political past.

I am not generally tin-foily - but the language used initially in the story indicated that there was No real limit on the program per communications with "suspected terrorists" - the trigger, it was reported, was communication with someone overseas. Even Cheney, back in December, suggested this on a SUnday talk show when he said that "well we wouldn't likely be very interested in a phone conversation with Aunt Millie (or somename) in France" - suggesting that such a call could be ease dropped upon, but that not to worry, not much energy would be spent upon it.

The signing statement on the newest Patriot Act, imo, is consistent with my worries - where bush essentially states that he does not believe that they (his admin) has to report back to Congress about activities/investigations pursued via the Patriot Act (a big point of the legislation) - in short - that he is going to use these powers however he wants, and will not give any future accounting about how he has used the powers.

[UpInArms]

12. what if "Aunt Millie" made disparaging remarks about US leadership?

would they then "spend time" on the conversation?

[BR_Parkway]

13. Someone cue the "activist judges" chorus!