Gonzales: NSA Wiretapping Now Subject to Court Approval

[kpete]

Gonzales: NSA Wiretapping Now Subject to Court Approval
By Justin Rood - January 17, 2007, 2:10 PM
The National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program will be subject to court approval, according to a new letter from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to lawmakers.



The NSA program, dubbed the "Terrorist Surveillance Program," had been criticized for spying on Americans without warrants from a U.S. court. Now, according to Gonzales' letter, the program will operate under approval by the secret FISA court.

Gonzales is slated to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002356.php

[originalpckelly]

1. Do you fucking know what this means?

The FISA court ruled wiretapping without their approval is unconstitutional!

BUSH IS GOING DOWN!

[originalpckelly]

2. This means that the court has regected the Administration's argument...

about wiretapping. This means that Bush can now be impeached!!

[originalpckelly]

3. This went unnoticed by the media, because FISA court procedings are secret...

the Administration must have put through a case where information from the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" was used, and then ruled that that information was gathered in an unlawful way.

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. Huh?

I guess I'm really slow today...

Isn't he just giving himself a pass before he goes in front of the Committee? Sort of a "Don't worry. It's all fixed. Let's move forward." :shrug:

[jilln]

7. Me too, I still don't quite get it...

Seems like they're saying the court approves what they're doing...

[originalpckelly]

14. It's a very confusing letter, and Gonzales did it on purpose...

the first paragraph almost sounds like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorized what Gonzales and Bush call the "Terrorist Surveillance Program".

However, that's actually a very general statement, because he was able to do that even under the FISA statute. The only real problem with the government wiretapping al-Qaeda without a warrant, was not that they were wiretapping al-Qaeda, but that they were doing it without a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

In the second part of the first paragraph Gonzales says that any electronic surveillance occurring as a part of the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" will now be occurring under the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The only issue which is open to speculation is whether or not the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved of a "general warrant". I think that would be impossible as of right now, because the court cannot violate the US Constitution's fourth amendment, which specifically states that every warrant must contain information "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

In other words a general warrant is unconstitutional.

Senator Arlen Specter tried to pass a bill which would have allowed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to do that very thing, but of course that's unconstitutional, but more importantly, the bill didn't pass. So that means the court doesn't have the ability legally to authorize a general "program" warrant.

In other words, Gonzales made it sound like their program had been approved, when if the judges followed the law, it could not possibly have been authorized.

[Leopolds Ghost]

43. No, The problem is they were wiretapping EVERYONE, so a warrant could not be obtained.

Presumably FISA has now ruled that they CAN wiretap everyone so long as FISA issues a warrant for specific words or phrases --

-- call it a "Google warrant" --

so they get off scott free.

[OregonBlue]

44. According to Free Repukes they are giving up the reauthorization

because a (in other words one) FISA court judge gave them authority for another/different program and they don't need this approval any more.

1)Gonzales said a recent secret-court approval allowed the government to act effectively without the program.

2)Gonzales said a judge on the secret FISA court recently approved a government proposal allowing it to target communications into and out of the United States when probable cause exists that one person is a member of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization....

3)I am making this BIG for those who are going to jump on the president on this thread.

"Gonzales said a recent secret-court approval allowed the government to act effectively without the program."

I.E.....WE DON'T NEED THIS ANYMORE DUE TO A COURT ORDER GIVING US THE RIGHT TO DO THINGS LIKE THIS WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC PROGRAM. IT IS NOT BEING DROPPED AS A CAVE. IT IS BEING DROPPED BECAUSE SOMETHING ELSE SECRET AND COURT-APPROVED HAS REPLACED IT.

[jilln]

45. The ACLU just put out a press release with their position on it...

"The Justice Department announcement today is a quintessential flip-flop," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "The NSA was operating illegally and this eleventh-hour ploy is clearly an effort to avoid judicial and Congressional scrutiny. Despite this adroit back flip, the constitutional problems with the president's actions remain unaddressed."

From

[mzmolly]

16. Whoda thunk it?

:sarcasm:

[originalpckelly]

18. This is probably why Gonzo said courts are "unfit to rule on terror policy"

In other words, it's a backup argument for the freepers. That's why this argument appeared on the same day the knowledge of the ruling came out.

[mzmolly]

29. The list of contortions continues to grow.

Just when you think it can't get any crazier?

Them darn "activist judges!" Damn them all to hell! :crazy:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

33. yup yup yup ! that's part of it.

even a special court like FISA

[ChiciB1]

28. To Me It Means... They're HIDING Something & DON'T Want Anyone

to know it! Heard they weren't doing it to get ahead of Leahy and his investigation!

What a CROCK!!!!

[originalpckelly]

4. I'm going to kick this again, because EVERYONE will be talking about this story!

It's a massive development in the NSA Spying story!

Bush may very be impeachable.

[Beetwasher]

5. Yes, This Is A Big Story

kick

[originalpckelly]

9. I've been looking at it more...

did they rule the program unconstitutional or did they allow it go forward? This is sort of contradictory. In the first paragraph of the letter it says the judge issued orders which say that the surveillance must be approved by the court. On the other hand later on it specifically adds that they are still able to wiretap people.

I wonder if the judge approved a type of limitless standing warrant? They don't have statutory authority to do that however, because the Congress didn't pass Specter's bill.

So I'm inclined to believe Gonzo is spinning to keep this from looking bad, because the FISA court judge cannot release the proceedings.

[Beetwasher]

10. There's Not Enough Information

But it wouldn't surprise me that they got slapped down by the courts but spinning it as something else.

From an AP story the spin is evident:

"WASHINGTON Jan 17, 2007 (AP)— The Justice Department, easing a Bush administration
policy, said Wednesday it has decided to give an independent body authority to monitor
the government's controversial domestic spying program."

The Justice Dept. DECIDED to give authority to an independent body????? Really? Gonzalez DECIDED this? IOW, the Justice Dept. made the decision to give a JUDGE or JUDGES authority???? Since when does the DOJ have the authority to decide what authority the courts have?????

[annabanana]

12. "Justice DECIDED to give authority". . . that was my first

reaction to the pronouncement too. Authority isn't theirs to give or deny, is it? There is clearly much under the surface.

[Beetwasher]

13. It's INSANE Spin

As if Gonzalez, out of the goodness of his heart, decided to ALLOW the courts to oversee the program. Ok, yeah, right. I believe that. :eyes:

[originalpckelly]

15. I know, now that I've had more time to think about it and read the letter more...

and the law, I'm quite convinced the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" will not be continuing.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

37. Face saving rhetoric. Easy to do, since FISA judges are sworn to secrecy

FISA probably said something like, "FUCK NO! THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL YOU STOOOPID ASSHOLES!"

Gonzales didn't choose to word it that way when he released the news to the press.

It definitely means they have been breaking the law for the last four or five years, but this isn't news, is it?

[originalpckelly]

38. That's precisely what I believe he's doing...

because the program without warrants is so unconstitutional and illegal, it's plain obvious. These are people after all who interpret this law all the time.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. That asshole testifies before the Senate tomorrow! Leahy said (on the Senate floor) that Gonzales

just informed him about this change. That hearing tomorrow is going to be AWESOME!

[originalpckelly]

17. I know, because although Gonzo tried to hide it...

it looks like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled Bush's warrantless wiretapping unconstitutional or just plain illegal. That means Bush is liable for committing 34+ felonies with a five year or 10,000 dollar penalty for each offense.

This is extremely impeachable.

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. Extremely Impeachable....MUSIC TO MY EARS! n/t

[onecent]

11. K and R. n/t

[milkyway]

19. Bush just surrendered to the terrorists! We're all going to die!

[originalpckelly]

20. AHAHAHAHA!

Of course, Gonzo says that they'll still be able to surveil the enemy. Which is what they could have done all along under FISA. In fact there was no reason for this, because they could have waited either 48 or 72 hours (can't remember specifically which one or the two) to get a warrant, if they had to surveil someone in a hurry without the approval of the court.

[originalpckelly]

25. I just looked it up, the emergency exemption is for 72 hours...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html

[milkyway]

32. Only two reasons they didn't go through FISA in the first place:

they were spying on non-terrorists groups like domestic peace activists, or they did it to show they can--establish a precedent for an imperial presidency during a time of (neverending) war.

[originalpckelly]

39. I think the latter is true, and the former is probably true as well...

we know that the Pentagon has been spying on peace activists, and that's not far away from NSA warrantless wiretapping.

[SeattleGirl]

21. Good news, but it's rather sad that deciding to follow the law

is a big story.

Of course, saying it, and doing it, are two different things. But since Gonzales put it out there in writing, it might be a little easier to hold their feet to the fire. (Hopefully it will be.)

[Beetwasher]

22. OK, Wait a COTTON PICKING SECOND HERE!!!!!!!!!

How the fuck does this news square w/ these recent comments by Gonzalez???????????

"Gonzales: Judges unfit to rule on terror policy
Attorney general says federal jurists should defer to president's will"

:shrug: :wtf:

Are these comments just petulance voiced by an AG that just got slapped down by the courts???

[originalpckelly]

26. Yep. Gonzo's mad and is trying to give the freepers an argument...

to fight with. "Oh a court can't make the President get a warrant to spy on people!"

[Beetwasher]

23. Dupe Delete

[DemReadingDU]

24. Hope Olbermann discusses on his show

[DearAbby]

27. OH MY GAWD!

B*shit can be IMPEACHED!


:bounce: :bounce:

[originalpckelly]

40. ...

:bounce: :toast:

This is going to blow up, I have this feeling about it. Have had it since I first heard about the spying. I honestly thought he'd been gone by now, and that even the pukes would want him out. I was disappointed, but at least we have the Democrats now.

[ChiciB1]

30. Am I Missing Something? Where's the REST Of The Letter? n/t

[originalpckelly]

41. Here is the second page:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/nsa-doj-surveillance/?resultpage=2&

[ChairmanAgnostic]

34. a little cold water on this issue, though.

Does anyone think that these career criminal cabalists will stop doing anything they've done in the past, even after acknowledging FISA's supremecy?

HAH! Just wait for the signing statement to the contrary.

[originalpckelly]

42. There is no way for a signing statement to be issued for this decision...

the President simply cannot do that, because he doesn't interact with the courts once they've made their decision.

[jilln]

47. It won't be a signing statement

it will just be more breaking the law in secret. We're completely at the mercy of whistleblowers and accidental discoveries.

[mmonk]

35. I love the smell of panic

[burythehatchet]

36. Heard on CNN

paraphrase - "pResident Bush had a free hand in combating terrorism, but not anymore with the Democrats in charge"

[Rex]

46. The WH gave in! HAHAHAHAHA!

:rofl: Um, little too late? Just like the Rummy kick to the curb!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

48. K&R! LOL, "Gonzales is slated to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow" fishing....

without over-site or probable cause continues, as a criminal takes measures to create new lies for his upcoming testimony.