The Key to Bush's Sudden Reversal of Warrantless Wiretapping? MUCH Worse Than You Think! >>

[The Cleaner]

"Ms. Wilson" refers to Representative Heather A. Wilson, R-NM.

Ms. Wilson, who has scrutinized the program for the last year, said she believed the new approach relied on a blanket, “programmatic” approval of the president’s surveillance program, rather than approval of individual warrants.

Administration officials “have convinced a single judge in a secret session, in a nonadversarial session, to issue a court order to cover the president’s terrorism surveillance program,” Ms. Wilson said in a telephone interview. She said Congress needed to investigate further to determine how the program is run.

Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/washington/18intel.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th

So what does this mean? According to the above it means court orders to wiretap will not be issued individually anymore - rather, the entire program will be reviewed regularly. Which means - NOTHING HAS CHANGED, in fact, it has gotten EASIER for Bush to wiretap without a warrant because THEY JUST EFFECTIVELY DID AWAY WITH WARRANTS ALTOGETHER!

Please tell me my interpretation of this is wrong, PLEASE!!

[acmavm]

1. This is when our reps, in the House AND the Senate, need to

draw that line in the sand and tell him not to even try crossing it.

This bunch of criminals needs to be stopped. We can't wait for the damn 2008 election.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. In other words, the judge has decided that probable cause exists...

... to wiretap anyone and everyone.

It's like giving the city cops a "programmatic" warrant to search your house. Or the neighbor's house. Or the doghouse, whatever. Big brother knows best.

This strains even my own advanced capacity for cynicism.

[Double T]

3. More bushco smoke and mirrors..............

meanwhile NOTHING ever changes; NOTHING!!!!

[Supersedeas]

8. secret smoke filled rooms with pats on the back and cronies smiling

[Double T]

11. It is SICKENING and so true.

[Oilwellian]

4. You got it

They've convinced one judge on the FISA court to issue a blanket warrant for Bush's surveillance program. Leahy won't be too pleased with the double-speak of the Bush crime family. :popcorn:

[KittyWampus]

5. Thanks for pointing that out, Cleaner. Kicked & Recommended highly

[Marie26]

6. Groan

Of course that's what it is. K&R for pointing this out. Bushco is trying to say they're getting individual warrants, when they aren't doing that at all.

[MADem]

7. They changed the rules because they were UNCONSTITUTIONAL, plain and simple. And they knew it.

And they didn't want to face a legal challenge in court, where they'd get their clock cleaned:

Some legal analysts said the administration’s pre-emptive move could effectively make the court review moot, but Democrats and civil rights advocates said they would press for the courts and Congress to continue their scrutiny of the program of wiretapping without warrants, which began shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Democrats praised the administration’s decision, but said it should have come much sooner...."...it is also confirmation that the administration’s go-it-alone approach, effectively excluding Congress and the courts and operating outside the law, was unnecessary.”

Mr. Rockefeller added, “I intend to move forward with the committee’s review of all aspects of this program’s legality and effectiveness.”

Since the surveillance program was publicly disclosed in December 2005 by The New York Times, the White House has maintained, in scores of court filings, policy papers and press statements, that the president has the inherent power to conduct wiretaps without a court warrant even though a 1978 law put intelligence surveillance under judicial review. The administration failed to win Congressional approval for the program last year after months of lobbying, and some Democrats are still trying to ban it outright.

The administration continued to assert on Wednesday that the N.S.A. program had operated legally, but it also said the time had come to allow the intelligence surveillance court, known as the FISA court, to review all warrants on all wiretaps in terrorism investigations. ....

They were about to be shut down, so they moved the goalposts. They're "on the run" right now, as it were...

Edit/correct code

[mmonk]

9. As long as there are enemies of the constitution

in robes, they are hardly on the run. They continue to destroy our laws.

[MADem]

12. ACLU isn't giving up, nor are many others. I'm not either.

Even Republicans find this asswiping on the Constitution abhorrent:

...A Justice Department official said the department would file a motion with the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, arguing that the court’s review of the issue in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union “is now moot” in light of this week’s developments.

But several legal analysts said the issue might not be resolved that simply.

Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who has been critical of the program, said the appellate court was likely to send the issue back to the trial court to re-examine the issue.

Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the A.C.L.U., said the appellate court should still examine the legality of the program and whether the it had violated intelligence law for the last five years.

“It’s not academic when the president violates the law,” Mr. Romero said.

They got CAUGHT, is what happened. They tried to hide the program so no one could complain, and then, when it was revealed, they tried every argument from "Shaddup!!! Yer hepin' the terrists if'n ya even TALK 'bout this!!!" to "We aren't listening to YOU, just THEM..." to "What are ya worried about? If yer doin' nuthin' wrong, it don't matter!!!" but people weren't buying their bullshit. They were being pressed for answers, and now, with a Democratic Congress, those answers were gonna be squeezed out of them, like it or not. So what they've done is MOVE THE GOALPOSTS, to try to change the subject and change the focus. Unfortunately for them, the Democrats have declared the game over, and they want to go look at the tape for evidence of cheating and take the trophy away from those bums...that's what's happening here. As Chuck Shumer pointed out: “I don’t think the timing is coincidental....They knew they had a very real problem, and they’re trying to deflect it.”

[fooj]

23. Thank you, MADem...

I find your posts very informative and helpful.

[MADem]

37. You're more than welcome!

I have to say, I am feeling more positive than I have for some time with this Congress. While they aren't everyone's "be all" or "end all"...at least the basic trajectory is in the right direction.

My old glass is slightly more than half full. With a bit of hard work and dedication, my cup could be overflowing! Keep hope alive...!

[tbyg52]

25. Support the ACLU!

They are fighting for *us*, also known as "we the people."


O8)

[tbyg52]

26. 750th post for the ACLU! Yeah! nt

[Lasher]

10. Can't help ya, Cleaner

I think your interpretation is correct. I have to wonder if Junior installed this unnamed judge, pursuant to the Patriot Act's blank check provision to appoint them.

About the torture bill that Congressional Republicans passed before they were fired by the voters in November: Didn't it contain retroactive immunity for administration officials who have violated FISA laws? I think that's true, and it makes me wonder what we're going to do with the related investigations that are currently under way in the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees. I remember thinking that the torture bill might be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, which would eliminate Junior's get out of jail free card. But I just plumbed the depth of my memory on the subject.

[tbyg52]

31. Regarding retroactive immunity

Article I, section 9:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

I know I'm a broken record on this, and I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, but I strongly believe this applies. I know it's making something *legal* retroactively rather than illegal, which is the only way this seems to have been previously applied, but I think the founders would agree with applying it to this bull@#$% as well.

[Lasher]

36. Hmmm. Good point, tbyg52.

I think you're right. But this wasn't the part of the torture bill that I was thinking was unconstitutional.

(Refreshes memory with a little Goggling)

Military Commissions Act of 2006

The Act also contains provisions (often referred to as the "habeas provisions") removing access to the courts for any alien detained by the United States government who is determined to be an enemy combatant, or who is 'awaiting determination' regarding enemy combatant status. This allows the United States government to detain such aliens indefinitely without prosecuting them in any manner.

<snip>

A number of legal scholars and Congressional members - including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) - have said that the habeas provision of the Act violates a clause of the Constitution that says the right to challenge detention "shall not be suspended" except in cases of "rebellion or invasion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

Specter, being the total tool of the Administration that he is, offered an amendment to the bill that would have removed the habeas provision. I strongly believe he was acting on orders from the White House to eliminate this provision because if the habeas provision is ruled unconstitutional the whole bill will become null and void. That would mean Junior and his junta would lose their 'get out of jail free' card that is part of the torture bill.

If you don't believe Specter was a White House puppet, reflect on the provision that he's recently admitted to slipping into the Patriot Act at the last minute to give The Decider the authority to install US Attorneys without Congressional approval.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002357.php

I was glad to see Specter's amendment defeated because I want to see the whole bill ruled unconstitutional. Your point about retroactivity is well taken and is another reason to hope that Junior and his cronies will be held accountable for their NSA spying transgressions against FISA.

But how do we get this question put before the SCOTUS in a timely manner? Maybe since we control Congress we can ask them for a ruling.

[ellenfl]

13. not too forward thinking now that the dems have taken congress

and could take the wh in '08.

ellen fl

[tbyg52]

32. re: wh in 08

Provided we have thrown out the DREs by then....

[peacetalksforall]

14. Light is breaking and we can see that we are now under military rule.

[dogday]

15. I was skeptical about this from the beginning

Secret Judge.... WTF?

[AndyA]

16. The new Dem Congress has a lot to look at.

No wonder the GOP is trying to do anything and everything to slow them down, even stall them. So much to do, and the minority party wants to be excused.

[kentuck]

17. And they're pulling a quick one on the Senate...

who seem to think they have dropped the warrantless wiretapping...

[progressoid]

18. Grrrrr. Maybe Ms Wilson will team up with some our people to remedy this.

Hey, a guy can dream, right?

[AbbyR]

19. How long???

How long do we have to wait for someone - anyone - in Congress to put impeachment on the table? This is getting crazier and crazier - I'm beginning to think I need to join the tin foil hat crew :tinfoilhat:, but can't they SEE what's going on? Doesn't anyone in Washington realize that the man masquerading as president had named himself dictator?

[Morgana LaFey]

20. OMG. UNbelievable-- altho I don't know why I say that.

There is literally NO END to this administration's ability to astonish in THE most negative way. Outrage overload, every damn day.

Edit: THANK GOD for a Republican like Heather Wilson.

[In Truth We Trust]

21. Impeach! Imprison! Restore and Protect the Constitution of the United States of America!

[originalpckelly]

22. The FISC judge does not have the authority to approve of a program...

warrant.

If the judge allowed a program warrant to be approved then it would be in direct violation of FISA and the 4th amendment. One must particularly describe the object of a warrant, this cannot happen in a program based warrant. Furthermore, there is historical evidence to suggest that the founding fathers specifically intended not to allow general warrants, because they had to contend with writs of assistance.

[tbyg52]

24. Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Not that the thugs-in-charge have any respect for the Constitution.

[tom_paine]

27. Your interpretation is correct. Programmatic warrants are UnConstitutional

However, what the Busheviks will INVARIABLY say, is that the quite clearly written IV Amendment doesn't specificaly say programatic warrants are Unconstitutional.

Of course, the Founding Fathers NEVER imagined such Orwellian and linguistic mendacity, probably assuming that, considering it is pretty impossible to list EVERYTHING that is NOT Constitutional, assumed that the straightforward elegance of what they wrote would peclude from anyone above a 3rd Grade education could possibly assume that Programmatic Warrants and IV Amendment could ever be compatible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/washington/18intel.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&th&emc=th

But the never imagined the sophisticated and psychologically-designed (hell, the science of psychology hadn't even been INVENTED in 1776) lies and propaganda of the Busheviks. They never imagined the mendacity nor the twisted convolutions of logic to make Programmatic Warrants and IV Amendment compatible.

And though it has been repeinted a few times in the thread, let us admire the brilliance of the Founding Fathers. Yes, they were slaveowners and far from perfect, but they were perhaps to this day among the finest crop of leaders, men of means who believed in the power of the common person, the world has ever seen.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you...Amendment IV.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[originalpckelly]

28. Well, it does talk about the "particularly decribing" the objects of the warrant...

and that's about all that needs to be said.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. I can see Clarence Thomas making a checklist...

but upon probable cause...
... 'cuz everyone's a terrorist. Check.

supported by Oath or affirmation,
... I'm sure Alberto took an oath once. Check.

and particularly describing the place to be searched,...
... the phone network hubs at Seattle, Philadelphia, Dallas, Denver, San Fransisco, etc. Check.

and the persons
... everyone. Check.

or things
... phone calls, mail, emails, bank records, and anything else that might from time-to-time strike the adminstrations fancy. Check.

... to be seized.

Okey dokey then. It looks like all your papers are in order Generalissimo.

[teryang]

29. the administration agreed to give the court jurisdiction??????

the executive branch doesn't have the power to grant jurisdiction to courts, only Congress does. This expression of Gonzales is one of those unitary executive bullshit expressions of dictatorial power that has no basis in law.

Also, the issue is not moot, because a court cannot go back and render years of unlawful and illegal activity by the executive lawful, retroactively. Even if the FISA action were lawful prospectively, the past actions were clearly unlawful. Blanket search authorizations are never lawful. Warrants have to articulate the subject matter of a search and the parties or property affected with specificity. To do otherwise renders them an unlawful fishing expedition.

This entire article is complete gooblygook in legal terms.

[AzDar]

33. Kick n/t

[Major Hogwash]

34. What has been the response of any Senators to this?

Most of them must have known this was the case before the NYT printed this yesterday.

[westerebus]

35. Dumb question?

Can you impeach the attorney general? Or can he be tried for sedition?

[xchrom]

38. kicking for sunlight.

[rodeodance]

39. Leahy and others tried to get this information from Gondo during the

hearing but when I was listening,I didnot hear a clear response from gongo.

[rodeodance]

40. A Justice Department official said....file motion to dismiss court case:

......A Justice Department official said the department would file a motion with the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, arguing that the court’s review of the issue in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union “is now moot” in light of this week’s developments.

But several legal analysts said the issue might not be resolved that simply.

Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who has been critical of the program, said the appellate court was likely to send the issue back to the trial court to re-examine the issue.

Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the A.C.L.U., said the appellate court should still examine the legality of the program and whether the it had violated intelligence law for the last five years.

“It’s not academic when the president violates the law,” Mr. Romero said.

[calimary]

41. I thought bush and friends didn't like "activist judges."

:eyes:

[magellan]

42. The sound of the other shoe dropping

I was waiting for it. I knew these criminals would never revert to following the law after breaking it for so long. And lo and behold, it appears what they've really done is broken the law again to cover up their law-breaking.

How deep is that hole BushCo has dug for themselves now?