FISA judges say Bush within law?

[Murdock]

A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).

The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.

"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm

I know this is the Moonie times, but does this deal a huge blow to Feingold's Censure argument? This worries me.. Has there been a rebuttal to this yet?

[Lostnote06]

1. Doesn't he have to apply first, to be rejected......there's more to this

.....ask a few well know journalists

[aden_nak]

2. Does the FISA court have jurisdiction over the legality of this law?

That would seem rather dangerous to me, no? To give a court the legal authority interpret the very laws that define its powers and limitations? I mean, isn't the FISA court, in essence handing over its authority to the executive branch? Or am I misinterpreting what's going on here?

[liveoaktx]

17. First, the judges didn't speak to the legality of law except in Specter's

bill. They weren't going back in time to determine if Bush had broken the law, but they *were* asked that, they demurred except to talk generally about the issue of Presidential Constitutional Power versus statute-which would, they all agreed, have to be determined by a court. At one point, Feinstein asked them, basically, if the President's power can trump a statute, then is the FISA power just "advisory"? Well, that horrified the judges, Oh, No, we're not saying THAT.

[liveoaktx]

19. VIDEO - Kornblum says they are NOT there to discuss Bush's program

Went back and clipped this so that this bogus horsechit does NOT come up again-it is a LIE

[liveoaktx]

3. Yes, read Glenn Greenwald- that is NOT what they said -link also VIDEO

What the FISA judges really said

I also put up a number of videos of the hearing on my journal

From Greenwald: <snip>
Okay, let's review the facts. The transcript of the hearing--which is very long--is only available via subscription, so you're going to have to take my word for now. A total of five judges testified in person, and one submitted written testimony. All of the judges made it crystal clear that they had no intention of opining on the legality of the NSA program ("we will not be testifying today with regard to the present program implemented by President Bush"). The judges were there to testify about FISA and about the merits of Sen. Specter's proposed legislation to amend FISA.

The bulk of the testimony by the judges was in praise of FISA and in praise of Specter's proposed bill (which is clearly why Specter called them to testify in the first place). Although the judges were careful not to opine about the NSA program specifically, it was clear from their testimony that they believe further Congressional authorization is necessary and desirable and that the judiciary has an important and indispensable role to play in overseeing domestic surveillance.

Their agenda, to the extent they had one, was to lobby for the continued relevance of the FISA court. If the DeWine bill passes, the FISA court will be utterly marginalized. These judges realize that some sort of legislation is likely to be passed, and they'd undoubtedly prefer something along the lines of Specter's bill, which would at least require the court to approve surveillance on a program-wide level.

I can assure you, though, that at no point did any of the judges come anywhere close to saying that the president "did not act illegally" or that he acted "within the law" when he authorized the NSA warrantless surveillance program. So the Washington Times story is complete rubbish. It could not possibly be more misleading.
</snip>

[BlooInBloo]

5. Yup.

[liveoaktx]

8. Adding that NO judge would comment on whether Bush acted illegally

because they consider it the province of a judicial body to decide that, and NOBODY knows the program is because they weren't briefed on it.

VIDEO- Durbin-Anyone on the panel that believes the President didn't violate the FISA law? Judges reply

[enough]

20. Thanks for posting this. That entire analysis

of the hearing on Greenwald's blog is worth reading.

[pinto]

4. Pure editorial spin. The direct quote is "If a court *refuses* a

FISA application..."

The issue here, Bush didn't go to the court in the first place as required by the law, mentioned later in this <snip>...

If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."

The judges, however, said Mr. Bush's choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril," because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security.

Judge Kornblum said before the 1978 FISA law, foreign surveillance was done by executive order and the law itself was altered by the orders of Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm

[Eric J in MN]

6. He can act in an emergency if he tells the court within 72 hours,

which he didn't.

[LSK]

7. Washingtontimes - need I say anymore?

[Murdock]

9. Ugh..

I feel like a fool for falling for it... Thanks Everyone..

[Disturbed]

12. Bush and NSA violated the Law.

Most of the time when people violate the Law they are charged and prosecuted for that.

[paul_fromatlanta]

14. It is important to remember who owns the Washington Times and what they

It is important to remember who owns the Washington Times and what they want. In a world where cults get bad press the moonies have effectively bought their way into the press.

[still_one]

10. It is BS

They illegally spyied on Americans without going through the FISA court. THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE FISA ACT, it is as simple as that

and yes, it is the moonie times, which I wouldn't believe any crap coming from the avenue

[never cry wolf]

11. Watch the hearings for yourself and see what they really said

I am sure c-span has it archived, I watched it and the tenor of what was said was nothing like the headline. The operative paragraph is:

The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.

They were all very careful to note that they did not know specifically what the program was and the comments noted in the article are based upon a hypothetical situation, since they, nor anyone outside the admin. knows exactly what the program is.

Note the word international, nobody knows if they are spying on international agents or not because there is no oversight. In fact they do not even need FISA to wiretap overseas. It is only domestic wiretapping where FISA comes into play, and if there was a legitimate target, FISA would rubber stamp it. The fact that they went around this tells me that they were spying strictly domestically and were afraid the FISA court would NOT issue the warrants.

[Horse with no Name]

13. Pure spin

I believe that he can spy on international agents, however, he cannot spy domestically.
That is the crux of the matter.

[liveoaktx]

15. Context of the hearings: Specter's Bill Versus DeWine's- the judges

were there commenting on Specter's bill, which wants to have a COURT review FISA rather than the SENATE. The judges weren't there to talk about whether Bush HAD broken the law, they weren't there to discuss the merits of Dewine's bill, but had obviously been given copies of Specter's bill and commented on it from the standpoint of what would be legal and clear from that direction.

Now I don't know if Specter's bill is the best ever. But, speaking of spin, the corporate media has been talking about the spy stuff AS IF DeWine's bill is agreed upon by everyone. Obviously it is not, and at least Specter is trying to prevent Senators from being Judges.

[cynatnite]

16. The judges said they don't know enough about the program

It reads like they weren't able to look at the specifics.

This really doesn't mean a lot.

[wiggs]

18. What the Times did should be illegal.

I actually took at look at conservativeunderground.com today....some poster posted the Wash Times article and was outraged that the liberal media wasn't reporting that Bush was right.

But, really, the Times should be exposed as the liars they are. It's outrageous.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. "and there is not sufficient time "

Please, repeat that over and over to yourself until it sinks in. Therein lies the answer.