Experts ponder Bush's rationale (expediency four years after 9/11 is BS)

[ProSense]

Experts ponder Bush's rationale
Some wonder why law wasn't changed instead of circumvented by administration
- Matthew B. Stannard, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, December 20, 2005
During the four years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has responded to questions over its more controversial national security policies, relating to interrogation methods, incarceration policies and investigative techniques, with the argument that they were crucial in the fight against terror.


snip...

"What becomes harder to understand is four years after 9/11 the administration has not sought modification of the law, but has rather asserted unchecked authority," he said.


snip...

"This will be a watershed because Congress cares a lot about the separation of powers and civil liberties, and the two wires cross here," said Daniel Benjamin, who served on the National Security Council staff from 1994 to 1999 and is co-author of "The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting It Right."

"This is not something that the civil libertarians in the Republican party can overlook," he said. "this is going to be a big deal."

The Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court

The Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was created by an act of Congress in 1978. It is responsible for reviewing requests by federal police agencies (mainly the FBI) for surveillance warrants against suspected foreign intelligence agents in the United States. The FISC rarely denies such requests.

About the FISC

The court is comprised of 11 district court judges (from different circuits), appointed by the chief justice of the United States. At least three of the judges must reside within 20 miles of Washington, D.C.

The judges' terms are staggered and last for a maximum of seven years.

The court's hearings are conducted in private, and its case records and files are kept sealed from the public.

Procedure to authorize electronic surveillance

1 An agency such as the FBI or CIA obtains information on a possible terrorist suspect. It makes an application to the Department of Justice.

2 The Department of Justice decides whether there is probable cause to believe that the suspect is a terrorist.

3 Before the application can be forwarded to the FISC, it must be personally approved by the Attorney General.

Sources: Cornell Law School; Federation of American Scientists; Electronic Frontier Foundation


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/20/MNG87GAQBE1.DTL&feed=rss.news

[rodeodance]

1. Jr had the duty to use court orders and he bypassed them--nough said!

[Burried News]

2. For the sakes of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein a 200

year old Republic will abandon its heritage? Because a President Botch couldn't make the system work? Because the 1978 law was old and outdated and couldn't handle the exigencies of the modern world. Bull shit. This will not stand. And any party that will defend it is an enemy of the Republic and democratic principles. We will not have a King and we certainly will not have a dictator.

[pinkpops]

3. Will the Republican version of turn the other cheek be

to look the other way?

[fasttense]

6. I think they are in danger of losing

next year's elections if they ignore this crime.

[NC_Nurse]

4. But it's HARD WORK getting

a court order. He's too busy cutting brush and riding his bikey.

[Warpy]

5. Some experts!

FISA has been a rubberstamp that has turned down FOUR wiretap applications in 27 years. FOUR, and all before 9/11. It has granted wiretap approval three weeks after a wiretap occurred.

Yet Stupid felt compelled to bypass it.

That means his targets are so utterly outrageous they had no chance of being approved, which means he's repeating the Nixonian tactic of eavesdropping on Congressmen, judges, news media, and possibly his own party, looking for dirt for blackmail.

It sure puts the spinelessness of the Dems in Congress into perspective, doesn't it? They show a little spirit and Fat Karl calls them with some personal dirt. Problem solved.

[fasttense]

7. Good point Warpy

I never thought of that. No wonder Democrats and journalists have been so hesitant to stand up to KKKarl. He's got dirt on them, or their bosses, through the spying. I wonder what they had on Judy Miller?

[ProSense]

8. Don't agree. Bush stole the 2000 election, sanctioned to power

by the SCOTUS, then surrounded himself with crooked cronies who, along with Bush, engaged in a series of illegal acts bolstered by misinformation, payoffs and secrecy.

This is not about Democrats' spinelessness or culpability (which is BS IMO); it is about Bush and his administration's ruthlessness and criminal activities. The idea that Bush has something on every Democrat is nonsense. Elected official like Conyers, Boxer, Feingold, Kerry, Lewis, etc. are doing an excellent job in the minority. If any group is culpable, it is the Republicans, who are mired in scandal, for turning a blind eye on its oversight responsibilities. They could end this assault on America today.