Why did Bush need to sidestep the super secret FISC process?

[ProSense]

A process so secret that no one knew that Rockefeller and others, who were sworn to secrecy for life, had objected to Bush's operation. A process so secret that Rockefeller's objection was handwritten for fear of exposing senstive details. Why did Bush need to circumvent such a super secret organization? What was he looking for?


Posted on Sat, Dec. 24, 2005
WAR ON TERRORISM
U.S. spy agency may not shake sullied image
Officials argued that conducting domestic surveillance without a warrant could undermine the National Security Agency's antiterrorism mission -- and reputation.
By WARREN P. STROBEL AND JONATHAN S. LANDAY
[e-mail]

WASHINGTON - The White House decision to order surveillance of international phone calls by U.S. citizens without a warrant violated long-standing practices and could undermine a key U.S. intelligence agency that is critical in the struggle against terrorists, former senior intelligence officials and other experts said this week.

The super-secret National Security Agency, which eavesdropped on the Soviet Union's leaders and scored other intelligence coups during the Cold War, has spent three decades recovering from domestic spying scandals in the 1970s.

Now, with its electronic ears and vast computer banks turned primarily to intercepting suspecting terrorists, the officials said they fear that the NSA once again will bear the brunt of congressional scrutiny and public outrage, complicating its mission.


Snip...

But the former top officials said the recently revealed program, which sidestepped the FISA court, violated longtime agency practices.


http://www.twincities.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/13479356.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_nation

[marylanddem]

1. Did he really go behind their back?

I thought they collaborated in the lawbreaking...

[ProSense]

4. He circumvented the process; went behind the FISC's back, I'll edit. n/t

[Warpy]

6. Nope, he didn't TRY to get warrants.

That means that it's an extremely wide net and a total fishing expedition covering much of the population, or that it's his enemies list in Congress, the judiciary, the media, and the opposition party.

I suspect both are true. There is no way FISA would have given warrants for either group.

[MichiganVote]

2. He didn't need to...he WANTED to and so he did b/c he was allowed to

[Uben]

3. Do you mean FISA NT

nt

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Because if he went to court, said that he had to listen to the phone

conversations of democrats (e.g., Kerry, Dean, Reid, etc.) and non neocons with brains and mouths and other dissenters, the judges would've told him "No!"

* doesn't do "No!"

[spindrifter]

7. On the one hand,

sidestepping FISA gave him the opportunity to spy on whomever his minions wanted. But the real reason I believe he did not want to abide by FISA was the scale of the spying--at some point the sheer numbers were going to break the backs of the FISA judges and then they were likely to start saying "no."

[Agnomen]

8. Bush should get a spanking!

His sidestepping of FISA made me remember being 6 yrs old and going to the park without telling my mother. On my return, my worried mom asked why I did not ask her permission. "Because you would have said NO" was my excuse. I got spanked. Bush didn't tell FISA of his intesions because they would have said NO. He should (and I have feeling he will) get a spanking.

[gulliver]

9. Too large a scale and the warrants would have been denied.

They are categorizing and tracking all international calls. It would be infeasible get individual warrants to cover that many communications. Also, the fact that they were surveilling all of the communications means that innocent people lacking any probable cause for suspicion were surveilled. The Bushies would have needed to change the laws, and they probably felt they could not get that done. So they simply re-interpreted the laws.

I don't think the Administration can avoid the charge that they broke the law. The only question is whether they knowingly broke the law. That's all Gonzalez buys them.

This should be a full-fledged Constitutional crisis. If it is allowed to stand, then the AG can simply bless anything the president wants to do.

So far I have seen nothing from the Administration showing that the surveillance even bore any fruit. They are trying to keep the argument in the abstract. They are getting away with it so far.

[ProSense]

11. IMO, Bush and Daschle have already established that Bush did so knowingly

Knowingly has already been proven by Bush and Daschle. Bush admitted he

aritcle:

Normally, no wiretapping is permitted in the United States without a court warrant. But Bush said he approved the action without such orders "because it enables us to move faster and quicker. We've got to be fast on our feet.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=nation_world&id=3738866



Dashcle article:

Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.


snip...

The Bush administration now argues those powers were inherently contained in the resolution adopted by Congress -- but at the time, the administration clearly felt they weren't or it wouldn't have tried to insert the additional language.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201101.html


Of course, Bush is now saying that he misunderstood when Congress said no.

[peacetalksforall]

14. I'm afraid the word 'wiretapping' is going to be a hang-up. George

says 'normally, no wiretapping is permitted in the U.S.....'. Though he can't say say - 'normally, no spying is is permitted in the U.S.' because that would be an explosive angle and not true.

I fear that this is going to get all confused technically. Probably, a small per cent of phone calls spied on were land lines with wire. I bring this up because Toensing was immediately on tv saying that the law applies to wire and it is not the fault of the admin that the Congress has not updated the law - implying that satellite spying is OK and Congress is at fault. That was her main argument in defense.

She is the same person who always led with the new legal points against Clinton (along with her high-blowing steam husband). She was one of the first to claim that there was no problem with the outing of Plame because she was not an operative, dismissing it all with a sneer and a guffaw. She kept that up for weeks on end.

I don't see how wire vs satellite would stand up against the ammendment - but why would an insider like her make that case? She is supposed to be an expert on the fourth ammendment which governs this event and that was all she seemed to be saying beneath her talking over the other guest, sneering, and laughing and really trying to convince.

[ProSense]

16. The law encompasses all electronic surveillance including wire tapping

It isn't specific to wire tapping.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1805 Prev | Next

§ 1805. Issuance of order

snip...

(f) Emergency orders
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—

(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and

(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;

he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 1803 of this title.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html

[TomInTib]

10. FISA Court would not allow domestic taps on American citizens

without VERY clear need and evidence.

[FogerRox]

12. Im thinking of article 2 of the Nixon Impeachment, before he resigned

[Spinzonner]

13. Because he's too stupid and lazy not to ignore what

Dick Cheney's telling him all the time.

[Mz Pip]

15. Because the judges

might say "no" to who he might want to spy on.

I've thought about this and there is no reason to sidestep the FISA court unless you wanted to do some super secret domestic spying on someone who really wasn't making calls to Afghanistan. Judges wouldn't have gone along with that.

Mz Pip
:dem: