or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| Why Bush didn't go to the FISA Court. |
ETWolverine |
01/09/06 |
The Washington Times has supplied us with the answer as to why Bush didn't go to the FISA court for warrants.
It seems that the FISA court has leaks within its ranks, as well as judges discussing their preconceived notions about cases that they may be sitting on in the future.
In an article titled "Surveillance Court Is Seeking Answers: Judges Were Unaware of Eavesdropping" dated 1/4/06, the following paragraph appears:
"Some judges who spoke on the condition of anonymity yesterday (that means "leak" --- Elliot) said they want to know whether warrants they signed were tainted by the NSA program. Depending on the answers, the judges said they could demand some proof that wiretap applications were not improperly obtained. Defense attorneys could have a valid argument to suppress evidence against their clients, some judges said, if information about them was gained through warrantless eavesdropping that was not revealed to the defense. (That would be pre-judging the case publicly before it is before them and before they have seen any evidence --- Elliot)"
Find the full article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/04/AR2006010401864.html
So... what do we now know? That the FISA court has judges that are speaking anonymously to the press, and that it has judges that are judging cases and rendering opinions publicly before the cases appear before them.
I seem to remember people saying that Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg was right to not answer Senate questions about cases that she might one day rule upon, lest she share a pre-conceived opinion on the case. And yet, here are at least 2 judges (possibly more) who are doing exactly that. And worse, they are members of a secret court leaking information to the press. Either of these infractions should get those judges thrown off the FISA court. With both being the case, there may actually be some criminal charges involved, such as violations regarding their security privileges.
In addition to the problems discussed above, those who claim that the FISA court regularly rubber-stamps warrants are full of crap. They claim regularly that the FISA court approved any application made for any warrant since the inception of the FISA court in 1978.
That was only true until Bush came along.
Between 1978 and 1999, there was not a single rejection of any warrant requested of the FISA court. In 2000, there was one warrant application that was changed. So between 1978 and 2000, there were 13,087 warrant requests, none of which were rejected, and only one of which was modified.
Then along came Bush. Between 2001 and 2004, there were 5,645 applications for warrants. Of that number, 179 were modified and 4 were rejected outright.
In other words the FISA court suddenly went from a .008% rejection/modification rate during its first 22 years to a 3.2% rejection rate in the subsequent four years. That's a 400% increase in the rejection/modification rate.
(Source: http://bayosphere.com/blog/rodney_graves/20051228/raw_data_year_by_year_data_for_fisa_court_activities)
So much for the "rubber stamp" argument.
I call that obstructionism. I call it a case of liberal judges who hate Bush doing anything in their power to screw him.
So now we have a FISA court with leaks, with judges who are pre-judging cases and rendering opinions publicly, and judges who are actively obstructing the president for personal or partisan reasons.
Is it any wonder that Bush would find it necessary to ignore the FISA court and authorize the wire taps under his own presidential authority?
Elliot |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
