quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo your entire premise of this thread. what has happened (and is explicitely explained in the article you posted) is that Bush has RELENQUISHED his authority of the Terrorist Surveilence Progam oversight back to the FISA courts, ok?

This is correct, Marc. I think you're confusing the FISA courts with SCOTUS.

quote:

for the last two years the Justice Dept. has been working with FISA to speed up the efficiency to which warrants are dissminated by the court.

Are you sure about that? I haven't run across any evidence that points to DOJ working with FISA courts at all. As far as I've seen, the 72 hour retroactive search warrant clause was still in full effect, at least that was the complaint given. Do you have evidence that depicts FISA judges complying with breaking this clause?

quote:

prior to 9/11 Bush contended that FISA was too antiquated to deal with multiple fast moving intel so with select bi-partisaned Congressional authorization evrey 45 days he let the DOJ and other agencies manage oversight of the TSP.

There was nothing bipartisaned about this and you know that - Cheney did indeed tell Rockefeller of the program, but Rockefeller was sworn by classified sensitive information not to reveal any details of the meeting given. I believe I outlined that previously.

Furthermore, let's keep in mind what was also at play here - yes Bush no longer had a lapdog Congress that held absolutely NO oversight whatsoever on this program (along with a myriad of other programs and policies), but a federal judge also ruled that Bush violated the Constitution with this program, and an appellate court was about to hold arguments on that decision.

It seems a pattern emerges every time this Administration is about to face consequences for their misconduct - it appears that they continue doing whatever the fuck they want to do up to that point, then they stop doing it right to the point where their feet get held to the fire and then slide around and find another way to do it. This occurred when SCOTUS was about to rule on the legality of Jose Padilla being detained. Remember that? At the last moment, DOJ transferred him to a criminal court and charged him, and then turned around and told SCOTUS that now their questions were "moot":

http://select.nytimes.com/search/re...DA80994DD404482

When SCOTUS ruled in Hamdi to give Hamdi an actual venue to charge him with a crime so DOJ could prove his guilt, they let this supposed dangerous terrorist go free instead:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/14/hamdi/

And I must disagree with you about the criticism of procedural rules this Administration and its supporters had on the FISA courts for warrants and eavesdropping. There was ALSO a great amount, if not a greater amount of criticism coming from you folks about the substantive requirement under FISA for obtaining a warrant in the first place, i.e. the FISA requirement showing "probable cause" rather than the more loosely defined "reasonable basis". Here's current CIA director and former NSA director Michael Hayden outlining this complaint nicely:

quote:

HAYDEN: The president's authorization allows us to track this kind of call more comprehensively and more efficiently. The trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant, but the intrusion into privacy is also limited: only international calls and only those we have a reasonable basis to believe involve al Qaeda or one of its affiliates. . . . QUESTION: Just to clarify sort of what's been said, from what I've heard you say today and an earlier press conference, the change from going around the FISA law was to -- one of them was to lower the standard from what they call for, which is basically probable cause to a reasonable basis; and then to take it away from a federal court judge, the FISA court judge, and hand it over to a shift supervisor at NSA. Is that what we're talking about here -- just for clarification? GEN. HAYDEN: You got most of it right. The people who make the judgment, and the one you just referred to, there are only a hand. http://www.globalsecurity.org/intel...60123-dni01.htm

He also said this a month earlier:

quote:

GENERAL HAYDEN: One, the whole key here is agility. And let me re-trace some grounds I tried to suggest earlier. FISA was built for persistence. FISA was built for long-term coverage against known agents of an enemy power. And the purpose involved in each of those -- in those cases was either for a long-term law enforcement purpose or a long-term intelligence purpose. This program isn't for that. This is to detect and prevent. And here the key is not so much persistence as it is agility. It's a quicker trigger. It's a subtly softer trigger. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20051219-1.html

This was not simply because the process of obtaining warrants was too cumbersome and long, but because "probable cause" was not enough for them to get what they wanted.

And let's all keep in mind that this little barrier was introduced to be broken down (i.e. probable cause to "reasonable suspicion") by Republican Senator DeWine in 2002:

quote:

to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to modify the standard of proof for issuance of orders regarding non-United States persons from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. . . . http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s2659.html

And Congress refused to enact that change, as well as this Administration stating it likely didn't need it to change either, but I believe I addressed that before too.

Regardless, much will be answered with Gonzales' testimony today on this program. I'll save some of the most obvious questions about the legality of this program until after Gonzales testifies, but I think Mark Levin of the National Review hits on the most glaring obstacle:

quote:

Is there no principle subject to negotiation? Is there no course subject to reversal? For the Bush administration to argue for years that this program, as operated, was critical to our national security and fell within the president's Constitutional authority, to then turnaround and surrender presidential authority this way is disgraceful. The administration is repudiating all the arguments it has made in testimony, legal briefs, and public statements. This goes to the heart of the White House's credibility. How can it cast away such a fundamental position of principle and law like this? http://levin.nationalreview.com/pos...jE2NmQxZWQxYjI=

And he's not the only avid Bush supporter questioning the most obvious point. Here's Captain Ed:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com...ives/008945.php

Haven't been over to Powerline or Malkinblog yet, but I think they and all the other Bush supporters should have these initial questions in mind as well coming into today's testimony. Let's see what our AG has to say.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...