|
Supreme Court, Piss Off!
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Marc Summers |
| quote: | WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has agreed to shift course and let a secret but independent panel of federal judges oversee the government's controversial domestic spying program.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will have final say in approving wiretaps on communications involving people with suspected terror links, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday in a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Since Jan. 10, when the court began overseeing the program, at least one request has been approved to monitor communications of a person believed to be linked to al-Qaida or an associated terror group.
In his letter to Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Gonzales wrote that "any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."
The Bush administration secretly launched the Terrorist Surveillance Program in 2001 to monitor international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people suspected by the government of having terrorist links. Gonzales said Bush would not reauthorize the program.
The shift in oversight means that all wiretaps or other eavesdropping tools by the federal government must be approved by court order. Previously, the program allowed investigators to spy without a warrant _ resulting in widespread criticism from lawmakers and others who questioned the legality.
"The issue has never been whether to monitor suspected terrorists but doing it legally and with proper checks and balances to prevent abuses," Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday in welcoming the change. "Providing efficient but meaningful court review is a major step toward addressing those concerns."
The turnaround came after more than a year of stubborn insistence by the White House that oversight by the secret court was not required by law and, in fact, would be a hindrance to stopping terrorists. The FISA court was established in the late 1970s to review requests for warrants to conduct surveillance inside the United States.
Bush has maintained that the warrantless surveillance program's existence was "fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities," and has said he would continue to reauthorize it "for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups." He has said circumventing the FISA court "enables us to move faster and quicker."
On Wednesday, the White House said it is satisfied with the new guidelines to address administration officials' concerns about national security.
"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has put together its guidelines and its rules and those have met administration concerns about speed and agility when it comes to responding to bits of intelligence where we may to be able to save American lives," White House press secretary Tony Snow said.
Snow said he could not explain why those concerns could not have been addressed before the program was started. He said the president will not reauthorize the present program because the new rules will serve as guideposts.
A federal judge in Detroit last August declared the program unconstitutional, saying it violates the rights to free speech and privacy and the separation of powers. In October, a three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based appeals court ruled that the administration could keep the program in place while it appeals the Detroit decision.
Additionally, the Justice Department's inspector general is investigating the agency's use of information gathered in the spying program. In testimony last fall in front of the Senate panel, FBI Director Robert Mueller said he was not allowed to discuss classified details that could show whether it has curbed terrorist activity in the United States.
Congressional intelligence committees have already been briefed on the court's orders, Gonzales said in his letter. It was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee the day before he is set to testify before the panel, which oversees the Justice Department.
Some Democrats said the change still may not go far enough.
"While this may be a step in the right direction, it should not deflect the attention of the American people or the Congress from seeking answers about the current and past operation of this program," said House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich. |
SOURCE
Wow... Just... Holy . I have no words that truly express my deep concern for where our nation is headed. The Supreme Court and the Supreme Court alone should say what is and what isn't constitutional when it comes to surveillance in our own country. A court that meets the concerns of the Bush Administration? That's scary.
Down with Bush. Down with his whole bull administration. It's going to take YEARS for a democratic administration (Hopes for '08 :D ) to undo the that he's done to our country.
^
I bet that is just enough for the government to snoop in my computer. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
SOURCE
Wow... Just... Holy . I have no words that truly express my deep concern for where our nation is headed. The Supreme Court and the Supreme Court alone should say what is and what isn't constitutional when it comes to surveillance in our own country. A court that meets the concerns of the Bush Administration? That's scary.
Down with Bush. Down with his whole bull administration. It's going to take YEARS for a democratic administration (Hopes for '08 :D ) to undo the that he's done to our country.
^
I bet that is just enough for the government to snoop in my computer. :rolleyes: |
LOL!!!!! :stongue:
dude, your like 30 years behind the curve.
in fact, youve got all backwards with this story. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
The Supreme Court and the Supreme Court alone should say what is and what isn't constitutional when it comes to surveillance in our own country. |
yeah, that is so profoundly wrong i'm surprised you are an American.
it's the Congress that decides what is Constitutional.
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
I bet that is just enough for the government to snoop in my computer. :rolleyes: |
wtf does that have to do with Bush's domestic surveilence program? |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
yeah, that is so profoundly wrong i'm surprised you are an American.
it's the Congress that decides what is Constitutional.
|
The Supreme Court has EVERYTHING to do with the constitution. Not the interpretation of the document itself, but the decision that was made by the supreme court, is guided by the constitution.
ACLU v. NSA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_wa...nce_controversy
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html
| quote: | | The state secrets privilege, outlined by the Supreme Court in a 1953 case (UNITED STATES v. REYNOLDS), permits the government to derail a lawsuit that might otherwise lead to the disclosure of military secrets. |
http://news.com.com/AT38T+sued+over..._3-6033501.html
The supreme court's rulings over the years have settled issues that have been in open to the interpretation of lower courts in the past.
I don't know where the hell you've been, buddy.
| quote: |
wtf does that have to do with Bush's domestic surveilence program? |
It was an exaggeration, get a clue. |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
Here's another one, nut.
HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD
If there was a special court that met the concerns of the bush administration in regard to TORTURING FOR INTERROGATION, there wouldn't be a case like this... |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
I don't know where the hell you've been, buddy. |
wow your one of those people that can never admit they are wrong aren't you?
do you still stand by this statement?
| quote: | | The Supreme Court and the Supreme Court alone should say what is and what isn't constitutional when it comes to surveillance in our own country. |
if you do stand by it consider yourself a fascist.
wat do the lower courts have to say about Constituionality? according to your logic, nothing. the SCOTUS is the final word but i'll be damned if they are the only word, that includes the other two branches of Government. which, BTW, those branches retain the ability to change the Constitution altogether.
Congress enacted the Foriegn Intelligence Survelence Act in 1978 not the Supreme Court.
the two examples you gave do not challange FISA's Constitutionality. they challenge the Executive's interpretation of FISA. well, one does Hamdan has nothing to do with this.
you have Bush Derangement Syndrome. it's very infectcious if you're not intellectually honest. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
Here's another one, nut.
HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD
If there was a special court that met the concerns of the bush administration in regard to TORTURING FOR INTERROGATION, there wouldn't be a case like this... |
this has bee threaded before. it sure as hell doen't belong here. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
It was an exaggeration, get a clue. |
oh right, right. i didn't see the smiley.
...and you still have interpreted the article all bass-ackwards |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
you have Bush Derangement Syndrome. it's very infectcious if you're not intellectually honest. |
You don't get it, do you? This has nothing to do with bush. It has to do with his administration (Which includes him, NO WAY!) using another court to enable them to easily obtain information without proper warrant. I'd say the same exact thing if it was a democratic administration. Allowing for "Speed and agility" in warranting surveillance means less and less information and EVIDENCE is needed.
What is wrong with you? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
What is wrong with you? |
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? since 9/11/2001 he has reviewed his oversight authority every 45 days with a vote of the Senate Intel Committee. now that the Donkey party has the majority in Congress he does not feel he has the support to renew it every 45 days. 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. 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.
this court [FISA] has had the authority you were complaining about for almost 30 years now.
now if you want to debate the Constitutionality of his authority thats all fine and well and MisterOpus has a real long thread about it around here somewhere. |
|
|
| Rhuckus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
I'd say the same exact thing if it was a democratic administration. |
I was just hoping everyone would remember this little gem while bagging on the new boss, same as the old boss.
| quote: | | Moreover, the Clinton administration is -- as the ACLU's Laura Murphy recently told the National Law Journal -- "the most wire-tap-friendly administration in history." |
SOURCE
that was 2002, now it's Bush, next term: Obama? |
|
|
| Dopey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rhuckus
I was just hoping everyone would remember this little gem while bagging on the new boss, same as the old boss.
SOURCE
that was 2002, now it's Bush, next term: Obama? |
your source is another forum? |
|
|
|
|
