A secret court is no protection against dictatorship

[fastpat]

The FISA Farce

by James Bovard

President Bush proudly announced last month that he is violating federal law. He declared that in 2002 he ordered the National Security Agency to begin conducting warrantless wiretaps and email intercepts on Americans. He asserted that the wiretaps would continue, regardless of the law.

Bush claims that he must ignore the law because the secret federal court created to authorize such wiretaps moves too slowly to protect U.S. national security. Amazingly, his claim has been treated with respect, if not deference, by much of the nation�s media. Much of the media has groveled to his claim the same way that the special court grovels to federal agencies.

In 1978, responding to scandals about political spying on Americans in the name of counterespionage, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA created a new court to oversee federal surveillance of foreign agents within the United States.

The FISA court may be the biggest bunch of lapdogs in the federal government. The court approved almost every one of the 15,000 search warrant requests the feds submitted between 1978 and 2002, and it continues to approve more than 99 percent of requests.

FISA provides a judicial process only in the sense that the room where the political appointees convene is called a court. As national security expert James Bamford observed, Like a modern Star Chamber, the FISA court meets behind a cipher-locked door in a windowless, bug-proof, vault-like room guarded 24 hours a day on the top floor of the Justice Department building. The eleven judges (increased from seven by the Patriot Act) hear only the government's side.

Federal agencies can submit retroactive search warrant requests up to 72 hours after they begin surveilling someone. In 2002, for instance, Attorney General John Ashcroft personally issued more than 170 emergency domestic spying warrants; permitting agents to carry out wiretaps and search homes and offices for as many as 72 hours before the feds requested a search warrant from the FISA court. He used such powers almost a 100 times as often as attorneys general did before 9/11.

Congress set a very low standard for FISA search warrants. In federal criminal investigations, the government must show probable cause that a person is involved in criminal activity before being permitted to impose a wiretap. Under FISA, the government need show only that a person is suspected of being an agent of a foreign power or terrorist organization.

When FISA authorizes surveillance, the feds can switch on all the turbos. In a 2002 decision, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court noted that after it grants a surveillance request,

After 9/11, the Justice Department vigorously lobbied for Congress to revise FISA to permit it to be used for spying on Americans with little or no relationship to foreign powers or terrorist plots. Ashcroft claimed that the reform was needed because FISA had impeded efforts to track terrorists. The dispute was not over whether foreign agents should be tracked: no one in Congress was opposed to that. The issue was whether the feds could launch massive surveillance operations against U.S. citizens on the pretext of fighting terrorism even though there was no evidence of their criminal wrongdoing. Congress acquiesced to Ashcroft's demands. Read the Full Article.

James Bovard's Archives which go back well into the Clinton years.

[Mulhollanddose]

[fastpat]

[RallyJon]

The eleven judges hear only the government's side.

Unbelievable! This is outrageous! How can they not inform the suspect that he's about to be surveiled and invite him to send his attorney to the hearing. Fascists.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by RallyJon
Unbelievable! This is outrageous! How can they not inform the suspect that he's about to be surveiled and invite him to send his attorney to the hearing. Fascists.

Do you see an exception in the Constitution to the requirement of being able to face your accusers?

[tabs]

What makes U think U live in a Democracy? How many times has the Congress asked the CIA to divulge information, and how many times have they lied to Congress in the last 60 years....wake up and smell the roses....you live in a National Security State...ever since 1948....

[RallyJon]

Face your accusers? Yeah--at your trial--not while they're investigating you. Come on, be serious.

[dd74]

I knew McCarthy was a saint.

[Nathans_Dad]

Jon you are waaaay off base here! Of course suspected terrorists should be told if we plan on wiretapping them. In fact, they should have 48 hours notice that we plan on listening to any conversation they might have and that they are being investigated as a possible terrorist.

What are you, a fascist or something?

[fastpat]

Ivan Eland's continuing byline, The Empire Has No Clothes

An Imperial Presidency Based on Constitutional Quicksand

It is this last power that modern presidents, especially the current incumbent, have attempted to stretch from its narrow origins into the very nightmare the framers wanted to avoid�a single official with unchecked war powers. President Bush has justified unconstitutional acts in the �war on terror� by expanding the power of the commander-in-chief beyond the founders� intention. He has used that power to justify torture, the surveillance of Americans without a warrant, and the effective suspension of habeas corpus by indefinite detention of �enemy combatants��including some Americans�without a trial or access to lawyers. Yet the founders intended only that the president command forces on the battlefield because it was difficult for the many members of the legislative branch to do so. Yes, gathering intelligence is part of that effort, but another part of the Constitution�that is, the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights�implicitly guarantees that people will be protected against searches without a warrant. For conservatives that love original intent, the Constitution says nothing about being suspended during wartime. Also, torturing prisoners in violation of the congressionally approved Geneva Conventions and indefinitely detaining them without a trial seem to run afoul of the constitutional provisions providing that Congress has the power to make rules concerning captures on land and water and implying that only Congress, rather than the executive, has the power to suspend habeas corpus in times of rebellion or invasion (this provision is in Article I and not Article II).READ THE FULL ARTICLE

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Jon you are waaaay off base here! Of course suspected terrorists should be told if we plan on wiretapping them. In fact, they should have 48 hours notice that we plan on listening to any conversation they might have and that they are being investigated as a possible terrorist.

What are you, a fascist or something?

I guess that part of your comment was intended to be humorous, but knocking down silly, specious arguments that nobody is making in order to defend warrantless, unchecked, uninhibited spying on Americans by Americans just irks me.

Why is it that the Bush/Cheney defenders never address the real issues? Why do they have to misrepresent the opposition viewpoint in order to defend their own?

This does not involve informing a suspect, domestic or foreign, that they will be surveiled. That is of course absurd. It's a pure question of whether the president respects separation of powers, whether he or she respects the privacy rights of citizens enough to obtain a constitutional warrant in order to listen in on the private conversations of Americans.

I have yet to hear a single justification for what James Risen says is the administration's listening in on 500 private conversations at a time, for the past four years, with no oversight. No accountability. None.

And please don't say, "it's only the terrorists."

Neither you nor I nor anyone else outside a secret and select group knows whom the NSA is listening to.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by RallyJon
Unbelievable! This is outrageous! How can they not inform the suspect that he's about to be surveiled and invite him to send his attorney to the hearing. Fascists.

Originally posted by Fastpat
Do you see an exception in the Constitution to the requirement of being able to face your accusers?

And which part of FastPat's response should warrant a serious response Rodeo?? When in Rome...

[RallyJon]

This is a silly thread, started by (yet another) posting of a silly article from a biased source. When you lefties post this sort of crap, it's no better then when Mul posts the right wing version.

Got a good, sound argument without hyperbole, exaggeration, half-truths and strawmen? Then post it up.

You might start with making an actual case that ANYTHING the administration did was against the law. Just because all the liberal columnists cry "unconstitutional" and then cite something that doesn't apply in this case, doesn't make for Bushie in prison. Make the case for real, STFU, or get joke responses to your joke posts.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by RallyJon
This is a silly thread, started by (yet another) posting of a silly article from a biased source. When you lefties post this sort of crap, it's no better then when Mul posts the right wing version.

Translation: He doesn't know squat about the subject, so preffers to trap shoot the speaker instead.

Got a good, sound argument without hyperbole, exaggeration, half-truths and strawmen? Then post it up.

Translation: He didn't read any of the article, and if he had, he wouldn't understand any of it.

You might start with making an actual case that ANYTHING the administration did was against the law. Just because all the liberal columnists cry "unconstitutional" and then cite something that doesn't apply in this case, doesn't make for Bushie in prison. Make the case for real, STFU, or get joke responses to your joke posts.

We know Bush isn't likely to go to jail, anymore than Clinton was at risk for jail time. The government won't put it's loyal soldiers in jail unless they're from a lesser station, or get so carried away as to cast fecal matter on some of the golden boys. Duke Cunningham for example.

As for STFU, as soon as hell freezes over, I'll get right on it.

[Rodeo]

fastpat is now a "leftie." It was only a matter of time. Welcome to the club pat.

leftie = take exception to anything the Bush/Cheney administration does
rightie = blind devotion to the man

You guys spewing this leftie/rightie baloney couldn't find you own butt with both hands. fastpat's politics are to the right of 99.99% of the country.

[cool_chick]

Fastpat, I do see your point, but I feel the only possible solution is a court-appointed representative (similar to the guardian ad lidem issue) for the "tappee" to look at the facts of the case, but it would have to be in secret.

Or perhaps a routine check or review of the rulings (perhaps by an independent commission) to ensure they remain bound by the law.


And I have to say, It's a sad demonstration of the ignorance in this country today when small government and respect for the constitution makes a "leftie."

Let's take a look at who the real liebrals are here....

Legislating morality:

Dems: Affirmative action
Reps: Banning gay marriage.

Both are socialist based, "for the public good" liberal legislation.



Fiscal matters:

Dems: help the "little guy", they'll then spend more money into the economy.
Reps: help the corporations, trickle down will pump more money into the economy.

Both are socialist based, "for the public good" liberal thinking......


Spending:

Dems: fund social programs
Reps: fund industry (e.g., oil, drug)

Both are socialist based, "for the public good" liberal spending

It's all socialist, liberal thinking, you "conservatives" just argue on which particular liberal socialist program/legislation you support.

[Rodeo]

Good post CC

[slakjaw]

Alito:

Executive power

The president has to follow the Constitution and the laws. And, in fact, one of the most solemn responsibilities of the president -- and it's set out expressly in the Constitution -- is that the president is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed and that means the Constitution. It means statutes. It means treaties. It means all of the laws of the United States.

But what I am saying is that sometimes issues of executive power arise, and they have to be analyzed under the framework that Justice [Robert] Jackson set out. And you do get cases that are in this twilight zone, and they have to be decided when they come up based on the specifics of the situation.

[RallyJon]

Oh dear, that must have really hit a nerve to produce such a lash out. Got any reponses other than personal attacks?

Did YOU read the article before you posted it? Maybe you can't see the lbs of spin surrounding the oz of facts in that article.

Let me give you a Cliff's Notes: Congress authorized everything. If you've got a problem with that, critcize your rep or senator. But no, this was just another skim-highlight-copy-paste job. Who cares what the real issue is, right?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Fastpat, I do see your point, but I feel the only possible solution is a court-appointed representative (similar to the guardian ad lidem issue) for the "tappee" to look at the facts of the case, but it would have to be in secret.

Or perhaps a routine check or review of the rulings (perhaps by an independent commission) to ensure they remain bound by the law.


And I have to say, It's a sad demonstration of the ignorance in this country today when small government and respect for the constitution makes a "leftie."

Let's take a look at who the real liebrals are here....

Legislating morality:

Dems: Affirmative action
Reps: Banning gay marriage.

Both are socialist based, "for the public good" liberal legislation.



Fiscal matters:

Dems: help the "little guy", they'll then spend more money into the economy.
Reps: help the corporations, trickle down will pump more money into the economy.

Both are socialist based, "for the public good" liberal thinking......


Spending:

Dems: fund social programs
Reps: fund industry (e.g., oil, drug)

Both are socialist based, "for the public good" liberal spending

It's all socialist, liberal thinking, you "conservatives" just argue on which particular liberal socialist program/legislation you support.

Your grasp of the fundamentals is very good, well said.

One of the common threads in the fascist/socialist philosophies is that a powerful centralized state is an over all good, and that state governments powerful enough to offer genuine challenges to centralized federal government power are nearly always bad. I think that revitalizing state power, often misstated as state's rights (governments don't have rights, only people do), through original intent interpretation of the 10th Amendment is desparately needed to curb the out of control federal government. Is this a perfect answer, of course not, but it would be significantly better than what we have now.

First, we need to repeal the 17th Amendment, direct election of US senators. It always suprises me to learn that most folks don't know that voting on US senators every six years by direct ballot is still less than 100 years old. It was a Progressive social experiment that I'm prepared to rule a complete and total failure. Senators were elected by state legislatures, and we need to return to that. It has a side effect of ending campaign financing as we now know it for senators, lobbyists would have to court state legislators in all 50 states, while that might be a corrupting influence at the state level, spreading the corruption among several thousand politicians instead of just 100 would probably be an improvement.

Second, we need to codify various Supreme Court decisions that found the 16th Amendment did not allow the US government to directly tax incomes, except in vary narrow circumstances. Yes, I pay my taxes, before anyone asks. And, yes, I know that certain fairly wild claims are made about this, but the court cases are in black and white, and can be looked up. The IRS collects via failure to file laws, and other indirect methods of intimidation, plus special tax courts favorable to collection. We need that ended so that the life blood of corruption is strangled off to a large degree. No, a flat tax won't do it, it has to end, period.

Third, we need well established laws, or even a Constitutional Amendment, to prohibit federal government aid, of any kind, to state and local governments. Those are no more than federal bribes to states so that the states do what the fed demands. Speed limits, schools , drivers licenses, drinking ages, and a whole lot more have been affected.

And last, but not the end of the list, we need to think about semi-autonomous regions in the US as a method of bringing strength to groups of states as a hedge against federal hegemony. I can see about four of them, maybe five. This recognizes the cultural differences in various areas of the country, and that means much more tolerance of those differences than now exists.

I know that this is a huge drift from the subject of this thread, but it is related to an abusive federal government.