PDA

View Full Version : Administration to let court monitor domestic spying


Professor
01-18-2007, 03:44 AM
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/17/domestic.spying/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Administration to let court monitor domestic spying

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Reversing a position it defended for more than a year, the Bush administration announced Wednesday that it has begun getting court approval before eavesdropping on the communications of suspected terrorists or their associates.

The Justice Department notified Congress that a court set up to specialize in wiretapping would oversee its "terrorist surveillance program," which the administration has said could operate without judicial review. Critics said that violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which set up a special court to review wiretap applications in intelligence cases.

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wrote that the administration still believes the program is legal, but that a judge on the court has set rules that preserve "the speed and agility necessary" to battle terrorism.

"The president is committed to using all lawful tools to protect our nation from the terrorist threat, including making maximum use of the authorities provided by FISA and taking full advantage of developments in the law," Gonzales wrote. (Read Gonzales' letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee)

Neither Gonzales nor Justice Department officials disclosed details of the rules set by the court, arguing that details were classified. But Gonzales said President Bush would no longer authorize the existing program, which administration officials said was necessary because the court set up under FISA was too slow to respond to new terrorist threats.

"To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks," Bush said in December 2005.

Gonzales to face Senate committee
The administration's reversal comes a day before Gonzales was scheduled to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Its chairman, Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, said he welcomed the decision.

"As I pointed out for some time, and as other senators on both sides of the aisle pointed out, that was, at the very best, of doubtful legality," Leahy said. He said surveillance was needed to prevent terrorist attacks, "but we can and we should do it in ways that protect the basic rights of all Americans."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, called the move "a long-overdue recognition" that existing laws can protect the country. "Although the judge's order announced today needs to be reviewed thoroughly, the fact that the president will no longer be authorizing unilaterally intrusive surveillance of people in the United States is good news," Pelosi said in a written statement.

Democratic Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, called the decision "welcome news, if long overdue."

"It proves that this surveillance has always been possible under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and that there was never a good reason to evade the law," Reyes said in a written statement.

The government now will ask the court to approve surveillance requests for 90 days, after which it must seek renewed permission. Justice Department officials said the court issued more than one order governing the program, but they refused to provide details of the still-classified program.

The officials also refused to comment on how the procedures could be implemented without damaging national security, as top administration figures insisted.

Gonzales wrote that the administration has been working with the court for two years to bring the program under FISA, even as it defended the program and resisted calls for greater oversight. But the White House dismissed suggestions that the announcement was influenced by political concerns.

"It's an example of a case where we take hits for doing what's right rather than getting credit for what seems to be expedient," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on calls to or from people suspected of having ties to al Qaeda shortly after the terror network's September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. The program remained secret for four years, and ignited a controversy once it was disclosed.

Sen. Arlen Specter, then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said FISA "flatly prohibits" electronic eavesdropping without a judge's permission. A federal judge ruled the program unconstitutional in July.

ACLU skeptical of motives
The American Civil Liberties Union, which led the court challenge to the program, called the decision to submit the program to the FISA court "an effort to avoid judicial and congressional scrutiny."

"The legality of this unprecedented surveillance program should not be decided by a secret court in one-sided proceedings," said Ann Beeson, the lead attorney in the group's lawsuit. The group said it would urge the FISA court to release more information about its new orders, which Gonzales said were issued January 10.

Specter, now the Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, said he wants to see more detail about how the program will now be run.

"I think we need to know more about the procedures on the determination of probable cause, whether it is on individualized warrants or it is a group program," he said. "And we will need to know more about the determination of the individual being an agent of al Qaeda."

A senior Justice Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, said the department still believes the 1978 law should be modified to account for advances in electronic communication. Wednesday's announcement will "take some political heat off the debate," he said.

"These orders allow us to do the same thing that we've been doing, but we will be operating under the orders we've obtained from a FISA judge," the official said.

CNN's Terry Frieden contributed to this report.

lily
01-18-2007, 04:17 AM
While this makes me very happy, the cynic in me makes me wonder what made him change his mind.

BoogyMan
01-18-2007, 12:28 PM
While this makes me very happy, the cynic in me makes me wonder what made him change his mind.


It could be that if it actually went to the leaky sieve congress for approval that those being monitored would get dark of night phone calls from the NYT asking them how they feel about being monitored.

gpruitt54
01-19-2007, 01:41 AM
For what reason do we hold the US Constitution in such high regard then at the first sign of societal stress, we fold up like a like a lawn chair.

The only thing we receive from undoing portions of the constitution is the diminishment of freedom. The threat will still remain. Are we the home of the brave or the home of punks, who fear everything around them? We had better decide who we want to be, or we will be nothing.

BoogyMan
01-19-2007, 01:45 AM
For what reason do we hold the US Constitution in such high regard then at the first sign of societal stress, we fold up like a like a lawn chair.

The only thing we receive from undoing portions of the constitution is the diminishment of freedom. The threat will still remain. Are we the home of the brave or the home of punks, who fear everything around them? We had better decide who we want to be, or we will be nothing.


Why are you complaining? The FISA court is going to be consulted for approval for such actions now.

gpruitt54
01-19-2007, 01:52 AM
Why are you complaining? The FISA court is going to be consulted for approval for such actions now.


This is intended for those who will attempt to justify what this administration is doing.

Thirdparty
01-19-2007, 02:04 AM
For what reason do we hold the US Constitution in such high regard then at the first sign of societal stress, we fold up like a like a lawn chair.

The only thing we receive from undoing portions of the constitution is the diminishment of freedom. The threat will still remain. Are we the home of the brave or the home of punks, who fear everything around them? We had better decide who we want to be, or we will be nothing.


What are you griping about? FISA judges will review the cases. If anything, the libs should be doing handstands.

Drocket
01-19-2007, 05:17 AM
What are you griping about? FISA judges will review the cases. If anything, the libs should be doing handstands.

The president has deigned to obey the law, as though he were a mere common mortal. Woohoo, break out the balloons and party cake! Remember kids, its completely OK to break the law as long as you promise not to do it again once you've been caught.

And they say liberals are soft on crime. :rolleyes:

ECW
01-19-2007, 06:45 AM
What are you griping about? FISA judges will review the cases. If anything, the libs should be doing handstands.

The president has deigned to obey the law, as though he were a mere common mortal.Â*Â*Woohoo, break out the balloons and party cake!Â*Â*Remember kids, its completely OK to break the law as long as you promise not to do it again once you've been caught.

And they say liberals are soft on crime.Â*Â*:rolleyes:


The real bitch about this is that it takes away one of the most solid impeachment topics. I am glad that Bush is finally starting to uphold the constitution he promised to follow when he was first selected president but I think he moved back on this because he knew he was on shaky legal grounds with the Democrats now in charge of Congress. The power to subpoena executive branch officials on this matter must have put the fear of God in him.

Labrocca
01-19-2007, 07:22 AM
The real bitch about this is that it takes away one of the most solid impeachment topics. I am glad that Bush is finally starting to uphold the constitution he promised to follow when he was first selected president but I think he moved back on this because he knew he was on shaky legal grounds with the Democrats now in charge of Congress. The power to subpoena executive branch officials on this matter must have put the fear of God in him.



I agree with most of your sentiments. However it's more than likely he just realized the soft-on-terror democrats wouldn't back him on fighting terror. Obviously the shift in power is what changed the administrations mind. They however admitted no wrongdoing. The partisanship is obvious. The Democrats will undermine the fight on terror simply to make the GOP look bad and to gain their own power. So far it's working. I wonder what the liberals will say when there is another attack on US soil...let me guess...

"oh it's a government conspiracy by the right wing so they can sieze power"...

lol

And you act like FISA courts mean anything. The ACLU will ALWAYS undermine the governments ability to fight terror. They have a warped sense of how they obtained their own freedom. Security our government and our way of life imho is how we keep freedom in our borders.

ECW
01-19-2007, 08:05 AM
Well, until Bush became president, the FISA courts did mean something. HE was the one that tried to bypass them and render them meaningless.

If there is another terror attack on our soil and it as devastating as the WTC we will know for sure that this administration, despite all their bravado and chest-thumping, doesn't really know what they are doing. They didn't know what they were doing in Afghanistan, they are a "slow failure" in Iraq, they cannot deal with the illegal immigration crisis, they cannot stop job outsourcing, they cannot rebuild New Orleans, they have no health care plan except for the Bush Plan (Don't Get Sick) and they have let their favorite sons (lobbyists, big business, and the wealthy) write most of the legislation over the past six years that has crippled the effectiveness of the oversight of our government. Bush got re-elected on his promise to keep us safer and if he can't do that then he's a complete and total failure. He's certainly in the running for one honor. Worst. President. Ever.

BoogyMan
01-19-2007, 12:22 PM
Hey ECW, you left off the fact that the federal government didn't stop some guy from sliding into my Corvette as it sat innocently in a parking spot during the last ice storm. Egads.

This is sore winner hogwash ECW. You got what you wanted and are STILL ranting and blaming the federal government for EVERYTHING.

Nemo
01-19-2007, 01:41 PM
As intimated in the article, the motives of the administration are questionable.Â*Â*The timing of the announcement would suggest that the shift in policy is an attempt to moot the pending appeal of the ACLU lawsuit against the National Security Agency in which District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled the Bush administration’s domestic surveillance program in violation of the U.S. Constitution.Â*Â*See Memorandum Opinion, American Civil Liberties Union, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. National Security Agency/Central Security Service, et al., Defendants, Case No. 06-CV-10204, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division (August 17, 2006).Â*Â*It doesn’t take a legal scholar to know which way the judicial wind is blowing on this issue.

lily
01-22-2007, 01:02 AM
IMO all this has to do with Gonzales testifing in front of congress next month. CYA.

BoogyMan
01-22-2007, 01:25 AM
IMO all this has to do with Gonzales testifing in front of congress next month. CYA.


I doubt it seriously since he was already testifying before congress on the 18th.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011900411.html

lily
01-22-2007, 02:14 AM
Well, Boogy both articles I read said next month.......either way, I don't know what it has to do with my opinion. If he testified on the 18th, they changed their mind on the 17th. Making it nice and convienent.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/13/nsa.congress/


http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/13/221345.php

BoogyMan
01-22-2007, 02:22 AM
Well, Boogy both articles I read said next month.......either way, I don't know what it has to do with my opinion. If he testified on the 18th, they changed their mind on the 17th. Making it nice and convienent.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/13/nsa.congress/


http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/13/221345.php


Wow, conjecture has run amok I guess.