PDA

View Full Version : Administration to let court monitor domestic spying




zimv20
Jan 17, 2007, 06:41 PM
cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/17/domestic.spying/index.html)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has agreed to allow a federal court that specializes in wiretap requests to oversee its non-warrant electronic surveillance program, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

In a letter to Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wrote that a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has agreed to authorize the program and preserve "the speed and agility necessary" to battle terrorism.

The Bush administration has asserted for more than a year that it had the authority to monitor U.S. residents' international communications without a judge's approval, as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires. But many lawmakers and legal observers have questioned that claim and argued that President Bush violated that 1978 law by authorizing the eavesdropping.

In the letter, Gonzales maintained that the program to monitor communications without a court order is legal. However, he said that FISA court orders issued on January 10 mean Bush won't need to reauthorize the controversial surveillance effort. (Read Gonzales' letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee)

"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.
'Welcome news, if long overdue'

The announcement comes a day before Gonzales is scheduled to appear before Leahy's committee. Leahy said he welcomed the administration's decision.

"As I pointed out for sometime, 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."

And 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.

Bush had periodically reauthorized the program since its inception. That authorization will no longer be necessary, "Because the new rules will serve as guideposts," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

(more)

good news? seemingly, but i no longer trust this administration w/ anything at all. somehow, somewhere, there's something even ickier going on.



Thomas Veil
Jan 17, 2007, 07:14 PM
I share your skepticism. I am hoping this sudden about-face only came about because of some heat that the Democrats were about to apply. But I don't know....

Still doesn't excuse their earlier behavior. In fact, as Reyes states, it shows how unnecessary their skullduggery was all along.

mactastic
Jan 17, 2007, 11:08 PM
I'm guessing it's another stalling-for-time tactic, not unlike the last-minute decision to transfer Jose Padilla to the civilian court system just as a judge seemed likely to rule against the questionable legality of the Bush administration's actions. By doing so, they effectively started the legal process over, which they know will add another year or so to the time before they have to answer for their actions.

And, in this situation, they're hoping they can convince just enough members of Congress not to investigate now that they've done what everyone said they should have done a year ago. And who knows, they may be successful at it. But I doubt Leahy will give up that easily.

The Bush administration may yet rue the day Cheney lost his temper with Leahy on the Senate floor. I wouldn't expect a guy I told to go do anatomically impossible things to himself to be anything but hostile to me.

obeygiant
Jan 18, 2007, 12:48 AM
If they can thwart any terror plots what can it hurt? Unless you have something to hide. :o

zimv20
Jan 18, 2007, 12:55 AM
in this situation, they're hoping they can convince just enough members of Congress not to investigate now that they've done what everyone said they should have done a year ago.
ahhh, good call. combine this with firing US attorneys (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=270734) and keeping committees busy responding to pre-emptive subpoenas (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=267462), and we can see that the WH is scared ******** of investigations.

solvs
Jan 18, 2007, 03:52 AM
If they can thwart any terror plots what can it hurt? Unless you have something to hide. :o

I can't believe people are still touting this tired line.

It goes against everything America is supposed to stand for. They can thwart terrorist plots just as easily with warrants. All the warrants do is make them have to justify what they're doing. I'll turn it around on you, if they have nothing to hide by searching, why not get a warrant? There's a reason why cops need proof first to arrest someone, because without some kind of accountability, it opens it up to abuse. So King George (the one in the 1700's, but it works for today too) can't send his troops to kick your door down, take all your stuff, and take you to jail because they feel like it.

So no, I have nothing to hide ('cept some embarrassing photos) but they have no reason to spy on me, so it goes both ways. You are wrong. Wrong. And it's people like you that make the road to fascism that much easier for the power hungry.

atszyman
Jan 18, 2007, 08:39 AM
If they can thwart any terror plots what can it hurt? Unless you have something to hide. :o

So you're in favor of a national gun registry?

mactastic
Jan 18, 2007, 08:59 AM
If they can thwart any terror plots what can it hurt? Unless you have something to hide. :o
Wow... You really exemplify what's rotten with right-wing thought these days. Remember when conservatives and libertarians were difficult to distinguish on the issue of big-brother government? Most libertarians would be so offended by what you just said that they would refuse to vote for any candidate who argued that position. What you just said is so fundamentally antithetical to the values of this county that I can't believe I regularly hear Americans make this argument.

It's the argument of a person in fear for their life, yet unwilling to deal with that fear. What happened to "Give me liberty, or give me death!"? Sentiment from a bygone era?

"What can it hurt?" You honestly have no idea how an unaccountable program like this can be subject to abuse? You have to be either naive or gullible. Or drunk on the Kool Aid. Or you mean "What can it hurt me?", not "what can it hurt?"

And finally, if HRC could clandestinely listen in on anyone she wanted to, would you want some way of knowing that she wasn't using her powers for evil? Or do you trust her enough to spy on you, but not enough to be your Commander in Chief?