Feingold calls for Presidential Censure.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's made up of three federal judges, is it not?

Come on YAS, we went over this ground earlier. Yes it has judges on it. Yes it also has various other officials from the executive branch, and the legislative branch. It is therefore a joint body. You cannot have the FBI and NSA in on a "court" where their own warrants are being decided. Its the wolf in the hen house.

[YASNY]

Come on YAS, we went over this ground earlier.  Yes it has judges on it.  Yes it also has various other officials from the executive branch, and the legislative branch.  It is therefore a joint body.  You cannot have the FBI and NSA in on a "court" where their own warrants are being decided.  Its the wolf in the hen house.

 

But the judges were the ones that actually ruled. Where is it stated that FBI and NSA had any say so in the decision?

[Balta1701]

Wait.  I thought this whole thing, the problem, was that Bush disregarded and circumvented FISA to do these warrentless taps.  Now, when it appears he followed the law regarding FISA, then FISA has nothing to do with it.  I'm sorry Balta, but I think you are just talking in circles.  Maybe one of the other Bush detractors can explain it to me.

Ok, Bush has done plenty of wiretaps within FISA. For these, he has followed the standard FISA approval procedure. It's not like the FISA court has just never met over the last few years, it's approved thousands of wiretaps if I recall the numbers correctly.

 

The FISA court has also rejected something like 10 applications for wiretaps over the last few years (more than in it's history beforehand, but still less than 1%). The Bush Administration responded to 1 of these rejections by challenging it to the FISA court of Review, which is what we've been talking about here. Every single one of those wiretaps is 100% legal, as far as I know, unless some court steps in and overturns FISA or the Congress amends the constitution.

 

We learned from the NYT in December that even while Mr. Bush was following the normal procedures for the FISA wiretaps, they were also conducting some sort of surveillance outside of FISA, with absolutely no FISA approval. These wiretaps were never even brought to the FISA court. These are the ones that are in question as to their legality. We don't know why they didn't bring them to FISA, but they chose not to do so.

 

So, they are doing plenty of legal wiretaps, but they are also doing wiretaps outside of FISA through the program the President authorized. It is these 2nd wiretaps that are the focus of this whole mess.

[YASNY]

Ok, Bush has done plenty of wiretaps within FISA.  For these, he has followed the standard FISA approval procedure.  It's not like the FISA court has just never met over the last few years, it's approved thousands of wiretaps if I recall the numbers correctly.

 

The FISA court has also rejected something like 10 applications for wiretaps over the last few years (more than in it's history beforehand, but still less than 1%).  The Bush Administration responded to 1 of these rejections by challenging it to the FISA court of Review, which is what we've been talking about here.  Every single one of those wiretaps is 100% legal, as far as I know, unless some court steps in and overturns FISA or the Congress amends the constitution.

 

We learned from the NYT in December that even while Mr. Bush was following the normal procedures for the FISA wiretaps, they were also conducting some sort of surveillance outside of FISA, with absolutely no FISA approval.  These wiretaps were never even brought to the FISA court.  These are the ones that are in question as to their legality.  We don't know why they didn't bring them to FISA, but they chose not to do so.

 

So, they are doing plenty of legal wiretaps, but they are also doing wiretaps outside of FISA through the program the President authorized.  It is these 2nd wiretaps that are the focus of this whole mess.

 

Ok ... for the time being I'm gonna have to bail as I need to get some sleep. I'll reread your post tonight and give it some thought. Until then, have a good day and thanks for the discussion.

[NorthSideSox72]

But the judges were the ones that actually ruled.  Where is it stated that FBI and NSA had any say so in the decision?

As I understand it, reading York article and excerpts from the legal decision on Truong, the COS includes:

 

3 federal judges (judicial)

US solicitor general (executive)

Deputy AG (executive)

A "justice official" (not sure)

An FBI official (executive)

VP Cheney's personal attorney (executive and just plain weird if you ask me)

 

Now, perhaps this is my misinterperetation, but this COS made a legal decision that had the binding force of a court decision. And those officials were involved. To me, that's wrong.

 

Am I misunderstanding something? Truly, tell me if I am.

[FlaSoxxJim]

As I understand it, reading York article and excerpts from the legal decision on Truong, the COS includes:

 

3 federal judges (judicial)

US solicitor general (executive)

Deputy AG (executive)

A "justice official" (not sure)

An FBI official (executive)

VP Cheney's personal attorney (executive and just plain weird if you ask me)

 

Now, perhaps this is my misinterperetation, but this COS made a legal decision that had the binding force of a court decision.  And those officials were involved.  To me, that's wrong.

 

Am I misunderstanding something?  Truly, tell me if I am.

 

I think there may be a misunderstanding. My reading of the NR piece gave me the impression that only the three judges comprosed the actual court of review, while the others in attendence were arguing a (rather one-sided) case.

[Balta1701]

Northside, I think you may actually be wrong in this case, at least based on my understanding of the FISA COR. The Wikipedia description seems useful to me here.

 

The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review is a U.S. federal court authorized under 50 USC 1803 and established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (known as FISA for short). It is a three judge panel whose sole purpose is to review denials of applications for electronic surveillance warrants (called FISA warrants) by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (or FISC). Each judge of the FISC, in turn, has the jurisdiction to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal police agencies (primarily the F.B.I.) against suspected foreign intelligence agents inside the United States. Any appeals from the Court of Review are made directly to the Supreme Court. Like a grand jury, the Court of Review is not an adversarial court; rather, the only party to the court is the federal government, although other parties may submit briefs as amici curiae. Records of the proceedings are kept, but they are classified, although copies of the proceedings with sensitive information redacted may be made public.

 

The judges of the Court of Review are district or appellate federal judges, appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States for seven year terms. The terms are staggered so that there are at least two years between consecutive appointments. A judge may be appointed only once to either this court or the FISC.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think there may be a misunderstanding.  My reading of the NR piece gave me the impression that only the three judges comprosed the actual court of review, while the others in attendence were arguing a (rather one-sided) case.

If that is the case, then indeed the COR would likely be a binding judicial body, and that would pretty much mean that Bush's requests via FISA were perfectly legal. This is, I think, what YASNY and Balta agreed on as well. So if that is the case, I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.

 

I still have other reservations about the surveillance happening outside FISA, from a Constitutional and plain old legal standpoint. Those actions appear to be in question still.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I still have other reservations about the surveillance happening outside FISA, from a Constitutional and plain old legal standpoint.  Those actions appear to be in question still.

 

I agree that still seems to be the heart of the matter. COR seems only to have made a specific ruling about a request FISA denied that it apparently shouldn't have after Patriot Act. But to extrapolate from that a legality for all the surveilance that has occured outside of FISA is premature, I think.

 

Regardless of whether all of the wiretaps external to FISA woulda/shoulda been approved under a post-Patriot FISA is not relevant since the adminsitration and NSA decided not to go through that established channel.

 

In light of the discussion here, I think Byron York NR piece alludes to the notion that with the loosened standards of Patriot/FISA the NSA surveilances would have been approved. In cases where there really is a suspected El Quaida connection on one end of the calls I don't think that truly ever was in debate. What was (and I think still is) in debate is whether the president had the authority to go outside of FISA in those instances. If I'm following evertything, York implies that he did, while Balta's interpretation is that the COR ruling doesn't speak to the survailance carried out outside of FISA.

[YASNY]

I agree that still seems to be the heart of the matter.  COR seems only to have made a specific ruling about a request FISA denied that it apparently shouldn't have after Patriot Act.  But to extrapolate from that a legality for all the surveilance that has occured outside of FISA is premature, I think.

 

Regardless of whether all of the wiretaps external to FISA woulda/shoulda been approved under a post-Patriot FISA is not relevant since the adminsitration and NSA decided not to go through that established channel.

 

In light of the discussion here, I think Byron York NR piece alludes to the notion that with the loosened standards of Patriot/FISA the NSA surveilances would have been approved.  In cases where there really is a suspected El Quaida connection on one end of the calls I don't think that truly ever was in debate.  What was (and I think still is) in debate is whether the president had the authority to go outside of FISA in those instances.  If I'm following evertything, York implies that he did, while Balta's interpretation is that the COR ruling doesn't speak to the survailance carried out outside of FISA.

 

That says a mouthful. I can follow York's piece without a problem. I can follow the quotes from COR. What I can't seem to follow is Balta's reasoning. This is not a critcism of Balta. It's just where I get lost. In my opinion, this York piece does show solid legal footing for the president, as I haven't been convinced otherwise yet, even though I've tried to consider and comprehend arguments presented by those of differing opinions.

[YASNY]

Hey Rex!

 

Sorry, but in the course of this discussion I never responded to your question about Bennett. I can't help you much as I have no idea who this guy is. As I said, I had never heard of him before. I also couldn't tell you the name of the radio program. He may very well be a whack job. It was what York was saying that grabbed my attention.

[Mplssoxfan]

As usual, I'm not contributing anything of substance, but let me thank all you guys for making this one of my favorite threads of the year so far.

[YASNY]

As usual, I'm not contributing anything of substance, but let me thank all you guys for making this one of my favorite threads of the year so far.

 

I concur. This has been a great thread with great discussion. I think we are beginning to see a less contentious filibuster evolve. Let's hope it continues.

Edited March 24, 2006 by YASNY

[FlaSoxxJim]

I concur.  This has been a great thread with great discussion. I think we are beginning to see a less contentious filibuster evolve.  Let's hope it continues.

Screw that noise!

 

Edited March 24, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[YASNY]

Screw that noise!   

 

 

I thought liberals were pacifists.

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

I thought liberals were pacifists. 

 

 

We are, natch. You want a peace of this?!?

[YASNY]

We are, natch. You want a peace of this?!? 

 

Typical liberal double talk

[Rex Kickass]

Hey Rex!

 

Sorry, but in the course of this discussion I never responded to your question about Bennett.  I can't help you much as I have no idea who this guy is.  As I said, I had never heard of him before.  I also couldn't tell you the name of the radio program.  He may very well be a whack job.  It was what York was saying that grabbed my attention.

 

Ain't no thing but a chicken wing on a string.

 

Bennett and York both have an ideological axe to grind in trying to prove domestic wiretapping as not a violation of the law. It seems that York is taking a ruling to a specific case about an appeal for a FISA warrant and applying it to dozens if not hundreds of cases where warrants weren't even sought to begin with. The COA, if I'm following this discussion right issued a ruling on appeal on whether or not a warrant should have been issued. Not whether or not the warrant was even necessary.

 

Am I wrong?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Ain't no thing but a chicken wing on a string.

 

Bennett and York both have an ideological axe to grind in trying to prove domestic wiretapping as not a violation of the law. It seems that York is taking a ruling to a specific case about an appeal for a FISA warrant and applying it to dozens if not hundreds of cases where warrants weren't even sought to begin with. The COA, if I'm following this discussion right issued a ruling on appeal on whether or not a warrant should have been issued. Not whether or not the warrant was even necessary.

 

Am I wrong?

That is my interpretation as well, based on what has been posted here.

[YASNY]

Congressman Jim McDermott, a left-wing Democrat from Washington state, has lost yet another round in his legal battle with House majority leader John Boehner over whether McDermott broke the law almost a decade ago. In 1996, a pair of Democratic activists illegally taped a phone call between Boehner, former speaker Newt Gingrich, and other congressional Republicans. McDermott obtained a copy of the recording and passed it on to reporters for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the New York Times. On March 28, a federal appeals court likened McDermott’s behavior to accepting and passing on property that he knew was stolen. Unless the congressman takes his case to the Supreme Court — and he probably will try — he’ll have to fork over more than $700,000 in damages and legal fees to Boehner. The most amazing aspect of this controversy may be the relative silence of McDermott’s fellow Democrats: Many carry on incessantly about the Bush administration’s wiretapping efforts, which are aimed at preventing terrorists from killing Americans, but they clam up when eavesdropping advances their own partisan interests. Censure, anyone?

[FlaSoxxJim]

 

This has more relevance and connection to the refusal of the House Ethics committee to investigate Abramoff ties than any of the call for presidential censure.

 

This investigation was begun in 2004 by Ethics, and its continuation was the only tangible action announced by the panel after Thursday's 6 hour meeting.

 

I concur McDermott needs to either pay the fine or choose to continue the legal battle.

 

But the fact that in the face of all the Congresspersons caught up in the Abramoff web the only thing Ethics decided to do was to continue a 2004 investigation into a 1996 wrongdoing is by far the most troubling aspect of the story.

 

From ranking Democratic member Alan Mollohan's highly critical statement to the panel:

 

Where the alleged violations are serious, and relevant information cannot be obtained other than through exercise of the subpoena power, the Committee must establish an investigative subcommittee to conduct a formal investigation.

 

Today the Committee met for six hours to consider potential investigative matters, and the sole action that the Committee agreed to take was to continue an investigation that was initiated in 200

Edited April 1, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim