U.S. judge on spy court resigns post

[Neil D]

[:"blue"] I know people who will not talk on the phone lines any more because they are being listen in on..Some people will not talk about a subject due to censureship. What do you say? [/]

Letter follows reports on Bush wiretap OKs

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer, The Washington Post. Post writers Jonathan Weisman and Charles Babington and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report, as did Tribune news services

Published December 21, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

Two associates familiar with his decision said Tuesday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the work of the FISA court, established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Robertson, appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and later was selected by Chief Justice William Rehnquist to serve on the foreign intelligence court, declined to comment Tuesday.

Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups.

Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said that surveillance required court approval.

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires--a wiretap requires a court order," Bush said at the time. "Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act.

Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday defended the secret wiretaps.

"You know, it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years," the vice president said, speaking with reporters on Air Force Two en route from Pakistan to Oman.

Revelation of the program last week by The New York Times also spurred considerable debate among federal judges, including some who serve on the FISA court. For more than a quarter-century, that court had been seen as the only body that could legally authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects, and only when the Justice Department could show probable cause that its targets were foreign governments or their agents.

Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain foreign intelligence warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004, and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants--to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."

[Dr. Shane]

Seems this is nothing new. President Clinton was doing it for economic reasons.

[Naomi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Shane said:

Seems this is nothing new. President Clinton was doing it for economic reasons.

<img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/sign23.gif" alt="" />

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Shane, It sounds as though you are saying that "Big Brother" has been watching for at least 3 presidential terms. We can sleep well at night knowing our secret service is at work. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/oops.gif" alt="" />

Oh well, it is what it is, and we be thankful for the freedon and relative safety in which we live.

Blessings,

Naomi

[Dr. Shane]

It seems clear this is wrong if it is between two US citizens. If one is not a US citizen then it isn't so clear. However this has been done when both parties are US citizens.

And yes, it is good to keep it in prespective. This isn't a partisan issue.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

It seems clear this is wrong if it is between two US citizens. If one is not a US citizen then it isn't so clear. However this has been done when both parties are US citizens.

And yes, it is good to keep it in prespective. This isn't a partisan issue.

---

And, you would think that since the present adminsitration has the past adminstrations to learn from that it would...Instead, it dives deeper into your private affairs...

[Dr. Shane]

I think power corupts and absolute power corupts absolutely. I don't think it has anything to do with a person's politcal party.

I am glad we have a free press and I am glad we have a system of checks and balances. I did not cry foul when President Clinton was investigated, nor do I cry foul when this administration is investigated. I see countries like Mexico and am glad that our public officials are held accountable.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

I did not cry foul when President Clinton was investigated, nor do I cry foul when this administration is investigated. I see countries like Mexico and am glad that our public officials are held accountable.

---

True, you may not have cried foul during the Clinton Administration, but you have cried foul ever since then...And you continue to bring it up when the current adminstration is shown to be lacking in 'righteousness'....

Ok, so I am shooting the messager...But it is very old when that same messenger plays the same record and can not become contemporary in his message.

But enough of my ranting.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

you have cried foul ever since then

---

Not true or relevant. This thread is not about me.

[Bravus]

Bottom line: this administration has eroded civil liberties in the US. I think the American people are waking up to that in a big way now, and hope we'll see big changes. I don't even really care about criminal trials, impeachment or firings... what's needed is regime change.

[Dr. Shane]

"Regime" is a catch word used by the anti-Bush crowd. The US doesn't have a regime, it has a system of checks and balances. The power is spread out between three co-equal branches of governement. In order to have a "regime change" it would really mean abolishing the Constitution and its form of government.

One needs to step back from the present situation and take a historical look at things to get a real prespective. In the United States times of war have brought about limitations on civil liberties. Abraham Lincoln (Civil War), Woodrow Wilson (WW1) and Franklin Roosevelt (WW2) each eroded civil liberties to a much greater extent than G.W. Bush.

As has been shown time and time again, previous administrations are guilty of the same things this administration is. The CIA used torture during previous administrations. Haliburton was awarded no-bid contracts during previous adminsitrations. International phone calls were tapped without warrents during previous administrations. Now that doesn't make any of it right, but let's not pretend these are partisan issues.

[Bravus]

Who mentioned partisan issues? I said 'this administration' - and there are plenty of Republicans who have problems with this administration, and indeed, say that they do not represent mainstream Republican priorities and values. I'm talking about Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and their cronies and enablers, not any particular party, and certainly not the whole US system of government.

On the 'regime' term, two things. (1) I used it very intentionally as an echo of the term used by the US administration about Iraq. Iraq was said to have a dangerous leader and be in need of regime change. My point was that the US has a dangerous leader (albeit possibly in different ways and degrees), and that it's in need of regime change.

(2) Despite the way it has been used on all sides on the past few years, 'regime' simply means 'ruling group'.

Here's Merriam-Webster: 2 a : mode of rule or management b : a form of government <a socialist regime> c : a government in power <predicted that the new regime would fall> d : a period of rule

So I guess I was talking about definitions © and (d) and Shane was talking about (a) and (. Glad we got that cleared up.

I guess the other thing is that I'm completely happy to get rid of the term, poetic resonances notwithstanding, and simply say that the US needs to get rid of those guys, because they openly espouse the idea of an imperial presidency and no checks and balances on presidential power. If anyone is doing damage to the constitutional system, it's not those calling for change.

[Dr. Shane]

It was President Franklin D. Roosevelt that had Congress under his thumb but that pesty Supreme Court kept overtuning his laws. His battle with the Supreme Court was considered "the gravest constitutional crisis since the Civil War." He proposed legislation that "called for all federal judges to retire by age 70. If they failed to do so, the president could appoint another judge to serve in tandem with each one older than 70.

"The practical effect of the proposal: Roosevelt could have appointed six more Supreme Court justices immediately, increasing the size of the court to 15 members. A Congress dominated by Democrats undoubtedly would have appointed judges friendly to Roosevelt and his New Deal agenda."

So it seems history tells us that FDR was a much greater threat to our Constitutional system than G.W. Bush.

There is a vast difference between Saddam's regime and the American system of checks and balances. The differences are so great and obvious I needn't expound on them.

[Bravus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

There is a vast difference between Saddam's regime and the American system of checks and balances. The differences are so great and obvious I needn't expound on them.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Agreed, absolutely: and what makes Bushco so dangerous is that they are trying to make the one more like the other: a situation in which all power is concentrated in the hands of one man, without appropriate checks and balances.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't see that is happening. This current issue of tapping international phone calls is an example of the checks and balances. The Bush Administration briefed the House and Senate intelligence committees and the leadership in both the House and the Senate about the program. Unlike a dictator that does whatever he wants, this administration is consulting and advising the legislative branch of government.

I don't see this administration as dangerous at all. They will serve out their final turn and a new one will come in.