WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate.
A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by Heart newspapers shows the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four previous presidential administrations combined.
The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation.
But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.
Here is Jim's and all the other partisan players answer. Why did Bush bypass the warrants? You have your answer. The lefties will say that if the court see's them as bad requests, then they must be...there must be a system of checks and balances. Well, it obviously seems like the this is another process ruined by red tape and liberalism favorite friend, PC. I'm sure the court was so upset that most of the people being targeted were Arab. Pop quiz, what percent of people who commit terror attacks in the United States are Arab. Answer: 100%. Like I've said before, looking at Arab's a little more closely than everyone else is not profiling or racist, it is called being mildly observant. So while the Left continues to whine and complain and not actually DO ANYTHING to keep me safe...I'll let the side that has stopped all terror attacks in this country listen to Arabs talk about blowing stuff up without a warrant.
Posts
8 comments:
Let's see. A one-tenth of one percent rejection rate. That's a process "ruined by red tape"? Maybe there actually was a good reason that they were rejected. Maybe they went too far. What do you know except that the Bush administration must be trusted at all times? Trust the administration that brought us Michael Brown, the administration that brought us post Sadaam Iraq chaos? The administration that brought us Harriet Miers?
If you think that you can trust the Bush administration to protect you, that they are doing "whatever it takes" to protect American lives", then why don't you ask them why they are doing virtually NOTHING to secure the extremely vulnerable chemical, biological, and nuclear facilities in THIS country. I guess that would be because it would cost the companies that own these facilities too much money.
See, "bidness" (pioneer doners) comes before security even when the law and the US Constitution don't.
How many attacks have we had since 9-11 Jim?
How has any of this wiretaping hurt you personally?
No attacks since 9-11. Why is that? What's your point? How many terror alerts have we had since November 2, 2004?
"They came for the Catholics and I wasn't a Catholic, so I said nothing..."
Game, we are on two completely different wave lengths here and our tuner can't synchronize. I am obsessed with the legal and constitutional issues here and you are obsessed with the fear of terrorists attacking you. I'm not criticizing you for your concern. So I'm asking you in the interest of debate not to call me a looney liberal because of mine.
You ask me, "How has any of this wiretapping hurt you personally?" To which I would respond, "It hasn't." And then I would ask you, "How have terrorist attacks hurt you personally?" I know it sounds like a silly comparison, but stay with me here, in the interest of debate.
I'm not in any way trying to minimize 9-11. Almost 3,000 Americans were killed...we all know the rest. It was terrible.
But we all live in danger every day. Do you drive a car? Do you always drive at or below the speed limit? Do you fly? Do you live in an earthquake zone? Do you live where there are tornadoes? You and your family and I and mine can be killed instantly any time (sorry to say it).
Do you fear driving? Do you fear flying? Do you fear earthquakes, tordadoes, or hurricanes?
I think we worry sometimes, but we don't live in fear of these things. Yet they are all many, many times more likely to hurt us and our families than terrorists are. We should worry about terrorists, of course. But must we live if FEAR of them.
I sincerely believe (call me a liberal if you must) that the current administration is using the 9-11 attacks (they were terrible and serious) as a lever to generate great fear among the American people. Fear is a very useful tool. When was the last time there was a terrorist alert since November 2, 2004?
Using fear, ANYTHING can be rationalized, and I think this administration is masterful at doing so. Fear the mushroom cloud. Fear the middle eastern man in seat 3C.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be taking care, or that we shouldn't be worrying. I'm not saying the NSA shouldn't monitor. Of course they should. But do it legally. Do it legally because you can, because you should. Don't do it illegally because you think you can, because you've put so much FEAR into the American people that they will accept anything.
One last thing. I don't know if what Bush authorized is legal or not. I don't think you do either. I know we're both reading our blogs and getting the side we want to hear. But I think it is worth looking into by congress or whatever authority to make sure it's legal, and if it's not, it should stop, or the law should be changed. That's the rule of law.
OK, either debate me, Game, or kick my butt if it somehow makes you feel superior.
SR: How would somebody from Iraq know anything about 9-11? No Iraqis were involved in 9-11. If this guy knew about it and was bragging about it over the phone to his mother before it happened and was overheard by someone, tell me how the whole plot was kept a secret from every loud-mouthed Iraqi ER MD talking about it over the phone to his mother?
I don't believe this story.
Okay Jim...
I understand your point...if you are being honest and not just trying to find whatever you can to get Bush that makes what you say mean more..
I understand that we are a country that was built on personal freedom..
The reason I give more slack here is because..
I believe that all the lawyers and ACLU types made our ability to gather intelligence and keep us safe non-existent. I believe all the laws and orders and measures Clinton's people made to protect people's "right to privacy" and such, allowed 911 to happen. I don't mind the government snooping around a little and finding out what they can.
If there is no real reason for Bush to go around the courts, than yes, he should go through the courts...but when your side starts yelling and hyperventilating and yelling impeachment...it makes me sick and makes you guys look like political opportunists.
So I guess the bottom line is that the fact that you want to make sure the law is followed is fine...I guess I just believe slimy lawyers and ACLU/liberal types have made to many laws...especially for terrorist and illegals.
Thanks for debating and not trying to kick my ass, Game :-)
Now, I sense a contradiction in your argument. Correct me if I'm wrong. Before I think you were justifying the NSA program because Clinton did it, but now you are saying that "the laws and orders and measures Clinton's people made to protect people's 'right to privacy' and such, allowed 911 to happen."
You and others were even citing comments and documents about how the Clinton adminstration insisted that it had the authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps. This was to support Bush doing the same. Sounds like trying to have it both ways.
I know that many Bush supporters consider Clinton to be the vilest creature to ever set foot in the White House. I won't argue that point right now because it's not relevant to this post. But I have read from intelligence experts who served in a number of administrations who said that the Clinton administration was very active in fighting against terrorism. Did they do enough? Obviously not. But they did tell the incoming Bush administration that terrorism would be the biggest thing they had to worry about.
But the new administration didn't seem very interested in terrorism before 9-11. Here is an interesting tidbit I found from a former FBI agent:
The FISA process has always been a secret process which contains effective emergency provisions. These emergency provisions allow the attorney general enormous power to authorize secret "emergency" electronic surveillance and searches before any court order is granted, or an application is made, for up to 72 hours. No application is even necessary if the surveillance is terminated before the 72 hour "emergency" period ends. In fact, Minneapolis agents were so convinced of the urgency of the situation involving Moussaoui that they requested use of this emergency provision, not the regular FISA process.
Unfortunately, this would have required Attorney General Ashcroft, who had just ranked terrorism as his lowest priority in early August 2001 [emphasis mine], to appreciate the danger and sign off on the "emergency." And it would have required then FBI Acting Director Pickard to take the emergency request to Ashcroft after he (Ashcroft) had rebuked him (Pickard) earlier that summer, as Pickard testified to the 9-11 Commission, saying "he (Ashcroft) didn't want to hear any more about terrorism." Given these circumstances, FBI Headquarters quickly gave up on Minneapolis' request to seek AG approval for use of this emergency provision.
So please don't try to lay the blame for 9-11 on Clinton and the ACLU.
"And I ask you if you recall the NAME of the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief?"
How did the wall get up between the CIA and FBI?
Clinton had to get out of his lawyer/ACLU mess to try and do anything...Its like California...liberals are leaving that state at record numbers because they have screwed it up so bad with their own socialist ideas...
I never said because clinton did it, it is okay for Bush to do it...bring up that clinton did it is only meant to show how hypocritical the Left is for getting all bent out of shape only when it helps them...
Point taken about saying it was OK for Bush if Clinton did it. I don't think you did say that. BUT, I don't think the public knew anything about what the Clinton administration was doing in this arena at the time.
I believe there would have been a stink raised by liberals, though. Sure Clinton was popular with liberals, but he wasn't perfect. They thought he wimped out "don't ask, don't tell" and I don't think they liked his efforts to tighten up welfare. So I can see liberals objecting to possibly illegal wiretaps. Liberals remember the Nixon era where that crap was done all the time. That's why FISA was created in 1978.
During the Clinton administration the news was all White Water and all Monica, all of the time. There was no time for anybody to pay attention to anything else.
So I will submit that hypocracy can go both ways. When Clinton was impeached, his defenders said "it was just sex." But the "Clinton haters" said, "Doesn't matter if it was sex. He lied. He committed perjury. It's all about the rule of law.
Now many of those same people say "even if Bush DID break the law, it's about national security." To which I would respond, "Doesn't matter why. The opportunity to do it legally was there. It's all about the rule of law.
I keep hearing about the "wall" between the CIA and the FBI. Historically the FBI was concerned with domestic matters and the CIA with foreign issues. Also both were huge insitutions with turf, politics, and personalities. I think the so-called wall was more cultural and institutional than legal. Once again, those who want to deflect blame from themselves point to the Gorelick memo as "creating a wall" and so it was Clinton's fault. But others will dispute that the memo did any such thing. So it's hard to know. You can believe one side or the other according to you pre-disposition.
Post a Comment