Monday, January 23, 2006
Responding to the call
The reason the Administration didn't want to go through FISA courts is that these courts (as I understand it) is that the court had, since September 11, started refusing to grant warrents for some calls. So the Administration went ahead and monitored the calls without asking the court for permission.
Comments:
<< Home
I appreciate Colin's getting the blog going about the surveillance. I could not watch much of the Sunday TV analysis, but I heard a little bit of Kerry on ABC. I didn't hear him say anything of the "post-action" petitions that Colin started off the blog with. Has anyone verified that the executive branch indeed can perform a domestic wiretap first, then petition the FISA court for a warrant? Whose wrist gets slapped if the courts refuse the request?
In an earlier post I mentioned that impeachment was Congress' only remedy to a perceived surveillance grievance. Probably true as regards the president. But how about this? A citizen who feels aggrieved could bring suit against the head of NSA. It could be a criminal suit and petition for his removal from his job and banning from government for a period of years. Then the courts get a chance to weigh in on the legality. Is this fantasy?
In an earlier post I mentioned that impeachment was Congress' only remedy to a perceived surveillance grievance. Probably true as regards the president. But how about this? A citizen who feels aggrieved could bring suit against the head of NSA. It could be a criminal suit and petition for his removal from his job and banning from government for a period of years. Then the courts get a chance to weigh in on the legality. Is this fantasy?
Rich,
Do you know if any retroactive warrants were rejected? My understanding is it was only maybe three that were rejected, all in 2003. That's hardly a stone wall.
Do you know if any retroactive warrants were rejected? My understanding is it was only maybe three that were rejected, all in 2003. That's hardly a stone wall.
I don't know much about this, I'll admit. We'll have Senate hearings on Feb. 6, so I guess we'll all know more about the program after that.
Andrew McCarthy has more info on FISA. Hadn't heard this line of defense:
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200601240827.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200601240827.asp
Colin,
I'm with you about the meaninglessness of Senate hearings!! And I do not doubt the possibility that there may be indeed "retroactive" FISA warrants available to the executive branch. But have you, or has any other reader of this blog been able to verify this availability through a reputable news article, or a quote from the statute itself?
Post a Comment
I'm with you about the meaninglessness of Senate hearings!! And I do not doubt the possibility that there may be indeed "retroactive" FISA warrants available to the executive branch. But have you, or has any other reader of this blog been able to verify this availability through a reputable news article, or a quote from the statute itself?
<< Home
