Judges and Justice Dept. Meet Over Eavesdropping Program (NYT)

[kpete]

Judges and Justice Dept. Meet Over Eavesdropping Program

Published: January 10, 2006
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 - The Justice Department held an unusual closed-door briefing Monday for judges on a secret foreign-intelligence court in response to concerns about President Bush's decision to allow domestic eavesdropping without warrants.

A number of judges from around the country who serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which issues eavesdropping warrants in terror cases, flew to Washington to hear the administration's defense of the legality and use of the program, officials said.

One federal judge who sat on the court, James Robertson, stepped down in protest last month after the surveillance operation was first publicly disclosed.

Some of the other 10 judges on the court are known to have voiced recent concerns about whether information that grew out of the National Security Agency's surveillance operation might have been used improperly in securing warrants from the court for intelligence wiretaps.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/politics/10nsa.html

[Hailtothechimp]

1. The last 2 paragraphs are key.

They basically said, in the opinion of the people (unnamed, unfortunately) who released a letter yesterday, the NSA spying went beyond the scope of the congressional resolution and thus broke the law.

9/11 gave them the premise to do anything they wanted. It had to be carried out by them. Nothing else makes any sense. (the article didn't say this. It's just my own take)

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. last two paragraphs...

But an analysis released last Friday by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, took issue with several of the administration's main legal arguments, saying that Congress did not appear to have ever intended to give Mr. Bush the authority to conduct wiretaps without a warrant.

In the letter released Monday, the 13 law professors and former government officials went further, writing that "the Justice Department's defense of what it concedes was secret and warrantless electronic surveillance of persons within the United States fails to identify any plausible legal authority for such surveillance. Accordingly the program appears on its face to violate existing law."

[Wilms]

3. kick nt

[gratuitous]

4. "An unusual closed-door briefing"

Or, as folks in the legal business like to call it, ex parte contact with the judges to try to influence their decisions.

This is how the people's business is transacted under the corrupt Bush administration. In secret, behind closed doors, with the participants unable to publicly discuss what was said under threat of arrest and imprisonment. It just sounds so much like someone else's administration. Not in this country. Now, think, think: Who could that sound like? Hmmmm.



Oh yeah! :think:

[Supersedeas]

5. how brief was the brief I wonder -- more platitudes and vagaries?

[Jacobin]

6. Well, since the dems in congress won't do anything about it..

i know i know, they said they would hold hearings at some point....

They should be running around with their hair on fire and demanding hearings, even if they have to hold them off the capitol grounds.