FISA Court Ruled Ashcroft's Policy Violated Right to Privacy in 2002 >>>

[Stephanie]

DUer nashuaadvocate has brought up a very pertinent point that needs more attention. The timing of Bush's illegal orders conforms perfectly to this 2002 ruling >

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sleeper/tools/tools.html

FISA Court Opinion

On May 17, 2002, the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court ruled that portions of guidelines issued by Attorney General John Ashcroft on intelligence sharing violated federal law. The court said the policy established by Ashcroft, who cited the Patriot Act for his authority, shortcut the Constitution and FISA by replacing existing surveillance requirements used for criminal prosecution with the more lax FISA requirements.

In its ruling, the court cited the constitutional right to privacy of U.S. citizens, saying Ashcroft's policy "was not reasonably designed or 'consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, or disseminate foreign intelligence information'" as mandated by FISA. Prior to the Patriot Act, FISA had been interpreted by attorneys general and the FISA Court as having mandated a "wall" between the criminal and intelligence sides of an investigation. In this ruling, the FISA Court felt that the new procedures issued by the attorney general had illegally dismantled that wall.

The FISA Court also said the powers given to criminal investigators by Ashcroft might allow the government to illegally use intelligence information in criminal cases. It noted that the Department of Justice, under the Clinton administration, had abused the FISA process and misled the court at least 12 times and that the government had admitted FBI officials had provided erroneous information to the court on more than 75 requests for warrants and wiretaps.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth signed the ruling, which wasn't released until August by his replacement, Presiding U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. It was the first-ever published opinion by the FISA Court.

Upon the ruling's release, the Justice Department filed an appeal citing the FISA Court's failure to consider the expanded intelligence sharing powers legalized under the Patriot Act. The Department of Justice also argued that the May 17 ruling violated the Constitutional separation of powers between the judiciary and executive branches.

nashuaadvocate's discussion and analysis here >

The Smoking Gun: Why Bush Issued His Illegal Executive Order in 2002
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5653975#5653988

[dusmcj]

1. we will make no haste to "understand (justify) why they did it"

wouldn't be prudent - if the FISA appeals bounce is all there is to it, it might be perceived as providing a justification for the NSA warrantless program, particularly with the pResident wrapping himself in his role as our protector.

As nashuaadvocate points out in his blog, it is vital that a timeline be established about when Bush issued the NSA order. If the order, or the program it legitimized predates the FISA Appeals bounce (which is what the NYT article implies - see the text about the "special collection activity" initiated shortly after 9/11) - then this changes nothing: it was prior art, there was prior intent (sounds like the Iraq invasion ?). If there is an intersection, what does it mean ? Is it any more acceptable that the NSA was tasked to spy domestically without benefit of warrant because the warrant-issuing (oversight) authority (the FISA court) told him & Dick to get stuffed ? No. Doober is riding hard the message that he's done it all cause he has to protect us. That's a crock to begin with, and there's no reason to give him puzzle pieces that could be shaped to look like they fit his story - "I was frantic after those FISA meanies didn't give me the power to protect you, so as an activist Chief Executioner, I took it on myself to take care of it without them. It was all for love of you". My violin just sprung a leak.

This administration has a history of acting in its own interest and in complete disregard for the Constitution, nevermind the rights and also primacy of the people, in the best traditions of the Palmer Raids, COINTELPRO, drag queen J. Edgar Hoover and the infiltration of CISPES. As far as I'm concerned, they probably acted with deliberate malfeasance to overturn curbs on executive power to curtail inherent civil rights enacted during that evil time, the 1960's and 70's. I have no intention of giving them the benefit of the doubt, particularly when their message is "we violated Constitutional law, but we did it for your own good." Thanks Pop, but fuck off, we've been taking care of ourselves for years.

[Joe Chi Minh]

7. Difficult not to laugh at your valediction cum reassurance!

[MessiahRp]

2. God I love DU...

You know damn well bringing up these facts would either take weeks or never be mentioned at all by the mainstream media. You rule Stephanie!

:)

Rp

[DemReadingDU]

3. K&R

Thanks for the additional FISA info

[Cults4Bush]

4. Good all over you and NA, Stephanie. K&R'd like crazy! n/t

[Supersedeas]

5. a published opinion is a rare thing for this Court

[rucky]

6. Well that does it. Judge Lamberth needs to be monitored.

Bush. Is. Toast.