Why DIDN'T they go to the FISA court?

[Independent_Liberal]

They say because we're fighting a war against terrorism and we have to immediately counter all terrorist activities and waiting for court approval would take too long.

Bullshit.

There's definitely a reason why they didn't go to the court and you all know it. There's a big cover-up here. They've been spying on their political opponents and don't want anyone to know.

Did anybody else figure this out already?

[Beaverhausen]

1. Of course we know that

and of course that is the reason. But look over there...there's a new Osama tape!

[mikelewis]

22. Cough... Cough.... Wait NOOOO it's the Bird Flu!!!!

Run for your lives!!!

[LeftNYC]

2. Also, they talk about safeguards for civil liberties

yet they do not explain what these safeguards are...

[sable302]

9. And Iraq is necessary

for protecting our safety and freedom, just that nobody can explain exactly why this is.

[nini]

3. Kerry Campaign?

:shrug:

[underpants]

4. That's the Million dollar question

:nuke:

[sable302]

5. Ding Ding Ding

nt

[leftstreet]

6. Opponents, Journalists, Corporations, AntiWar Groups, Environmentalists...

...oh, and the occasional "terra-ist"

[hatrack]

28. If they spy on Quakers and vegans protesting honey-baked ham . . .

Then why in God's name WOULDN'T they be spying on political opponents, journalists and campaign staffers.

[SmokingJacket]

7. That's been my theory all along.

But what do they hope to gain from their political opponents, at this point? It's not like they make a habit of using actual information to make decisions -- you know, that the Democrats are going to focus on a particular part of their platform is not something they care about.

It's got to be for blackmailable info.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

8. All we have to do now is get a whistleblower to PROVE IT. nt.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. The only reason to not go to FISA court is when you KNOW what you are

asking permission for is gonna be turned down. No question about it.

[KansDem]

11. Bush authorized spying BEFORE 9/11

Therefore, he should have stopped the 9/11 attacks. He didn't. So who did he spy on at that time? Clinton told him that al Qaeda was the number one concern. Bush was forewarned to be wary of al Qaeda, yet its apparent he didn't spy on them. Why?

[sable302]

12. The Cheney adds

that if we could've wire tapped sans warrant before 9/11, we might've stopped it.

You were wire tappin' before then! What the hell was stopping you!

Jeeze Louise!

[TahitiNut]

31. Maybe they did spy on al Qaeda and knew 9/11 was coming.

The fact that they were so good at getting out of the way of the hijackers in absolutely every respect should be one clue.

The fact that they were apparently able to identify the hijackers as al Qaeda and even by name withint about 72 hours of 9/11 should be another clue. Especially since they went after Richard Jewell instead of Eric Rudolf for many months - using the same "investigative prowess."

[liam_laddie]

13. hell, YES!

K&R'd. Let's see a show of hands...
For any doubters among your pals, tell them about the
Enabling Act of 1933. Prototype for the so-called Patriot
Act (supreme irony). Nazi Germany, 'nuf said. Links -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act>
<http://www.furnitureforthepeople.com/actpat.htm>

[Village Idiot]

15. You are mistaken

It was the Feb 28 Act that was analagous to the Patriot Act:

ARTICLE 1. In virtue of paragraph 2, article 48,* of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against communist acts of violence , endangering the state:

Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty <114>, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press <118>, on the right of assembly and the right of association <124>, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications <117>, and warrants for house-searches <115>, orders for confiscation as well as restrictions on property <153>, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

***Article 48 of the German Constitution of August 11, 1919:
If public safety and order in Germany are materially disturbed or endangered, the President may take the necessary measures to restore public safety and order, and, if necessary, to intervene with the help of the armed forces. To this end he may temporarily suspend, in whole or in part, the fundamental rights established in Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153.


The 1933 Enabling Act let the Nazi Cabinet do an end run around the German Consitution - it was analogous to the Unitary Executive issue we are facing right now:

The Reichstag has passed the following law, which is, with the approval of the Reichsrat , herewith promulgated, after it has been established that it satisfies the requirements for legislation altering the Constitution.

ARTICLE 1. In addition to the procedure for the passage of legislation outlined in the Constitution, the Reich Cabinet is also authorized to enact Laws. . . .

ARTICLE 2. The national laws enacted by the Reich Cabinet may deviate from the Constitution provided they do not affect the position of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The powers of the President remain unaffected.

ARTICLE 3. The national laws enacted by the Reich Cabinet shall be prepared by the Chancellor and published in the official gazette. They come into effect, unless otherwise specified, upon the day following their publication . . .

ARTICLE 4. Treaties of the Reich with foreign states which concern matters of domestic legislation do not require the consent of the bodies participating in legislation. The Reich Cabinet is empowered to issue the necessary provisions for the implementing of these treaties.


There was one more enormously important act of 1933 that Democrats ought to be worried that the current misadministration will co-opt to serve their diabolical purposes:

Law Against the Establishment of Parties, July 14, 1933
The German Cabinet has resolved the following law, which is herewith promulgated:

ARTICLE 1. The National Socialist German Workers Party constitutes the only political party in Germany.

ARTICLE 2. Whoever undertakes to maintain the organizational structure of another political party or to form a new political party will be punished with penal servitude up to three years or with imprisonment or with imprisonment of from six months to three years, if the deed is not subject to a greater penalty according to other regulations.


Don't say that "it couldn't happen here." Democrats better use what meagre power they still have or THEY WILL have it legislated away from them.


You hit the nail right on the head just by making the comparison, however!!!

[liam_laddie]

21. Thanks, VI

Thanks for "accurizing" the history. I'll try to find similar "in time of war"
regulations enacted here pre-WWII. Will post links on this thread when I
dig 'em out.

[Village Idiot]

26. It's a scarey world.

Some days, I wish I were stranded on a desert island. Doubtless, some of my friends probably wish I was stranded on a desert island, too.

[liam_laddie]

39. VI - a couple links

I couldn't find the post with more detail and references, but here're two for a start -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2400460

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=237272

[Village Idiot]

14. Two reasons:

Congressional elections in 2002 and Presidential election in 2004. You ACTUALLY believe they have been spying on foreign terrorists??? Puh-leeze!!!

[seabeyond]

16. my guess, the spying had nothing to do with terrorists n/t

[tulsakatz]

17. and another thing........

........they're now saying that their spying is only related to contacts where 1 person is outside of the US but the NY Times has also reported that they have spied on people where both contacts were inside the US.

NY Times has also reported that have spied on many more people than the administration claims.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

18. Don't forget: They can start the process for a warrant THREE DAYS AFTER

the wiretap.
And the FISA court has only denied FOUR (or is it FIVE...my link says 4) warrants in it's ENTIRE existence.

www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

Curiously, they all were in 2003. Smack dab in the middle of Bush's first term. The year before the election...

Remind anyone who says "the court would take too long" this:
FISA is a speedy court. And they don't mess around. And you have up to three days after you do the wiretap. And they rarely, RARELY say no.
So why avoid them?

[jsamuel]

19. "their political opponents and don't want anyone to know"

yep, have been posting it over and over

[JuniperLea]

20. I guess they don't keep up

Since we all know you can go to FISA up to 72 hours after the fact to get your warrant and still be in compliance. That argument just doesn't hold water! But it's all they have apparently, which leads me to believe there is indeed another reason they don't want to get warrants. A) They know they can't get a warrant for the kind of spying they want to do, or B)... hmmm... can't really think of a B:)

[Marie26]

23. They're listening to everyone

How do you justify that?

[arbusto_baboso]

24. Simple. You don't get a court order when you KNOW you're doing something

illegal. End of story.

And you're right about the spying being on political enemies. Otherwise, why would one of the first reports about wiretapping - which has since seemed to slide down the memory hole - mentioned Christiane Amanpour? Jeez, wasn't she married to a former Clinton staffer? Wow, makes ya' think, huh?

[radio4progressives]

25. this should be in the other forum - we need to save this for alito

:hi:

[H2O Man]

27. The primary reason

is that going through FISA leaves a record, and the administration wants to leave no traceof their actions.

The secondary reason is they were looking to go far beyond "probable cause," and to be able to spy on domestic subjects that the FISA courts would not have allowed them to. Keep in mind that in the years since 1978, there had been approximately 18,500 applications to the court; less than 50 were turned down; of those, only 4 were not accepted on appeal, with minor changes from the original application.

[TahitiNut]

29. Who says they didn't? I think they did, were refused, and spied anyway.

Remember, until the Bush/Cheney regime, the FISA Court didn't refuse a single warrant and modified only a very few. The Bush/Cheney regime had something like 17 warrants refused and about 120 or so modified. On top of this, Bush/Cheney have gone to the FISA Court for warrants at three times the rate of all prior administrations.

I think they stopped going to the FISA Court for some class of warrants, went ahead without warrants under some contrived bullshit and even expanded the spying. In fact, I think that's why the judge resigned from the FISA Court. He was probably one who'd refused a warrant.

[sendero]

30. That's exactly..

.. what I think. The FISA warrants are so easy to get, and can be gotten after the fact, there is simply no other explanation I can think of that they went around them.

Maybe someday we'll get the truth, I'm not holding my breath.

[bush_is_wacko]

32. Yes, we know this but several million Americans still have their damn head

in the sand. FISA RARELY denies any LEGITIMATE warrant. He got refused a few times and his warrants got modified by FISA for legality reasons so he decided to break the law. It's that simple. Too bad simple minded people are not seeing all it that way.

[liam_laddie]

40. more like 280 million plus, sadly

n/t

[ReadTomPaine]

33. Because FISA requires a target and a reason, and they are tapping EVERYONE

Everyone from the Senate to the military, to you and me. It all goes into a data warehouse. Information that falls into predefined patterns are stored, organized and brought to the attention of the appropriate personnel. They can then pull up the records later, as required, for whatever reason they need. Data that falls outside these patterns gets flushed from whatever caching mechanism they are using, although for some lucky people I'm sure every word has been faithfully preserved.

Nice how that works, isn't it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

34. Why Not Indeed????!!!

Bushco and their apologists are spinning this whole issue into whether or not people support wiretapping suspected terrorists. Of course, that's NOT the issue. The issue IS exactly HOW he did it. I don't think that you're going to find TOO MANY people who outright oppose wiretapping suspected terrorists (or other "evildoers") but it doesn't make any sense to me exactly WHY Bush felt that he had to act OUTSIDE the law, especially when the law ALLOWS RETROACTIVE APPROVAL up to 72 hours (THAT'S 3 DAYS!).

[linazelle]

35. I figured it out the moment they confessed. nt

[thinkingwoman]

36. Day 1

I figured it out on Day 1. It's the only explanation.

[Disturbed]

37. Obvious that the Neo Fascists were tapping their enemies.

The questions are:

Will they get away with it?

Will they continue to do so?

[thinkingwoman]

38. short term

they're getting away with it.

But I believe that will change next January.

[bpilgrim]

41. they are spying on EVERYONE - > TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS

which is great cover to spy on your political opponents, too & they know no judge in this land would approve such nonsense.



peace

[FlaGranny]

42. Alito and Roberts? n/t

[bpilgrim]

43. thats the plan

though that hasn't happened, yet :scared:

peace

[Justice Is Comin]

44. Probably lays on his

bed at night like a phone sex pervert and listens. Seek Hail in the name of terrorism.