Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A theory about why Bush would skirt the FISA court

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 01:19 PM
Original message
A theory about why Bush would skirt the FISA court
Could it be they spied on people based upon statements they received from persons who were tortured into making statements?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
liveoaktx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. No, this misses the point... they are data-mining.
through telephone switches. IF they were wanting to spy on people specifically, they could have and would have gotten FISA warrants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. What if they were doing both under cover of the same "program"
In other words, they were casting the broad net AND doing specific spying without going to the FISA courts when they knew damn well and good that even a FISA court would not issue a warrant?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. That's part of it
The other parts are that they wanted to spy on the powerful and that they considered themselves above all that checks and balances nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poiuyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. They wouldn't be able to get FISA warrents if their information was
obtained illegally
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. Here's my theory.
Edited on Thu Dec-29-05 01:21 PM by sparosnare
They are doing a collection of data like fish in a net - en mass, then weeding out what they want. From my understanding, the FISA court issues warrants for isolated cases, not scoops of correspondence between thousands of people. It's all about controlling the satellites, IMHO - controlling massive amounts of data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pilgrimm Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. Good Question
Very good Question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. Well, I've never been to one of the "new" Bush prison camps,
but you might have something--by the time I was out of the 10th grade, I certainly felt like I'd been tortured.

/it's sort'a joke
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
8. Would a FISA judge have given Bush a warrant to tap Fitzgerald's office?
Don't think he didn't intercept that stuff. There is your answer.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. If Fitzgerald made international calls, they were probably ...
... "monitored." They might even have been recorded. Bush might argue that "Yes, the calls were monitored and recorded, but I didn't listen to them." But I don't think that would fly. The headline would be "Bush Administration Tapped Special Prosecutor's Calls."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. ...and Fitzgerald *was* making international calls...!!!
We may stand witness to a definitive American moment of democracy. The son of a New York doorman probably has in his hands, in many ways, the fate of the republic. Because far too many of us know and are aware of the crimes committed by our government in our name, we are unlikely to settle for a handful of minor indictments of bureaucrats. The last thing most of us believe in is the rule of law. We do not trust our government or the people we have elected but our constitution is still very much alive and we choose to believe that destiny has placed Patrick Fitzgerald at this time and this place in our history to save us from the people we elected. If the law cannot get to the truth of what has happened to the American people under the Bush administration, then we all may begin to hear the early death rattles of historys greatest democracy.

Fortunately, there are good signs. Fitzgerald has reportedly asked for a copy of the Italian governments investigation into the break-in of the Niger embassy in Rome and the source of the forged documents. The blatantly fake paperswhich purported to show that Saddam Hussein had cut a deal to get yellowcake uranium from Nigerturned up after a December 2001 meeting in Rome involving neocon Michael Ledeen, Larry Franklin, Harold Rhodes and Niccolo Pollari, the head of Italys intelligence agency SISMI and Antonio Martino, the Italian defense minister.

If Fitzgerald is examining the possibility that Ledeen was executing a plan to help his friend Karl Rove build a case for invading Iraq? Ledeen has long ties to Italian intelligence agency operatives and has spanned the globe to bring the world the constant variety of what he calls creative destruction to build democracies. He makes the other neocons appear passive. He brought the Reagan administration together with the Iranian arms dealer who dragged the country through Iran-Contra, and shares with his close friend Karl Rove a personal obsession with Machiavelli. Ledeen, who is almost rabidly anti-Arab, famously told The Washington Post that Karl Rove told him, Any time you have a good idea, tell me.

The federal grand jury has to at least consider whether Ledeen called Rove with an idea to use his contacts with the Italian CIA to hatch a plan to create the rationale for war. Ledeen told radio interviewer Ian Masters and his producer Louis Vandenberg, I have absolutely no connection to the Niger documents, have never even seen them. I did not work on them, never handled them, know virtually nothing about them, don't think I ever wrote or said anything about the subject. It is strictly coincidence then that some months after he and his neo-con consorts and Italian intelligence officers met in Rome that the Niger embassy was illegally entered and nothing was stolen other than letterhead and seals. And equally coincident that forged papers under those letterheads were slipped to Elisabetta Burba, a writer for an Italian glossy owned by Silvio Berlusconi, Italys prime minister, and a backer of the Bush invasion scheme. Unfortunately for the pro-war neocons, even an Italian tabloid would not publish the fake documents and turned them over to the CIA and US government in Rome.


Tom Paine

One assumes Fitzgerald was on the phone to Italian authorities concerning this matter. Perhaps, he was calling many other areas around the globe as well. No doubt this gave Bush "probale cause" to tap his phone lines :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
10. Interesting point.
TNR on-line has an article from 12/27 with the title: THE KEY QUESTION ABOUT BUSH'S WIRETAPPING PROGRAM

<snip>

Since The New York Times broke the story of post-9/11 warrantless domestic eavesdropping, the debate over the controversial program has centered on whether the president acted illegally. Senior administration officials--led by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at a fiery press conference last Monday--have insisted on the measure's legality, while civil libertarians have claimed the administration has unconstitutionally expanded executive authority, with senators of both parties promising full investigations early next year. There's no doubt that the question of whether Bush broke the law is crucial. But the scandal's most important question is a different one: What are the administration's criteria for eavesdropping, and why didn't they satisfy the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's criteria for probable cause? Don't expect administration officials to answer as long as they can avoid it. But what little is known about the program thus far suggests a standard so lax as to permit searches for practically anything.

<snip>

Maybe some of their search criteria came from torture. It would be surprising if it didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
darkstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
11. Good thread at the heart of the matter.
I've been looking--and asking here--about this fundamental question. Walt raises a good issue, I think, but I think there is a question even prior to that one that we need to find an answer to that, at this time, is a known, er, known: what are the laws re: FISA and domestic citizens.

I gather no domestic to domestic call monitoring of two U.S. citizens. Not FISA applicable right?

But the origin of the calls seems to be an important angle here. If a suspected baddie from overseas a U.S. citizen for who there is no warrant, is the U.S. citizen protected in any way? Do they just care blanch to monitor all calls from suspected baddie into U.S. citizen lines?

I understand the data mining, broad catch argument. I just want to know what the law is re: dedicated tapping of domestic to domestic vs. int'l into idomestic citizen (and, I guess, domestic citizen to int'l, although my understanding is that that would not be FISA's concern either.)

Any one know the answer to this? TIA if you do. Been bugging the hell out of me. I keep hoping that an article will spring up that outlines all of the law on this, but so far, none that I know of.

Thanks again,

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
darkstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
12. Good thread at the heart of the matter.
I've been looking--and asking here--about this fundamental question. Walt raises a good issue, I think, but I think there is a question even prior to that one that we need to find an answer to that, at this time, is a known, er, known: what are the laws re: FISA and domestic citizens.

I gather no domestic to domestic call monitoring of two U.S. citizens. Not FISA applicable right?

But the origin of the calls seems to be an important angle here. If a suspected baddie from overseas a U.S. citizen for who there is no warrant, is the U.S. citizen protected in any way? Do they just care blanch to monitor all calls from suspected baddie into U.S. citizen lines?

I understand the data mining, broad catch argument. I just want to know what the law is re: dedicated tapping of domestic to domestic vs. int'l into idomestic citizen (and, I guess, domestic citizen to int'l, although my understanding is that that would not be FISA's concern either.)

Any one know the answer to this? TIA if you do. Been bugging the hell out of me. I keep hoping that an article will spring up that outlines all of the law on this, but so far, none that I know of.

Thanks again,

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
13. I think it further attempt to broaden executive authority
The planning has been in the works for years. They needed the war to put people in a state of perpetual fear, so they would be more willing to give up their rights. They needed the press to treat them with kid gloves and to spread the talking-point propaganda, getting rid of the Helen Thomases and leaving the Katie Courics.

They have been stacking the bench with neo-con judges as well as attempting to minimize their role in government: "activist judges." I believe the Terri Shaivo debate was part of the plan to sway the public regarding the issue of judges.

The war was a great idea, because it also put the democrats in an awkward position, and they played right into their hands: against war = for terrorism. And the dems were too silent and acquiesced to the power grabs.

This is an all encompassing plan that is in the process of implementation. Hold on, its going to get worse before it gets better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
15. Yes!
The BFEE tortured people all over the planet and for who knows how long, the information was probably used in warrant less wiretaps. This is why they want torture to be a legal means to prove someones innocence or guilt. We are going back to the Dark Ages!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20051223/pl_usnw/brennan_c...

NEW YORK, Dec. 23 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law expressed deep concern over a provision of the Defense Appropriations bill that Congress has passed. This provision would effectively permit the use of evidence obtained by torture in the cases of Guantanamo Naval Base detainees. The amendment, introduced by Sens. Lindsey Graham, Carl Levin and Jon Kyl, would severely curtail federal court review of detainees' cases, allow military tribunals to rely on evidence gained from torture, and undermine vital ongoing attorney-client relations for Guantanamo detainees.

All the BFEE has to do is slap the label "enemy combatant" onto someone and then they can do what they want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
16. Nope! Think Accuvote.
Once you have intercepted the internet election results and gotten a warrant for that. Then seized some of the electronic ballots and gotten a warrant for that. The next warrant issued will be for the person that signed that Executive Order. Now that Bush's ass is pretty much grass. Do you really think he's going to allow America to turn the Senate into a Brush Hog Lawn mower in 2006? In fact the Democrats may not win another Presidential election until after the NSA Cookie expire in 2035. Just ahead of the 2036 elections. "I'm no good at long term planning." Condoleeza Rice on Meet the Press after being asked about a possible bid for the Presidency. I guess that's why she's Secretary of State now instead of the National Security Advisor. It looks like they have found someone else good at long term planning. The Republican's should be chanting, 7 more election cycles! Any day now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
17. Maybe Bush didn't want to ask FISA
not only because they would have said no but he would have revealed to several judges that his wiretapping just didn't include possible terror suspects but folks who just disagreed with him. Imagine going to the FISA court and saying "I want to wiretap John Kerry's office to check for connections to terrorism." Or "I want to wiretap AirAmerica's phones to see if any terrorists call."

Not only would the request have been denied, there would be people outside the loop, even if they were part of the super secret court, who would now know that the wiretapping was more than just about protecting the American people from the likes of bin Laden.

This is way more than just wiretapping known terrorist suspects. By the way, if these people are known terrorist suspects, why don't we pick them up? THis whole thing stinks.

Mz Pip
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 22nd 2014, 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC