[rick_reno]

Big deal, a Clinton appointed judge quits.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10538136/

Jurist worried that Bush order tainted work of secret panel

A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Robertson, who was appointed to the federal bench in Washington by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday.

Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans yesterday joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.

Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.

‘A great national debate’
"There's going to be a great national debate on this subject," Specter told reporters yesterday, while emphasizing concerns over the White House's legal arguments in support of the program.

The hearings, possibly in several committees, would take place at the beginning of a midterm election year during which the prosecution of the Iraq war is also likely to figure prominently in key House and Senate races.

Hagel and Snowe joined three Democratic colleagues -- Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) -- in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate's Judiciary and Intelligence panels into the classified program.

Not all Republicans agreed with the need for hearings and backed White House assertions that the program is a vital tool in the war against al Qaeda.

"I am personally comfortable with everything I know about it, and I'll be watching it as this debate goes on over the next few weeks," Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a phone interview.

The White House continued to insist yesterday that the classified surveillance program is legal and that key congressional leaders have been informed of the NSA activities since they began shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan suggested that the secrecy around the program may prohibit White House cooperation with any congressional investigation. "This is still a highly classified program, and there are details that it's important not be disclosed," McClellan said.

"We've already briefed the leadership and the leaders of the relevant committees," McClellan said, "and the attorney general's going back talking to additional members about this so that they do have a better understanding of this authorization and what it's designed to do and how it is narrowly tailored and limited in how it's used."

Since the program was made public last week by the New York Times, the White House has sparred publicly with key Democrats over whether Congress was fully informed and allowed to conduct oversight of the operation.

The news also spurred considerable debate among federal judges, including some who serve on the secret FISA court. For more than a quarter-century, that court had been seen as the only body that could legally authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects, and only when the Justice Department could show probable cause that its targets were foreign governments or their agents.

Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004, and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants -- to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."

Considered a liberal judge
Robertson is considered a liberal judge who has often ruled against the Bush administration's assertions of broad powers in the terrorism fight, most notably in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Robertson held in that case that the Pentagon's military commissions for prosecuting terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were illegal and stacked against the detainees.

Some FISA judges reached yesterday said they were saddened by the news of Robertson's resignation and wanted to hear more about the president's program.

"I love Jim Robertson and think he's a wonderful guy," said Judge George P. Kazen, another FISA judge. "I guess that's a decision he's made and I respect him. But it's just too quick for me to say I've got it all figured out."

Bush said Monday that the White House briefed Congress more than a dozen times. But those briefings were conducted with only a handful of lawmakers who were sworn to secrecy and prevented from discussing the matter with anyone or seeking outside legal opinions.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) revealed Monday that he had written to Vice President Cheney the day he was first briefed on the program in July 2003, raising serious concerns about the surveillance effort. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she also expressed concerns in a letter to Cheney, which she did not make public.

Yesterday, the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), issued a public rebuke of Rockefeller for making his letter public. Roberts's statement did not say whether he would support a joint inquiry with Specter's committee.

In response to a question about the letter, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested Rockefeller should have done more if he was seriously concerned. "If I thought someone was breaking the law, I don't care if it was classified or unclassified, I would stand up and say 'the law's being broken here.' "

But Rockefeller said the secrecy surrounding the briefings left him with no other choice and disputed Roberts's claims that he kept his concerns to himself. "I made my concerns known to the vice president and to others who were briefed. The White House never addressed my concerns," Rockefeller said. He also called for bipartisan hearings.

The Democratic leadership wrote separately to Bush asking him to provide Congress with additional information on the program.

[beerslurpy]

Ruh roh. </scooby>

You know, I usually think the AM talk guys make a lot of sense- tony snow, rush, boortz, etc. But lately they have seemed to be really stretching the bounds of reason and logic to justify the current shenanigans of the administration.

The best Rush could come up with today was "Clinton did it too!" Since when is unethical and potentially tyrannous behavior OK just because Clinton did it? If anything, you would think Clinton doing something would be a warning sign that it is probably immoral. I wont even touch Tony Snow. He was basically resorting to 3rd grade debating tactics when listeners began calling in with very reasonable objections to the patriot act. It was embarassing to listen to.

You know the republicans have lost it when:
-John McCain actually starts to sound sane and wise, talking about how torture is essentially useless.
-Patrick Leahey actually sounds patriotic, talking about limits on the government's power.

And I say this as a die hard libertarian-conservative. The republicans are setting themselves up to take a fall, and they will have no one to blame but themselves. Back to basics people. Remember why you got the power in 94. The patriot act is not patriotic at all and is something that would never have been part of the Contract with America. The republicans need to declare victory and let it die already.

[PCGS65]

Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans yesterday joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.
Yea and if there is another terrorist attack. People will be screaming Bush didn't do anything to stop the attacks.........didn't he learn anything from 9-11............Bush is a murderer ect.ect. :banghead:

[odysseus]

Yea and if there is another terrorist attack. People will be screaming Bush didn't do anything to stop the attacks.........didn't he learn anything from 9-11............Bush is a murderer ect.ect. :banghead:

Look - one needs to spread out the logic matrix a little and look at it better then this. What you sound like here is similar to properganda that I have heard around and around. Seriously, the WOT doesn't mean that bucking the Constitution here is necessary, and that this act of bypassing FISA doesn't carry the whole WOT either. I think you are underestimating people's intelligence. The war on terror has merit, we were attacked on 9\11 - but it doesn't mean breaking the 4th Amendment and other subsequent procedural laws regarding spying on US citizens is the KEY to preventing another attack.

I and many others here are definitely what you might call "right-wing" or "conservative", and I am sure many have voted for Republican candidates. I grew up with Reagan. However I am also a firm believer in our Constitution, and Liberty. In fact I find it ironic more and more how larger, heavier, invasive, and more in debt the Government is - and it has been managed by the Republican party.

[Trip20]

Watching the news last night... the talking head stated that both the Clinton and Reagan administration did the same darn thing that the Bush administration has done.

Is this true?

One of their guests also stated NO administration needs to obtain a warrant when listening for information... & that the warrant is only necessary when procuring information for purposes of evidence as it relates to a criminal trial.

Is this true?

[Biker]

I'd like to buy that Judge a brew and I hope that more of his buds follow.
Biker

[Biker]

How do you know that he was (is) incompetent?
Biker

[RealGun]

I don't quite get what a resignation demonstrates. It was submitted to the Chief Justice Roberts without comment. The rest of the buzz is speculation but apparently determined to attribute anti-Bush meaning to the resignation.

[Camp David]

How do you know that he was (is) incompetent?
Biker

Previous experience with this judge, not personally, but he has been a thorn in the Administration's butt for years...

"U.S. District Judge James Robertson found that detainees at the Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may be prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions and therefore entitled to the protections of international and military law -- which the government has declined to grant them."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34519-2004Nov8.html

Positions/Findings by this Judge here: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=james_robertson

The main problem with this judge is that he cannot understand difference between terrorist and lawful combatant and obvious difference. Like I said, this judge is clearly incompetent and his resignation will be gleefully accepted by all... good riddance...

[Biker]

Thanks Camp David. Although I'm undecided on the Gitmo thing, I'll take a look at the other site.
Biker

[c_yeager]

Previous experience with this judge, not personally, but he has been a thorn in the Administration's butt for years...

"U.S. District Judge James Robertson found that detainees at the Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may be prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions and therefore entitled to the protections of international and military law -- which the government has declined to grant them."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34519-2004Nov8.html

Positions/Findings by this Judge here: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=james_robertson

The main problem with this judge is that he cannot understand difference between terrorist and lawful combatant and obvious difference. Like I said, this judge is clearly incompetent and his resignation will be gleefully accepted by all... good riddance...

So this judge has a history of defending individual liberty. Thank God we got rid of him, there is clearly no place for that type in this administration.

[Camp David]

So this judge has a history of defending individual liberty.

No... Judge has a history of being stupid. Big difference.

[rick_reno]

Just so we're all on the same page about what the president has said about wiretaps and warrants - I offer the following:

source - http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051221/pl_afp/usattacksintelligencejudgeresign;_ylt=AgVfsBFUxdzdE6kDmTz1zySs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

In 2004 and 2005, Bush repeatedly argued that the controversial Patriot Act package of anti-terrorism laws safeguards civil liberties because US authorities still need a warrant to tap telephones in the United States.

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order," he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.

"Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so," he added.

On April 19, 2004, Bush said the Patriot Act enabled law-enforcement officials to use "roving wiretaps," which are not fixed to a particular telephone, against terrorism, as they had been against organized crime.

"You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order -- and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example," he said in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

"A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order," he said July 14, 2004 in Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin.

"In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order," he said. "What the Patriot Act said is let's give our law enforcement the tools necessary, without abridging the Constitution of the United States, the tools necessary to defend America."

The president has also repeatedly said that the need to seek such warrants means "the judicial branch has a strong oversight role."

"Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States," he added in remarks at the Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy.

He made similar comments in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 20 2005.

Vice President Dick Cheney offered similar reassurances at a Patriot Act event in June 2004, saying that "all of the investigative tools" under the law "require the approval of a judge before they can be carried out."

[pax]

You can read the actual transcript of the White House Press Briefing about the wiretapping at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html -- and it is well worth reading carefully, in its entirety, if you are concerned about personal liberty at all.

Brad Templeton, founder of the Electronic Freedom Foundation (www.eff.org), had this to say in his blog (http://ideas.4brad.com/blog/1):
The efficiency claim is a smokescreen. They would not have taken this level of legal risk, no matter how much they feel what they did was legal, just to gain a little efficiency. It’s clear to me that they are telling the truth when they say they could not use the FISA court — they are performing surveillance that the FISA court would not authorize for them.

The question is, what? The AG says it is not “blanket” but clearly there is some fancy computerized surveillance going on here, something secret, beyond Carnivore. I can readily believe that all sorts of fancy broad surveillance could take place and not be considered “blanket” by the AG. (The AG actually says, “The President has not authorized blanket surveillance of communications here in the United states.”) I certainly hope he has not authorized that. But has he authorized it on all communications coming in and out of the USA?

Or something less, like computer search of all E-mails or phone calls to or from entire towns or nations? Perhaps speaker recognition to look for certain people’s voices on all international calls, no matter what number they use? Perhaps looking for all arabic calls, and then doing blanket surveillance on them?

So much is possible, and all of this would not be authorized by the FISA court.
It is my opinion that if the previous administration had done even a third as much to destroy personal liberty and Bill of Rights protections as this administration has, there would have been riots in the streets.

My sig du jour is for PCGS65.

pax

This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector. -– Plato

[yonderway]

I don't quite get what a resignation demonstrates. It was submitted to the Chief Justice Roberts without comment. The rest of the buzz is speculation but apparently determined to attribute anti-Bush meaning to the resignation.

A lot of what that court did was secret, and there is probably more to the story than we can know right now due to the air of secrecy around FISA.

But I respect the hell out of what he did. For such a high ranking judge to basically say "I will not be part of this sham" shows some testicular fortitude that is sorely missing among most politicians.

[pauli]

i agree completely with yonderway.

[BuddyOne]

One down...

Buddy

[TheEgg]

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

So, he didn't like this from 2001 but only now resigns? Yeah, he really has the courage of his convictions, doesn't he?

[pax]

Watching the news last night... the talking head stated that both the Clinton and Reagan administration did the same darn thing that the Bush administration has done.

Is this true?
So two of my kids had gotten into some naughtiness together awhile back. I pulled them apart to talk to each of them separately, younger one first. "Did you do this?" I sternly demanded.

Kid looked at me, chin quivering, and proclaimed, "I did not and besides he did it too!"
One of their guests also stated NO administration needs to obtain a warrant when listening for information... & that the warrant is only necessary when procuring information for purposes of evidence as it relates to a criminal trial.
Laughed out loud at this one. Yes, I suppose it's true that if you don't intend to ever let it come to trial, and instead lock up your "enemy combatants" (American citizens) without a trial, then no, you wouldn't need to get a warrant.

If you're not going to follow the law in the first place, there's no particular reason to follow it in the second place either.

pax

People never believe in volcanoes until the lava actually overtakes them. – George Santayana

[pax]

So, he didn't like this from 2001 but only now resigns? Yeah, he really has the courage of his convictions, doesn't he?
Maybe he was trying to work within the system and change the party from within. :uhoh:

pax

Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago. -- Bernard Berenson

[Master Blaster]

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

I think the above statement is the entire factual content of this story, which proports to know why the judge resigned.

Maybe he got a job offer from a private law firm for 20X what he makes as a federal judge.

[bakert]

Bush is not the first nor will he be the last President to allow this sort of thing. These "Americans" that were eavesdropped on were a very people that there were real concerns about and were being monitored in various ways already. My understanding is that a number of both Democrat and Republican legislators were informed of this. I really don't think it's as big a deal as some do.

[yonderway]

Maybe he got a job offer from a private law firm for 20X what he makes as a federal judge.

He is still a federal circuit court judge. He is just no longer a FISA judge.

[Lobotomy Boy]

I really don't think it's as big a deal as some do.

The president has officially declared that he is not bound by the checks on power provided by the Constitution of the United States. What on earth could be a "bigger deal" than that?

My prediction? Based on the lame excuses parroted by the Bush apologists (Squawk! War on terror! War on terror! 3000 dead! 3000 dead! Squawk!), I see people turning away from the Republican party in droves. We'll have a reactionary Democratic congress in 2006 followed by a Democratic president in 2008 so liberal that he or she will make Kerry look like a John Bircher.

[Biker]

The president has officially declared that he is not bound by the checks on power provided by the Constitution of the United States. What on earth could be a "bigger deal" than that?

My prediction? Based on the lame excuses parroted by the Bush apologists (Squawk! War on terror! War on terror! 3000 dead! 3000 dead! Squawk!), I see people turning away from the Republican party in droves. We'll have a reactionary Democratic congress in 2006 followed by a Democratic president in 2008 so liberal that he or she will make Kerry look like a John Bircher.
Bush drove me away from the Repubs after he announced his virtual amnesty plan for illegal aliens barely into his first term. If I hadn't left then, I shore as hell would now.
Biker

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

These "Americans" that were eavesdropped on were a very people that there were real concerns about and were being monitored in various ways already.

Ummm...like the Quakers?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

I am all for the WOT, but lets actually keep the TERRORISTS under a microscope, not grannies at church meetings. I am a little weary of the carte blanche as its clear that person writing that check keeps buying white elephants unrelated to the goal.

Trust is a two way street

[odysseus]

Some here on this discussion (and few specific people especially) are maintaining a partisan position (democrat this, Clinton that) - and one that leads them blindly. It is the current issue and direction we are in, whoever is the master of the house at the time. In fact, I wonder how some of you same people here would be if the current Administration were bypassing FISA and other procedural laws to infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights, and were "finger printing" and siezing your guns for "inspection"?

Originally Posted by pax
Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago. -- Bernard Berenson

Pax - That's a great quote. I need to communicate this @ work!

[antarti]

I'd like to buy that Judge a brew and I hope that more of his buds follow.

Biker +1

I'd much rather buy him a beer if he were staying on the court and monkey-wrenching it.

[engineer151515]

My prediction? Based on the lame excuses parroted by the Bush apologists (Squawk! War on terror! War on terror! 3000 dead! 3000 dead! Squawk!), I see people turning away from the Republican party in droves. We'll have a reactionary Democratic congress in 2006 followed by a Democratic president in 2008 so liberal that he or she will make Kerry look like a John Bircher.


Now THERE is an optimist.

[pax]

Now THERE is an optimist.
You say that like being a pessimist is a bad thing. :uhoh:

pax

The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised. -- George F. Will

[RealGun]

In fact, I wonder how some of you same people here would be if the current Administration were bypassing FISA and other procedural laws to infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights, and were "finger printing" and siezing your guns for "inspection"?

Not a great example, since the courts don't like guns anyway. It would just be a total conspiracy.

[odysseus]

Not a great example, since the courts don't like guns anyway. It would just be a total conspiracy.

Huh? Please elaborate on what you mean on how these type of bending and abuses couldn't be also done to other Constitutional rights? It's not like it hasn't been done already.

[RealGun]

Huh? Please elaborate on what you mean on how these type of bending and abuses couldn't be also done to other Constitutional rights?

That's not my interest. Involving FISA wouldn't necessarily prevent abuses of gun owners. These are the same District Judges who won't hear gun cases.

[dasmi]

I'd like to buy that Judge a brew and I hope that more of his buds follow.

+1

[engineer151515]

You say that like being a pessimist is a bad thing. :uhoh:

pax

The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised. -- George F. Will





:)

[Walt Sherrill]

So, he didn't like this from 2001 but only now resigns? Yeah, he really has the courage of his convictions, doesn't he?The delay might have something to do with the fact that BUSH's actions, started in 2001, were secret until just recently.... You can't resign in protest, unless you know they're doing it.

[Igloodude]

The delay might have something to do with the fact that BUSH's actions, started in 2001, were secret until just recently.... You can't resign in protest, unless you know they're doing it.

That's possible, but apparently at least Judge Kollar-Kotelly was aware of the possibility, per the NY Times article that outed this in the first place:

In mid-2004, concerns about the program expressed by national security officials, government lawyers and a judge prompted the Bush administration to suspend elements of the program and revamp it.

For the first time, the Justice Department audited the N.S.A. program, several officials said. And to provide more guidance, the Justice Department and the agency expanded and refined a checklist to follow in deciding whether probable cause existed to start monitoring someone's communications, several officials said.

A complaint from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the federal judge who oversees the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, helped spur the suspension, officials said. The judge questioned whether information obtained under the N.S.A. program was being improperly used as the basis for F.I.S.A. wiretap warrant requests from the Justice Department, according to senior government officials. While not knowing all the details of the exchange, several government lawyers said there appeared to be concerns that the Justice Department, by trying to shield the existence of the N.S.A. program, was in danger of misleading the court about the origins of the information cited to justify the warrants.

One official familiar with the episode said the judge insisted to Justice Department lawyers at one point that any material gathered under the special N.S.A. program not be used in seeking wiretap warrants from her court. Judge Kollar-Kotelly did not return calls for comment.

[MrTuffPaws]

Boy it sure is nice to see the partisans holler.

Let's see, we have the "Defend Bush at all cost". Come on guys, you are the same ones that complain constantly of the constant attacks on Bush, yet you fail to realize that you are nothing but the other side of the coin of extremes.

Then we have the "Another Dem down" people. All I can say is that I am glad we have the two party system, or you might not know who to point at.

Look, what is being done by the government is atrocious and beyond reprehension. This is the government abusing the rights of its citizens. Be it Democrat or Republican, the ones that attack the rights and liberties of their people should be voted for from the roof tops.

[buzz_knox]

Be it Democrat or Republican, the ones that attack the rights and liberties of their people should be voted for from the roof tops.

How about we talk about voting them out of office before discussing assassinating them?

[odysseus]

That's not my interest. Involving FISA wouldn't necessarily prevent abuses of gun owners.

It's an example there fella. And I will just agree to disagree, the logic is being twisted here. Allowing the Cherry-picking of Amendment violations is not conducive to maintaining the rights of other protected rights. There.

[buzz_knox]

That's possible, but apparently at least Judge Kollar-Kotelly was aware of the possibility, per the NY Times article that outed this in the first place:

So, she knew about it, and decided to quit when it became public and was politically advantageous to do so? Sounds like she's thinking of making a run for public office.

[RealGun]

Boy it sure is nice to see the partisans holler.

Let's see, we have the "Defend Bush at all cost". Come on guys, you are the same ones that complain constantly of the constant attacks on Bush, yet you fail to realize that you are nothing but the other side of the coin of extremes.

Then we have the "Another Dem down" people. All I can say is that I am glad we have the two party system, or you might not know who to point at.

Look, what is being done by the government is atrocious and beyond reprehension. This is the government abusing the rights of its citizens. Be it Democrat or Republican, the ones that attack the rights and liberties of their people should be voted for from the roof tops.

Then there are those who think the sky is falling, exactly on cue, just the way the MSM planned and spun it.

[Camp David]

Let's see, we have the "Defend Bush at all cost"...

Not really... just defend Bush because 1) he's right, 2) we are at war, and 3) he's right.

When he makes a wrong decision I'll be first and foremost in his face, but so far the President has delivered what he promised in his campaign, been an effective force in the war on terror, and kept the economy on an even keel. He gets my vote, not as you say "at all cost" but by demonstrated performance.

[odysseus]

and kept the economy on an even keel.

Thread drift, but ohh.. you must please elaborate on that one. And please back up your assumption on what the President's influence is on the economy and GDP. I mean all your other points certainly have points for and against them, but this one... oh boy.

[Camp David]

Thread drift, but ohh.. you must please elaborate on that one...

What's the Stock Market at right now?
10,826.53; up 20.98 just today! Up 1,000 this month alone.

What is the GDP at right now?
[consumption + investment + (exports − imports)]
"Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 4.1 percent in the third quarter of 2005, according to final estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real
GDP increased 3.3 percent."

What's the Unemployment Rate at right now?
4.9 %, it was at 4.0% earlier in 2000 (stability is key here)

Like I said, GWB has kept the economy on an even keel.

[odysseus]

What's the Stock Market at right now?
10,826.53; up 20.98 just today! Up 1,000 this month alone.

What is the GDP at right now?
[consumption + investment + (exports − imports)]
"Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 4.1 percent in the third quarter of 2005, according to final estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real
GDP increased 3.3 percent."

What's the Unemployment Rate at right now?
4.9 %, it was at 4.0% earlier in 2000 (stability is key here)

Like I said, GWB has kept the economy on an even keel.

Yes, yes I can look up the same facts off the Net too. Also you are ignoring others, which reveals things to me. However that's here nor there. What you didn't do is again, explain how our current President caused this as you claim.

[Cosmoline]

"What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."


I'm sorry, but a judge who's sat on FISA's secret rubber stamp doesn't have ANY ROOM to complain about GW's actions. That court is a sick joke. Totally meaningless window dressing. The judges are just mad because GW did what they've been doing for years.

[Camp David]

What you didn't do is again, explain how our current President caused this as you claim.

cutting taxes... simple as that... numerous articles in Forbes and Fortune magazines have highlighted this as the main catalyst...

[MrTuffPaws]

What's the Stock Market at right now?
10,826.53; up 20.98 just today! Up 1,000 this month alone.

What is the GDP at right now?
[consumption + investment + (exports − imports)]
"Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 4.1 percent in the third quarter of 2005, according to final estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real
GDP increased 3.3 percent."

What's the Unemployment Rate at right now?
4.9 %, it was at 4.0% earlier in 2000 (stability is key here)

Like I said, GWB has kept the economy on an even keel.


With facts like that, you must have loved Clinton ;)

[Igloodude]

So, she knew about it, and decided to quit when it became public and was politically advantageous to do so? Sounds like she's thinking of making a run for public office.

She's not the one that quit, I gather she's the head judge of the FISA court and Robinson (the one that quit) is an "associate justice" or something.

Anyway, her complaints in 2004 apparently led to at least a minor shake-up, if we can believe the New York Times.

[Jeff Timm]

How do you know that he was (is) incompetent?
Biker

He was appointed by Clinton. This does not make him incompetent, he could be a VERY COMPETENT communist traitor.

Geoff
Who has a low opinion of shysters at the best of times. :cuss:

[Biker]

He was appointed by Clinton. This does not make him incompetent, he could be a VERY COMPETENT communist traitor.

Geoff
Who has a low opinion of shysters at the best of times. :cuss:
By that logic, anyone Bush appoints could be construed as a traitor.
:neener:
Biker

[RealGun]

With facts like that, you must have loved Clinton ;)

Ah yes, the bubble years. Now as then, the administration can and will take credit for prosperity. The recovery from the post 9/11 slump has been excellent. Older investments aren't that good though, because some of the value is in different stocks than it was in 2001. Camp David is exactly right, except that the DOW is up more like 500, not 1000. Let's not try too hard to rob the Bush administration of credit, because this measure is where the rubber really meets the road. What it's all about is maintaining an environment for prosperity, which mainly requires stability, including fighting them there instead of here.

I tend to think of employment statistics as phony baloney, because I know or see too many people without jobs. Those who gave up looking aren't counted. I suspect that number is growing more than anyone would care to divulge or explain. Nevertheless, the traditional employment measure looks relatively good.

[odysseus]

The fallacy that a single president has great influence on the economic health of the country during his term, and especially these days internationally, is one that is hard to learn away from a lot of people. It's always used when times are good for a current Administration, and then ignored and shrugged off by the same people when times are bad. Economic academics will learn you otherwise. It's not for this discussion anyway.

[RealGun]

The fallacy that a single president has great influence on the economic health of the country during his term, and especially these days internationally, is one that is hard to learn away from a lot of people. It's always used when times are good for a current Administration, and then ignored and shrugged off by the same people when times are bad. Economic academics will learn you otherwise. It's not for this discussion anyway.

Except that the president's decisive action after 9/11 was directly responsible for stabilizing the market, something that operates emotionally more than on any sound economic basis. The market needed Bush to recover some of its "irrational exuberance" (Greenspan speak). There are more than a few people very grateful for some recovery in their 401K and IRA accounts. Bush has certainly been in office long enough to take credit for traditional measures of an administration's economic success. Just remember that if things were going poorly, you wouldn't be so intent on protecting him from blame.

Of course, the other factor is that when the economy takes a dip, the country needs a good war to crank up the military/industrial complex.

Two PhD economists are good friends of mine. I can check with them, if you like.

[Tom C.]

You guys are being stampeded by the MSM. Think about why the NYT would run a story after sitting on it for a year. I can think of several reasons. 1. Time it for release of a book by one of their writers. 2. Time it to change the subject from the successful elections in Iraq, which put the lie to most of their bulls**t arguments against the war. 3. Try to stop the surge in Bush’s momentum in the polls.
If you read their crap carefully, they are using a selective reading of the law to claim the only way communication taps can be done is by court order. That is simply not the case. The Attorney General can authorize national security taps himself. Presidents have been doing that for about 27 years.
Remember the laptop computers we captured at the training camp in northern Iraq. These guys have phone lists too. We have entered those phone numbers into the computers and watch for incoming and outgoing calls from those numbers. When calls from those numbers go to or from the United States, they are monitored. The people being monitored are mostly non citizens, but there are some citizens who are being monitored. They are agents and sympathizers and I am darn glad they are being monitored.
International communications is still fair game. Our victory in WWII was made possible by signal communications. Ever hear of Enigma?

[Biker]

You guys are being stampeded by the MSM. Think about why the NYT would run a story after sitting on it for a year. I can think of several reasons. 1. Time it for release of a book by one of their writers. 2. Time it to change the subject from the successful elections in Iraq, which put the lie to most of their bulls**t arguments against the war. 3. Try to stop the surge in Bush?s momentum in the polls.
If you read their crap carefully, they are using a selective reading of the law to claim the only way communication taps can be done is by court order. That is simply not the case. The Attorney General can authorize national security taps himself. Presidents have been doing that for about 27 years.
Remember the laptop computers we captured at the training camp in northern Iraq. These guys have phone lists too. We have entered those phone numbers into the computers and watch for incoming and outgoing calls from those numbers. When calls from those numbers go to or from the United States, they are monitored. The people being monitored are mostly non citizens, but there are some citizens who are being monitored. They are agents and sympathizers and I am darn glad they are being monitored.
International communications is still fair game. Our victory in WWII was made possible by signal communications. Ever hear of Enigma?I don't much care *why* the story was run, just that it was. And how do you know who was the target of those taps, illegal or otherwise?
And finally, with friends like Bush, who needs 'Enigmas'?;)

[PCGS65]

Like it or not guys the government has done this since its creation and will continue to do so untill the end. Why is it such a big deal now? Didn't you guys know this already?
I know the first thing your going to say(so I'll beat you to it)is, I don't care about our 4th amendment rights, not true.
I am simply saying this is the way it is.
And I disagree with invasion of privacy just like I disagree with murder/mass murder,terrorist acts,violence ect......
In certain cases there isn't time to follow the rules/laws and I am going have to trust the government to make that decision when the time comes.
Remember the cuban missle chrisis? Yea I know that's different.........ok let er rip
On a lighter note Merry Christmas

[LAR-15]

It's a non-story :)

[Biker]

It's a non-story :)
Yup.
:)
Biker

[benEzra]

Remember the laptop computers we captured at the training camp in northern Iraq. These guys have phone lists too. We have entered those phone numbers into the computers and watch for incoming and outgoing calls from those numbers. When calls from those numbers go to or from the United States, they are monitored. The people being monitored are mostly non citizens, but there are some citizens who are being monitored. They are agents and sympathizers and I am darn glad they are being monitored.
If these are the people being monitored, then it should be no trouble whatsoever to GET A WARRANT via FISA to tap their phones.

Why make an end run around FISA for some taps, unless you think that FISA would not approve those taps? This tells me that the secret, no-warrant taps probably aren't people whose names were on a laptop somewhere in Afghanistan, but rather people for whom an investigator could find no probable cause to justify even a FISA warrant.

[Master Blaster]

Here is a clue for the apparently clueless here:

In order to get a warrant you need to name the phone number/ location / person, and provide some idea of the thing you are searching for.

Now imagine we are living in the age of super computers, Imagine a computer at the NSA which can capture and monitor every phone call made out of the US and into the US, say 2 million calls at any given time. Imagine that this computer has a complex program that includes speach and voice recognition, and looks for certain patterns of calls to and from millions of locations, and looks for patterns of words.

When it finds something it writes it to a database and assigns a priority to it so it can pass through another set of programs on another super computer.
Eventually a human being will be allerted if over a certain time span there are repeats of the pattern being sought. This may take a day, a week, a month, 6 months.

How would one go about getting a warrant for the initial 2 million calls, when one doesnt know the location, or the number in advance.

72 hours later does one present all 2 million calls to the court for a warrant as described above?????? Imagine at the end of say a month this filtering database has come up with 1,000 locations that need to be checked, but most would have been monitored for the first time more than 72 hours ago.

Bush via his order allows the above to happen and the FBI to check out after the fact 20 of the 400,000,000 calls/ locations that were fed into the database and super computers that month.

That is what we are talking about.

Unfortunately Now that I have revealed this top secret, you will all have to be TERMINATED

JUST KIDDING