Spy court judge quits in protest

Status
Not open for further replies.

rick_reno

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,027
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
PCGS65 said:
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.
 
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?
 
I'd like to buy that Judge a brew and I hope that more of his buds follow.
Biker
 
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.
 
Biker said:
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...
 
Thanks Camp David. Although I'm undecided on the Gitmo thing, I'll take a look at the other site.
Biker
 
Camp David said:
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.
 
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/2005122...Tz1zySs0NUE;_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."
 
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, had this to say in his blog:
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
 
RealGun said:
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.
 
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?
 
Trip20 said:
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!"
Trip20 said:
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
 
TheEgg said:
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Lobotomy Boy said:
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top