"The Secret Federal Court was NOT informed"

That's because they only had an SCI, and it wasn't in their scope to know.

Col, Col, Col, why should we even bother to argue this article when you yourself puts the rope on your own neck. Here's a clue:

From your article:

The Secret Federal Court was NOT informed that Bush had authorized bypassing the court and allowing the NSA to wire tap Americans without abiding by the 1978 law.

From the link you provided:

The court is made up of 11 judges who, on a rotating basis, hear government applications for surveillance warrants. But only the presiding judge, currently Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, was notified of the government eavesdropping program.

So as far as I understand 1 judge knew which kills the title of this article alone. And if I understand correctly, rotating means that not all the judges hear of all the cases in search for a warrant.

The court is also concerned about Warrants that they have granted and if some of them were tainted by the Bush plan.

Well if they were dumb enough to sign them, I don't believe it's right to sign something and then have regrets over them after hearing something happened.

Sorry Col but you picked the wrong title and the wrong parts to put on your article. You sigle handedly played hangman with yourself.

Then why is the court demanding to know about this Bush secret authorization ? It may be Bush that will be his own hangman.

3 by COL Gene Thursday, January 05, 2006

Then why is the court demanding to know about this Bush secret authorization

to cover there own lack of action?

What a BS answer. They did not know that Bush ignored the law that created their court. Only the chief Judge was told. One judge resigned over the Bush actions and now this court wants answers.

What a BS answer. They did not know that Bush ignored the law that created their court. Only the chief Judge was told. One judge resigned over the Bush actions and now this court wants answers.

BS answer, huh? Then answer this one. Why is it no one has brought forth any proof that GW has overstepped his bounds under the FISA ruling? I've read alot that Bush has done something illegal. However no one has offered any proof that his wiretapping went beyond the 72 hours "LEGALLY ALLOWED" by FISA!

Proof is that to obtain a Wire Tap the President under the 1978 law is REQUIRED to go before the court for a warrant. Even during time of war, the President must obtain court approval 15 days after the fact. BUSH did not obey this law.

Proof is that to obtain a Wire Tap the President under the 1978 law is REQUIRED to go before the court for a warrant. Even during time of war, the President must obtain court approval 15 days after the fact. BUSH did not obey this law.

Wrong answer clueless one! TRY THIS:

18. Does FISA authorize surveillance without a court order? Yes. In general, the Justice Department may engage in electronic surveillance to collect FII without a court order for periods up to one year. 50 U.S.C. § 1802. There must be no "substantial likelihood" that the intercepted communications include those to which a U.S. person is a party. § 1802(a)(1)(.

You better go back and re-read FISA! The ONLY time he needs court approval (warrant) is after more than "72 Hours" of continuous running!

§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court Release date: 2005-03-17 (a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

Multi-Point ("Roving Wiretap") Authority The USA-PATRIOT Act further expanded FISA to permit "roving wiretap" authority, which allows the interception of any communications made to or by an intelligence target without specifying the particular telephone line, computer or other facility to be monitored. Prior law required third parties (such as common carriers and others) "specified in court-ordered surveillance" to provide assistance necessary to accomplish the surveillance--under the new law, that obligation has been extended to unnamed and unspecified third parties. Such "generic" orders could have a significant impact on the privacy rights of large numbers of innocent users, particularly those who access the Internet through public facilities such as libraries, university computer labs and cybercafes. Upon the suspicion that an intelligence target might use such a facility, the FBI can now monitor all communications transmitted at the facility. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the recipient of the assistance order (for instance, a library) would be prohibited from disclosing the fact that monitoring is occurring. The "generic" roving wiretap orders raise significant constitutional issues, as they do not comport with the Fourth Amendment's requirement that any search warrant "particularly describe the place to be searched." That deficiency becomes even more significant when where the private communications of law-abiding American citizens might be intercepted incidentally.

First, Bush is not having the Justice Dept (FBI) conduct these wire taps. He has authorized the NSA to conduct these wire taps without the court order required by FISA Even during war, FISA requires wire taps but does allow after the fact permission up to 15 days if we are in fact at war. It does NOT allow wire taps without ANY court approval. The Roving wiretaps require court orders and Bush himself said the Fed was obtaining court orders for these roving taps under the Patriot Act.

The court itself has demanded to be informed what Bush is up to and one justice on that court has already resigned over the Bush actions. This issue MUST be resolved and ONLY the courts can decide this legal issue as to weather Bush has violated the law.

Col, this is already a non-story. But anyways, a poll shows Americans support this action. Remember, polls mean everything col, right?

“Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.”

“Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Like with the Iraq war, just watch those poll numbers in support drop like a rock as soon as the results of the action become evident to the American people.

Thanks Government for spying on me for my own protection, please install a camera in my shower to ensure the use of soap!

First, Bush is not having the Justice Dept (FBI) conduct these wire taps. He has authorized the NSA to conduct these wire taps without the court order required by FISA Even during war, FISA requires wire taps but does allow after the fact permission up to 15 days if we are in fact at war. It does NOT allow wire taps without ANY court approval. The Roving wiretaps require court orders and Bush himself said the Fed was obtaining court orders for these roving taps under the Patriot Act. The court itself has demanded to be informed what Bush is up to and one justice on that court has already resigned over the Bush actions. This issue MUST be resolved and ONLY the courts can decide this legal issue as to weather Bush has violated the law.

First off the FISA does NOT require the FBI to do the taps. Can you show me where it does. Since we "are" dealing with US security it "should" be the NSA doing it. Evidently you can't read either! Show me where it says court orders are required for roving taps. The court can demand all it wants. Between FISA and it's amendments and the patriot act, GW is required to tell them nothing unless it goes beyond the 72 hour limit. I can show proof to back me up. Can you say the same? Somehow I doubt you can.

Electronic surveillance Generally, the statute permits electronic surveillance in two scenarios. [edit] Without a court order The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is: only for foreign intelligence information[2] targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3)[3] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.[4] The act does not authorize electronic surveillance without a warrant of foreign powers as defined by §§1801(a)(4),(5),(6), and thus the act does authorize electonic surveillance of terrorists without a warrant. The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court[5], and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. [6] Lone wolf amendment In 2004, FISA was amended to include a "lone wolf" provision. 50 U.S.C. §1801((1)(C). A "lone wolf" is a non-US person who engages in or prepares for international terrorism. The provision amended the definition of "foreign power" to permit the FISA courts to issue surveillance and physical search orders without having to find a connection between the "lone wolf" and a foreign government or terrorist group.[11] Authorization during times of war Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress. declaration of war by the Congress. [12].

Foreign Intelligence Electronic Surveillance By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and 104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows: 1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section. 1-102. Pursuant to Section 102( of the Foreign Intelligence Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(), the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section 103 of that Act to obtain orders for electronic surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information. 1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or defense, is designated to make the certifications required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct electronic surveillance: (a) Secretary of State. ( Secretary of Defense. (c) Director of Central Intelligence. (d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (e) Deputy Secretary of State. (f) Deputy Secretary of Defense. (g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence. None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Do try again.

You're very clearly twisting the intent of the 72 hour window.

Since we "are" dealing with US security it "should" be the NSA doing it. Evidently you can't read either! Show me where it says court orders are required for roving taps. The court can demand all it wants. Between FISA and it's amendments and the patriot act, GW is required to tell them nothing unless it goes beyond the 72 hour limit. I can show proof to back me up. Can you say the same? Somehow I doubt you can.

The law states that a judge must be notified that surveillance has begun and that they must follow up with an application as soon as possible, not to exceed 72 hours. Not if they find anything, but for each "emergency" situation.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—
(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and
(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;
he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.

It's pretty clear from this text that the intent of the 72 hour window is to obtain the authorization if it can not be obtained beforehand. The intent is not to give the Attorney General free reign to tap anyone he wants with or without cause for no longer than 72 hours. Do you think all 18,000 of these cases could be classified as "emergencies"? If so, where are the prosecutions that have resulted from these essential, emergencies?

Any civil libertarian will find phone tapping electronic eves dropping and mail interception extremely distasteful.Should the Government be armed with the powers to evesdrop? I think not.

I believe there is a provision in FISA during time of War (I do not know if that applies today) for up to 15 days to obtain a warrant after the fact. Bush failed to obey ANY provision of the FISA law!