• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

FISA Judges say Bush within the law

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FISA JUDGES SAY BUSH WITHIN LAW
By Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Next time you hear Dorgan or Reid or Pelosi or any of the mainstream media lie about it being "beyond a doubt that Bush knowingly broke the law" as far as the NSA foreign surveillance, here's some authoritative views.

A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges
yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush
did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping
program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).

The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not
speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed
on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not
override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected
international agents under executive order............................

Judge Kornblum said before the 1978 FISA law, foreign surveillance
was done by executive order and the law itself was altered by the
orders of Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stinger said:
Not surprising AT ALL and not surprising that the NYT totally misrepresented the story.
Stinger, I read the NYT article yesterday. I did not conclude that the author was saying that the judges said that Bush had violated the Constitution or broke rules. In fact, I got the impression that they didn't speak as to their opinion on the NSA spying because, frankly, it would be unethical! When I saw the article, I hoped it was going to say that Bush violated the Constitution, but when I read it, I thought, "Darn." It's funny how the three news media that attack the New York Times's article are all total right-wing media. LOL

I just posted this elsewhere but will post it again here. I am just not buying that the judges gave approval of the program. Here's the Kansas City Star's interpretation of the hearing, and it seems to have been more aligned with the New York Times than the ridiculous article from the Washington Times. LOL

Judges favor reviews of NSA program
Senate bill would mandate oversight
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Five federal judges gave a boost Tuesday to legislation that would bring court scrutiny to the Bush administration’s domestic spying program.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing headed by Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, the judges reacted favorably to his proposal that would require the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to conduct regular reviews of the four-year-old program.

The New York Times three months ago revealed the existence of the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping.

The judges stressed that they were not offering their views on the NSA operation, which they said they knew nothing about.

But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has operated capably for 28 years, they said, and is fully able to protect civil liberties and give the administration all the speed and flexibility it needs to execute the war on terror.

The administration has argued that the president has inherent war powers under the Constitution to order eavesdropping without warrants.

“I am very wary of inherent authority” claimed by presidents, U.S. Magistrate Judge Allan Kornblum testified. “It sounds very much like King George.”

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/news/politics/14209753.htm
 
Last edited:

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
aps said:
Stinger, I read the NYT article yesterday. I did not conclude that the author was saying that the judges said that Bush had violated the Constitution or broke rules. In fact, I got the impression that they didn't speak as to their opinion on the NSA spying because, frankly, it would be unethical! When I saw the article, I hoped it was going to say that Bush violated the Constitution, but when I read it, I thought, "Darn." It's funny how the three news media that attack the New York Times's article are all total right-wing media. LOL

I just posted this elsewhere but will post it again here. I am just not buying that the judges gave approval of the program. Here's the Kansas City Star's interpretation of the hearing, and it seems to have been more aligned with the New York Times than the ridiculous article from the Washington Times. LOL
I think you might want to consider the source. I mean the Kansas City Star probably is a Liberal rag.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aps said:
Ha ha ha ha. Now that I "touched it," none of the cons want to respond. I love it when I win an argument (or at least stump the other side). ;)
Have you checked the other thread of late? I responded to your post as follows:

Actually, these are former FISA court judges. I suppose if former Supremes can opine about various things, former FISA judges can certainly express their opinions as to the legality of the NSA surveillance program.

The transcript comes from a subscription service, so I don't if it will available in total, but there is a partial here.

BTW, I wonder if that 'King George' comment wasn't an allusion to the English King George of old, not the guy in the WH right whom you obviously adore.

BTW redux, the Kansas City Star simply picked up the AP version of the story and printed it. About as in-depth as snow in Miami in August. For pretty good analysis, including fairly extensive transcripts, go to Powerline or NationalReviewonline.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
aps said:
Stinger, I read the NYT article yesterday. I did not conclude that the author was saying that the judges said that Bush had violated the Constitution or broke rules. In fact, I got the impression that they didn't speak as to their opinion on the NSA spying because, frankly, it would be unethical! When I saw the article, I hoped it was going to say that Bush violated the Constitution, but when I read it, I thought, "Darn." It's funny how the three news media that attack the New York Times's article are all total right-wing media. LOL

I just posted this elsewhere but will post it again here. I am just not buying that the judges gave approval of the program. Here's the Kansas City Star's interpretation of the hearing, and it seems to have been more aligned with the New York Times than the ridiculous article from the Washington Times. LOL
The KC Star reported that, which is a reasonable statement, everyone should be wary of the Presidents inherent authority. But the FISA court has already stated in a previous ruling that this IS and inherent authority and what the KC Star apparently left out was Judge Kornblum's conclusion in his testimony:


"[Judge] KORNBLUM: I think — as a magistrate judge, not a district judge — that a president would be remiss in exercising his constitutional authority to say that, "I surrender all of my power to a statute." And, frankly, I doubt that Congress in a statute can take away the president's authority — not his inherent authority but his necessary and — I forget the constitutional — his necessary and proper authority."

See this thread for a further critique of the NYT's reporting of the hearings.

Which concludes

" NRO concludes that Lichtblau's [the NYT reporter] assertion that "several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order." is false and that "the transcript indicates that the exact opposite is true.""
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I will read the transcript later. I must have misunderstood who spoke. I thought only some of the judges were former judges. Regardless, I find it hard to believe that if these former judges said that Bush had the authority, why this story would not be on the cover of all the major newspapers. I mean, come on, guys. The media harped on this for weeks! And don't say that they are afraid to admit they were wrong. There are plenty of newspapers who are willing to report news that isn't favorable to its political leanings. When professors from the top law schools in the United States have questioned the authority, I have a hard time thinking that all the former judges from the FISA court who testified found that Bush had the authority.

And here is Fox News reporting the same AP story that the very liberal Kansas City Star reported.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189447,00.html

"Judges Back Bill Scrutinizing NSA Wiretap Program" That is the title of the article. Sorry, guys, but when the judges support the scrutinizing of the NSA wiretap program, that tells me that they can't be also saying that Bush has the inherent authority.
 
Last edited:

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aps said:
Sorry, guys, but when the judges support the scrutinizing of the NSA wiretap program, that tells me that they can't be also saying that Bush has the inherent authority.
Try a little closer attention to the details. These are not mutually exclusive, as the former judges discussed.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Try a little closer attention to the details. These are not mutually exclusive, as the former judges discussed.
Are you going to tell me that the Washington Times's conclusion that the former judges said that Bush was within the law is accurate? Oh, and oldreliable, I'll "[t]ry a little closer attention to the details." :roll:
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aps said:
Are you going to tell me that the Washington Times's conclusion that the former judges said that Bush was within the law is accurate?
No, I'm not. The Washington Times is entitled to their conclusion, as are we all. As I have written previously, IMO, a definitive conclusion is remains begging for a court test, though I lean towards agreement with the Washington Times, the former FISA judges and a group of legal scholars that the program is legal and within the President's authority.

You, on the other hand, have written extensively that you disagree and base your opinion largely on the group of legal scholars on whose opinions you have chosen to rely.

And thats why we have vanilla and chocolate. And places like DP where we can express those respective opinions in a (mostly) civilized manner.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
No, I'm not. The Washington Times is entitled to their conclusion, as are we all. As I have written previously, IMO, a definitive conclusion is remains begging for a court test, though I lean towards agreement with the Washington Times, the former FISA judges and a group of legal scholars that the program is legal and within the President's authority.

You, on the other hand, have written extensively that you disagree and base your opinion largely on the group of legal scholars on whose opinions you have chosen to rely.

And thats why we have vanilla and chocolate. And places like DP where we can express those respective opinions in a (mostly) civilized manner.
I have not said one way or another regarding the conclusion drawn from the hearing. I have my own opinion, and I accept that there are opinions that support my opinion and those that do not. Again, and you clearly refuse to address this, IF they found that Bush had the authority, then tell me why it's not being discussed in the media? And don't tell me it's because the liberal media bias refuses to accept such opinion.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Again, and you clearly refuse to address this, IF they found that Bush had the authority, then tell me why it's not being discussed in the media? And don't tell me it's because the liberal media bias refuses to accept such opinion.
Au contraire, I am not refusing to address the media attention (or lack thereof, depending on one's pov) to this. The media has extensively addressed it: both the NYT, the AP, the WP, the Washington Times, et al, have all reported on it. I caught mentions of it on CNN and MSNBC. It just isn't that biguva deal any more.

The fact that the story didn't generate an immediate public reaction might be that the NSA surveillance program is no longer in the forefront of the public consciousness. We, thanks in part to that very same media, have formed our opinions and moved on. It will take something stronger than the opinions of former FISA judges (more blood and more bullets, metaphorically speaking) connected to the story to restore it to its former eminence.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
oldreliable67 said:
The fact that the story didn't generate an immediate public reaction might be that the NSA surveillance program is no longer in the forefront of the public consciousness. We, thanks in part to that very same media, have formed our opinions and moved on. It will take something stronger than the opinions of former FISA judges (more blood and more bullets, metaphorically speaking) connected to the story to restore it to its former eminence.
That's usually the way the media works....

"Oh by the way...Remember that story we beat into the ground two months ago until the public started tuning it out and considering it background noise?...Well here's more on it"...

By that time(now), no one cares anymore...It's an afterthought...Like that Aruba girl that Greta keeps trying to resurrect from the dead...(The story, not the girl)...
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Au contraire, I am not refusing to address the media attention (or lack thereof, depending on one's pov) to this. The media has extensively addressed it: both the NYT, the AP, the WP, the Washington Times, et al, have all reported on it. I caught mentions of it on CNN and MSNBC. It just isn't that biguva deal any more.

The fact that the story didn't generate an immediate public reaction might be that the NSA surveillance program is no longer in the forefront of the public consciousness. We, thanks in part to that very same media, have formed our opinions and moved on. It will take something stronger than the opinions of former FISA judges (more blood and more bullets, metaphorically speaking) connected to the story to restore it to its former eminence.
Okay, this is something that I can agree with to some extent. I never saw it in the Washington Post, which is what has truly surprised me. I just searched the website and came up with nothing (but I may not be using the correct search terms). Do you have a link?
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
Are you going to tell me that the Washington Times's conclusion that the former judges said that Bush was within the law is accurate? Oh, and oldreliable, I'll "[t]ry a little closer attention to the details." :roll:
The Times didn't make the conclusion that Bush was within the law, the judges did. The Times reported such conclusion.
 
H

hipsterdufus

Stinger said:
FISA JUDGES SAY BUSH WITHIN LAW
By Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Next time you hear Dorgan or Reid or Pelosi or any of the mainstream media lie about it being "beyond a doubt that Bush knowingly broke the law" as far as the NSA foreign surveillance, here's some authoritative views.

A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges
yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush
did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping
program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).

The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not
speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed
on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not
override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected
international agents under executive order............................

Judge Kornblum said before the 1978 FISA law, foreign surveillance
was done by executive order and the law itself was altered by the
orders of Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm
Sorry, the moonie paper isn't a source, at all. You might as well quote the National Enquirer. Take a look at interviews with people who left the paper some time when you have a miniute as to what their "journalistic standards" are.



The moonie paper? Not so much.

If you can cooborate this story with a reputable source, (one that employs a fact checker would be a good place to start) we can debate it.

One of the quotes I heard from a FISA judge said that Bush is violating the law "at his own peril." None of the judges said that Bush was acting within the law. I'm looking for a transcrip that I'll post when I find it.
 
Last edited:
H

hipsterdufus

Stinger said:
FISA JUDGES SAY BUSH WITHIN LAW
By Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm
Here's a story with actual quotes, notice that none of the judges said Bush was acting within the law. They were inclined to not answer the question directly. Judge Baker did say "the president ignores it at the president's peril."
The Washington Times can spin it however they want, along with Hannity and the rest. But it's hard to refute when the actual words are on tape.

By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: March 29, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 28 — Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.


Judge James Robertson quit the intelligence court just days after the spy program was disclosed.

In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.

Judge Harold A. Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said the president was bound by the law "like everyone else." If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, Judge Baker said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril."

Judge Baker and three other judges who served on the intelligence court testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in support of a proposal by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, to give the court formal oversight of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program. Committee members also heard parts of a letter in support of the proposal from a fifth judge, James Robertson, who left the court last December, days after the eavesdropping program was disclosed.

/snip

But Mr. Bush's decision effectively to bypass the court in permitting eavesdropping without warrants has raised the court's profile. That was underscored by the appearance on Tuesday of the four former FISA judges: Judge Baker; Judge Stanley S. Brotman, who left the panel in 2004; Judge John F. Keenan, who left in 2001; and Judge William H. Stafford Jr., who left in 2003. All four sit on the federal judiciary.

/snip

The public broadcasting of the court's business struck some court watchers as extraordinary. "This is unprecedented," said Magistrate Judge Allan Kornblum, who supervised Justice Department wiretap applications to the court for many years and testified alongside the four former judges.

But the most pointed testimony may have come from a man who was not at the hearing: Judge Robertson.

A sitting federal judge in Washington, Judge Robertson resigned from the intelligence court just days after the N.S.A. program was disclosed.

Colleagues say he resigned in frustration over the fact that none of the court's 11 judges, except for the presiding judge, were briefed on the program or knew of its existence. But Judge Robertson has remained silent, declining all requests for interviews, and his comments entered into The Congressional Record on Tuesday represented his first public remarks on the controversy.

In a March 23 letter in response to a query from Mr. Specter, the judge said he supported Mr. Specter's proposal "to give approval authority over the administration's electronic surveillance program" to the court.

The Bush administration, in its continued defense of the program, maintains that no change in the law is needed because the president has the inherent constitutional authority to order wiretaps without warrants in defense of the country.

Mr. Specter's proposal seeks to give the intelligence court a role in ruling on the legitimacy of the program. A competing proposal by Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, would allow the president to authorize wiretaps for 45 days without Congressional oversight or judicial approval.

Judge Robertson made clear that he believed the FISA court should review the surveillance program. "Seeking judicial approval for government activities that implicate constitutional protections is, of course, the American way," he wrote.

But Judge Robertson argued that the court should not conduct a "general review" of the surveillance operation, as Mr. Specter proposed. Instead, he said the court should rule on individual warrant applications for eavesdropping under the program lasting 45 or 90 days.

Acknowledging the need for secrecy surrounding such a program, he said the FISA court was "best situated" for the task. "Its judges are independent, appropriately cleared, experienced in intelligence matters, and have a perfect security record," Judge Robertson said.

He did not weigh in on the ultimate question of whether he considered the N.S.A. program illegal. The judges at the committee hearing avoided that politically charged issue despite persistent questioning from Democrats, even as the judges raised concerns about how the program was put into effect.

Judge Baker said he felt most comfortable talking about possible changes to strengthen the foreign intelligence law. "Whether something's legal or illegal goes beyond that," he said, "and that's why I'm shying away from answering that."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/politics/29nsa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
Here's a story with actual quotes, notice that none of the judges said Bush was acting within the law. They were inclined to not answer the question directly. Judge Baker did say "the president ignores it at the president's peril."
The Washington Times can spin it however they want, along with Hannity and the rest. But it's hard to refute when the actual words are on tape.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/politics/29nsa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Already debunked...

oldreliable67 said:
Powerline wonders if Eric Lichtblau of the NYT attended a different hearing. The Times' story is headlined "Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program." and says:

"Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.

In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps."


As John at Powerline writes, these reports can't both be right. Lichtblau has a huge personal investment in the assertion that the NSA program is illegal, which begs the question, is his commitment to that proposition causing him to slant his reports on testimony before a Senate committee? Or, conversely, did the Washington Times go too far in characterizing the judge's approval of the NSA program?

Nationreviewonline obtained a transcript of the proceedings and concludes that "New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau appears to have asserted something in his wiretapping story today that just isn't supported by his own reporting, much less a transcript of the hearing." One of the key passages in the transcript is as follows:

"[Judge] KORNBLUM: I think — as a magistrate judge, not a district judge — that a president would be remiss in exercising his constitutional authority to say that, "I surrender all of my power to a statute." And, frankly, I doubt that Congress in a statute can take away the president's authority — not his inherent authority but his necessary and — I forget the constitutional — his necessary and proper authority."

NRO concludes that Lichtblau's assertion that "several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order." is false and that "the transcript indicates that the exact opposite is true."
A couple things...

A)Washington Post is biased but New York Times isn't?...You should thank God we don't drug test here...

B)Funny how you post an article without ONE Jusge Kornblum quote...

C)Start cropping your articles...you know the rules....
 
Last edited:

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
hipsterdufus said:
Sorry, the moonie paper isn't a source, at all. You might as well quote the National Enquirer...If you can cooborate this story with a reputable source, (one that employs a fact checker would be a good place to start) we can debate it.

One of the quotes I heard from a FISA judge said that Bush is violating the law "at his own peril." None of the judges said that Bush was acting within the law. I'm looking for a transcrip that I'll post when I find it.
Not true. See Judge Kornblum's comments, below.

NRO and Powerline both have partial transcripts.

To whet your appetite, here are a couple of bits as reported by Powerline..

Senator Durbin: Well, as we have heard it described--and I have not been briefed either, there are only a few Senators who have--it is the interception of domestic communications between people in the United States and those in foreign lands, and that strikes me as falling within the four corners of the FISA law as written.

Judge Keenan: But you use the word in your introductory question and in that question, "domestic," and as I understand from the lay press, again, this is international, it is not domestic. So that's why I'm not in a position to answer, sir.

Judge Baker: Senator, did the statute limit the President? You created a balance between them [in the FISA statute], and I don't think it took away the inherent authority that Judge Kornblum talked about. He didn't call it "inherent," he doesn't like that. But the whole thing is that if in the course of collecting the foreign stuff, you are also picking up domestic stuff, which apparently is happening, I don't know that that's--it becomes a real question, you know, is he under his inherent power? Is he running around the statute?
And with respect to a question from Senator Hatch regarding the admissibility in criminal trials of evidence obtained indirectly from the NSA surveillance program:

Judge Kornblum: To be admissible, the evidence would have had to have been lawfully seized or lawfully obtained and the standard that the district judge would use is that, depending upon where this is, is the law in his circuit. In most of the circuits, the law is clear that the President has the authority to do warrantless surveillance if it is to collect foreign intelligence and it is targeting foreign powers or agents. If the facts support that, then the district judge could make that finding and admit the evidence, just as they did in Truong-Humphrey. [emphasis added]
After reading the portions of the transcripts available online, I find it hard to agree with Lichtblau's description of the the judge's having voiced 'skeptcism' regarding the prez's constitutional authority to order the NSA surveillance program.
 
H

hipsterdufus

cnredd said:
Already debunked...


A couple things...

A)Washington Post is biased but New York Times isn't?...You should thank God we don't drug test here...

B)Funny how you post an article without ONE Jusge Kornblum quote...

C)Start cropping your articles...you know the rules....
All I see is the right wing spinning it differently. Does anyone have the full transcript?

A. I have a serious problem with the Moonie Washington Times - not the Washington Post.

B. Funny how?

C. I did crop the article - notice the "/snip" marks
 
Last edited:

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Not true. See Judge Kornblum's comments, below.

NRO and Powerline both have partial transcripts.

To whet your appetite, here are a couple of bits as reported by Powerline..



And with respect to a question from Senator Hatch regarding the admissibility in criminal trials of evidence obtained indirectly from the NSA surveillance program:



After reading the portions of the transcripts available online, I find it hard to agree with Lichtblau's description of the the judge's having voiced 'skeptcism' regarding the prez's constitutional authority to order the NSA surveillance program.
Assuming this statement is true, is that not indicative of skepticism?

"I am very wary of inherent authority" claimed by presidents, testified U.S. Magistrate Judge Allan Kornblum. "It sounds very much like King George."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189447,00.html

Do you need me to define wary?
 
H

hipsterdufus

oldreliable67 said:
Not true. See Judge Kornblum's comments, below.

NRO and Powerline both have partial transcripts.

To whet your appetite, here are a couple of bits as reported by Powerline..

And with respect to a question from Senator Hatch regarding the admissibility in criminal trials of evidence obtained indirectly from the NSA surveillance program:

After reading the portions of the transcripts available online, I find it hard to agree with Lichtblau's description of the the judge's having voiced 'skeptcism' regarding the prez's constitutional authority to order the NSA surveillance program.
Here's what Judge Baker said. How is that not true?

Judge Harold A. Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said the president was bound by the law "like everyone else." If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, Judge Baker said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril."
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
hips said:
None of the judges said that Bush was acting within the law
'Not true' referred to your statement quoted above, which was contradicted by the Kornblum statement which followed.
 
Top Bottom