WP: Secret Court Asks For White House View on Inquiry

[AsburySkinsFan]

More evidence that our fears are not unwarranted, unlike Bush's spy program.

Secret Court Asks For White House View on Inquiry

ACLU Seeking Rulings Issued On Warrantless Wiretapping

By Dan Eggen

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, August 18, 2007; Page A03

A secret U.S. intelligence court has ordered the Bush administration to register its views about a records request by the American Civil Liberties Union, which wants the court to release a series of pivotal orders issued earlier this year about the National Security Agency's wiretapping program.

The move is highly unusual, because the court -- which approves warrants for electronic surveillance within the United States by intelligence and counterterrorism agencies -- operates in almost total secrecy and has made only one ruling public in its 29-year history.

In a scheduling order issued Thursday and released yesterday by the ACLU, the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court instructed the government to respond to the ACLU's request by Aug. 31. The civil liberties group has until Sept. 14 to file its own response.

"This is an unprecedented request that warrants further briefing," wrote U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who serves as the intelligence court's presiding judge.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said in a statement that "we're extremely encouraged by today's development because it means that, at long last, the government will be required to defend its contention that the orders should not be released."

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the administration is reviewing the judge's order.

The ACLU has asked the court for copies of orders it issued in January related to the NSA's warrantless surveillance program, which had been operated without court oversight since late 2001 and which has been the focus of fierce congressional debate.

The group is also seeking a copy of one or more court orders issued in the spring that, according to administration officials and congressional Republicans, concluded that parts of the program are illegal. The orders helped provoke Congress to overhaul the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act this month, giving U.S. spy agencies expanded powers to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order.

David B. Rivkin Jr., a partner at Baker Hostetler and a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration, said he is skeptical that the ACLU can pry loose the orders. Rivkin also argued that it is unclear whether the secret court, which meets inside the Justice Department building, has the authority to release such documents over objections from the executive branch.

"The order is unusual, and the request is also unusual," Rivkin said. "But I would be amazed if that request were granted in the end."

The only previous ruling to be made public from the secret court came in 2002, when the panel rejected new surveillance guidelines proposed by the Justice Department. A special appeals court overturned the ruling later that year.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Oh, who's got the odds on Bush claiming Executive Privilege.

[twa]

I know it was tongue in cheek,but executive privileged on their opinion?

Never know though...they might consider them state secrets as well. :laugh:

Added

a serious question would be does the FISA court have the right to release classified documents?...Off the top of my head I would say no.

[Larry]

a serious question would be does the FISA court have the right to release classified documents?...Off the top of my head I would say no.

That's what I'd think, too. But it sounds like all the ACLU is asking is that the court release it's own rulings, which I'd think it does have the authority to do.

(I feel like I'm watching a chess game, and I don't even know all the rules.)

[AsburySkinsFan]

That's what I'd think, too. But it sounds like all the ACLU is asking is that the court release it's own rulings, which I'd think it does have the authority to do.

(I feel like I'm watching a chess game, and I don't even know all the rules.)

Or one where the rules are made up as the game is being played, and then subsequently ignored

I know it was tongue in cheek,but executive privileged on their opinion?

Never know though...they might consider them state secrets as well.

From where I sit it would not be a surprising move.

[Teller]

You wanna know how much damage Bush has done to the republican party by habitually hosing over his base and ignoring the Constitution?

I'm rooting for the ACLU. :doh:

Clearly congress isn't going to act to rectify this matter. Afterall, their solution was to make MORE types of warrantless wiretaps legal. I just don't understand that at all. The one benefit, IMO, to having the dems control congress is checks and balances. Well hell, on this issue they're worse than the so-called "rubber stamp" congress that Bush had his first six years in office. They're not only saying, "Hey, we're not going to sweat the constitutionality of the program," they're saying, "Go ahead and do more of it. And we'll make it all legal."

It's true that Clinton's approval rating skyrocketed during his impeachment hearings. And IMO, that was because most Americans believed (again IMO, wrongly) that the whole thing was about sex. We're not in that situation now. I think the majority of voters on both sides would whole-heartedly support an intense investigation into the NSA program; if not straight up impeachment. (Which I happen to favor at this point.)

I have never had the level of distrust for an administration that I have for this one right now. At this point, I'm honestly not sure which would be worse -- another terror attack on our soil, or our own damned government's response to it. (I know which one SCARES me more. And I ain't afraid of no stinkin' terrorist.)

I'm sure this is a stupid question, but can the ACLU directly challenge the constitutionality of the NSA program if they get the docs they need? I'm behind them 100% on this.

[AsburySkinsFan]

H_H, I'm with you bro. I don't trust the Administration and I don't trust the Legislature either, nor do I trust SCOTUS anymore. dang, where's Ken 'cause I need to sign up.

[Ken]

H_H, I'm with you bro. I don't trust the Administration and I don't trust the Legislature either, nor do I trust SCOTUS anymore. dang, where's Ken 'cause I need to sign up.

Still time to sign up....train's leaving though..

[Teller]

H_H, I'm with you bro. I don't trust the Administration and I don't trust the Legislature either, nor do I trust SCOTUS anymore. dang, where's Ken 'cause I need to sign up.

I can certainly understand why some people would be less than thrilled with the high court right. Personally, I feel a little better about the court than I have in a while; but that's probably because they're leaning more in my direction.

But ASF, I think for the most part (and someone's probably going make me question this too) the judiciary in general is the most trustworthy of the three branches. Sure, there are some so-called activist judges on both sides, but I think most judges try to be fair and honest.

Meanwhile, we have a president who doesn't care about any damn thing but a massive power grab, and most senators and congressman are primarily concerned with getting re-elected.

I don't know. Maybe part of the problem is that both sides spend so much time trying to blow trivial things out of proportion (prosecutor firings/BJs) that when we face a REAL constitutional crisis, many people think it's another cry of wolf.

I don't know how else to say it. Our Constitution is being abused with a reckless abandon, and no one (save for the ACLU, to their credit) seems to give a damn.

The more I sit here and steam, the more I think that I actually need to stop ****ing on a message board and do something about this. Unfortunately, my reps have me pretty limited. No one on either side respects Byrd's abilities anymore; and Shelly Capito ain't going after Bush. No way in hell.

What to do.... :whoknows: