Two Fisa Court Judges Were told of NSA's Actions

[Bonnie]

By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060516/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_phone_records_1

WASHINGTON - Two judges on the court that approves warrants for intelligence surveillance were told of the broad monitoring programs that have raised recent controversy, a Republican senator said Tuesday.

Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said that at least two of the chief judges on the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had been informed since 2001 of the White House-approved National Security Agency operations.

"None raised any objections, as far as I know," said Hatch, an Intelligence Committee member who was chosen to a select panel to oversee the NSA's work.

Hatch made the comment in answering a question in an interview about recent reports that the government has collected records on millions of Americans' phone calls. He later suggested he was speaking broadly of the administration's terror-related monitoring.

When asked if the judges somehow approved the operations, Hatch said, "That is not their position, but they were informed."

The surveillance court, whose 11 members are chosen by the chief justice of the United States, was set up after Congress rewrote key laws in 1978 that govern intelligence collection inside the U.S.

President Bush insisted Tuesday that the United States does not listen in on domestic telephone conversations among ordinary Americans. But he declined to specifically discuss the government's alleged compiling of phone records, or whether it would amount to an invasion of privacy.

"We do not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval," Bush said in a White House news conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

 

[jillian]

By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060516/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_phone_records_1

All well and good, but Orin Hatch saying that "there were no objections" isn't what's required of the FISA law.

Seriously, FISA isn't that difficult to comply with. They can start the surveillance and then within the next few days ask for the warrant. There's no excuse for not doing it really. If the admin felt the law was onerous, all they had to do was ask Congress to change it since the perameters had been worked out with Bush I. So, if circumstances actually required a modification, he would have found a sympathetic audience, IMO.

 

[dilloduck]

All well and good, but Orin Hatch saying that "there were no objections" isn't what's required of the FISA law.

Seriously, FISA isn't that difficult to comply with. They can start the surveillance and then within the next few days ask for the warrant. There's no excuse for not doing it really. If the admin felt the law was onerous, all they had to do was ask Congress to change it since the perameters had been worked out with Bush I. So, if circumstances actually required a modification, he would have found a sympathetic audience, IMO.

Fact is they didn't. We can only guess at why. It is not necessarily correct to assume the secrecy was due to criminal intent. The judicial committee is going to get a full briefing from the White House so if they bother to show up they can decide for themselves.

 

[jillian]

Fact is they didn't. We can only guess at why. It is not necessarily correct to assume the secrecy was due to criminal intent. The judicial committee is going to get a full briefing from the White House so if they bother to show up they can decide for themselves.

I don't presume criminal intent. I do think the questions need to be asked, though. Doesn't pass the smell test, ya know?

 

[Annie]

I don't presume criminal intent. I do think the questions need to be asked, though. Doesn't pass the smell test, ya know?

It's the Joos behind it. Or the Blacks. Maybe the Mexicans? Perhaps the Vietnamese?