Bush Changes Warrantless Surveillance Policy
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Law, The War On TerrorismThe Bush administration, backing off a disputed policy for fighting the war on terrorism, agreed to let a secret court supervise an eavesdropping program that targets suspected al Qaeda members in the U.S.Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced the change in the program, until now conducted without court warrants, in a letter today to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which already handles secret wiretapping cases involving foreign agents, will now approve “any electronic surveillance” that was occurring under the domestic program, Gonzales said.
Gonzales said the Justice Department had been “exploring options” for seeking judicial approval for the program since early 2005. A number of lawmakers had protested the domestic eavesdropping without court warrants. The announcement came the day before Gonzales was to be questioned about the surveillance by the Democratic-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee.
Not much to say about this except it’s good to see that we’re doing things the right way instead of the most convenient. Kudos to Bush and his team for finally realizing this.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 17th, 2007 and is filed under Law, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 17th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
One little hitch. The original law applied to foreign nationals. Bush has been wiretapping US Citizens, & has strongarmed the web companies into passing along info about users w/o warrants. So, while a step in the right direction, we have still lost ground as far as Citizen’s rights are concerned. Besides, just because he says so, does not mean Mr. Bush will not keep doing the same thing. He has spoken with a forked tongue many times in the past.
January 18th, 2007 at 12:04 am
The open question is whether Bush submitted to the FISA court, or the FISA court submitted to Bush. Which is why Congress is demanding details.
Several bloggers, including conservative ones, have also noted that the administration insisted for five years that compromise with the FISA court was impossible and would hamstring security, and anyway the warrantless program was perfectly legal. And then, in 10 weeks after the Dem victory, they apparently solved all those problems and agreed that oversight was required.
Such credibility this administration has. I’m hopeful that this is a true concession; I’m worried that it’s not.
January 18th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
I would be worried at the thought of “secret court”…
But then I guess that NZ has had Court hearings where everything (who, and why) was suppressed – not for publication or release. Not all that much different.
January 23rd, 2007 at 7:36 pm
One’s mouth is truly agape in incredulity while reading such naiive and astonishing “positive” comments regarding Bush’s submission to court supervision of his “spy” program. I actually had to read twice the comment:
“Kudos to Bush and his team for finally realizing this”. ( the error of their illegal ways, in other words.) Can anyone really believe that this devious president would actually do anything “above board”, without having a “method to his madness”? Can anyone actually know the situation here and not question his self serving, nefarious motives? He has only “relented” to the LAW for one of three reasons: First: He is being questioned by the judiciary committee, and his back is against the wall. (If this doesn’t play into the equation for his UNLIKELY and SUDDEN actions, then WHY WAS IT SO NECESSARY TO BREAK THE LAW FOR THE LAST FIVE OR SIX YEARS ?) Second: His secret spying has somehow turned the tables on him. For example: Perhaps people are learning about the REAL TRUTH of 9-11 from the websites on which he has spied; and now he doesn’t want anyone to read such electronic mail. Third:The spying will now be overseen by a secret court to approve warrants. The operative word here is “secret” (EVERYTHING IS WITH THEM.) We have every reason to believe that this “secret court” has as its members: Bush, Cheney,Gonzales, and Rove. Afterall, during that sham 9-11 “Omission Commission”,the White House was invesigating THE WHITE HOUSE!!! In fact, the bottom line on all of this really is the following: Why should Bush be talking about spying at all, when he should not even be holding the most esteemed office of President of the United States? There is absolutely irrefutable, undeniable and conclusive evidence that his administration engineered the horrors of 9-11-01 as a false flag operation by which all the other atrocities have been “justified”. Even for those who cannot seem to grasp this , they should at least acknowledge that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the nightmarish events of that day to have occurred as in the LIE we were sold. The TRUTH of 9-11 is the biggest issue facing our nation. This latest maneuver by Bush about the warranless surveillence is just a ploy to take people’s minds off the issue of : “How did 9-11 REALLY happen??? “.
Furthermore, after 5 years of the impeachable crime of illegal, warrantless wiretapping, why should these people get compliments instead of convictions? This same surreal attitude was in evidence on the evening when Bush announced his escalation of the Iraq War. Evidently, this man became (in the words of the media) “contrite” in his admission that he made a mistake in initially sending too few troops. These journalists were complimenting him for this “admission”. Instead of the “kudos”, these news writers should have been demanding his impeachment for the LIES and DECEIT which got us into this mess in the first place. (see “After Downing Street Memo”.) This,of course, brings us back to that all important, unresolved issue of 9-11-01. ( Check out the Northwoods Operation on your computer.)
January 30th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
I was put in jail for 5 months by the federal government without a warrant, without conformance with the rules for special proceedings, without an evidentiary hearing, without a charge that I broke a law, without a government prosecutor, without an independent prosecutor, without pleading guilty, without being convicted all for doing something legal–petitioning the courts in a non fraudulent manner. Kay Sieverding
see http://www.rightscase.com