White House B.S. Talking Point...Denied
On FOX News today, a "legal expert" talked about how obtaining a FISA wiretap warrent would take "hours" but the "paperwork is complicated and could take much longer" hinting that obtaining a necessary wiretap by going through legal FISA means could jeapordize the nation.
He used the example that if we obtained the phone records of a terrorist in Afganistan, we would be held up in paperwork that would take a long time to get through before we could wiretap all of the people that terrrorist called in the US, thus leading to another attack.
Not true.
While it IS true the paperwork absolutely could take days to fill out, THIS IS AFTER THE FACT of the wiretapping.
The FISA statute stipulates that the government can wiretap first and apply for a warrant later, within 72 hours. So long as it can provide "probable cause," the court will approve.
That's right... the court can get a warrent AFTER tapping a phone.
In the light of the law and the court's record, the only reason to avoid it would be because the government felt the court that had acted almost as a rubber stamp would deny its requests.
Why would Bush think that the rollover FISA court (all members by the way were appointed by the late Reinquist) wouldn't approve of his wiretapping?
I have no problem with a "rollover FISA court" by the way. It may indeed be very beneficial to our security.
But with such a lax standard, why would Bush subvert it?
Well...
The FISA court would reject an application on two grounds.
First, that there was no probable cause. The court must adhere to the law and cannot authorize dragnets. But Attorney General Gonzales has declared that any spying is triggered by "reasonable basis" -- not probable cause. "Reasonable" means anything the government decides it is, lacking a scrap of potential evidence.
Second, the court would reject an application in which the evidence supporting "probable cause" had been produced by torture. But it is unlikely that the government would provide the court with details of the interrogation technique used. In any case, Bush apparently opted to launch trawling expeditions, lacking concrete evidence beyond lists of telephone numbers, and without the lawful imprimatur of the court.
So even given all of the improbabilities of NOT getting an after-the-fact OK, why did Bush not bother?
My guess: laziness. He has no time to abide by the laws that he's never in his privelidged life had to follow.
He used the example that if we obtained the phone records of a terrorist in Afganistan, we would be held up in paperwork that would take a long time to get through before we could wiretap all of the people that terrrorist called in the US, thus leading to another attack.
Not true.
While it IS true the paperwork absolutely could take days to fill out, THIS IS AFTER THE FACT of the wiretapping.
The FISA statute stipulates that the government can wiretap first and apply for a warrant later, within 72 hours. So long as it can provide "probable cause," the court will approve.
That's right... the court can get a warrent AFTER tapping a phone.
In the light of the law and the court's record, the only reason to avoid it would be because the government felt the court that had acted almost as a rubber stamp would deny its requests.
Why would Bush think that the rollover FISA court (all members by the way were appointed by the late Reinquist) wouldn't approve of his wiretapping?
I have no problem with a "rollover FISA court" by the way. It may indeed be very beneficial to our security.
But with such a lax standard, why would Bush subvert it?
Well...
The FISA court would reject an application on two grounds.
First, that there was no probable cause. The court must adhere to the law and cannot authorize dragnets. But Attorney General Gonzales has declared that any spying is triggered by "reasonable basis" -- not probable cause. "Reasonable" means anything the government decides it is, lacking a scrap of potential evidence.
Second, the court would reject an application in which the evidence supporting "probable cause" had been produced by torture. But it is unlikely that the government would provide the court with details of the interrogation technique used. In any case, Bush apparently opted to launch trawling expeditions, lacking concrete evidence beyond lists of telephone numbers, and without the lawful imprimatur of the court.
So even given all of the improbabilities of NOT getting an after-the-fact OK, why did Bush not bother?
My guess: laziness. He has no time to abide by the laws that he's never in his privelidged life had to follow.
posted by Geoff at 1:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home