Bush's Secret 'Kangaroo' Court

 Translate this Page!

BCST 8/27/06
9/11 ACCOUNTABILTY Vs. "The Case For Impeachment"


Impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for violating the Constitution of the United States

Treason Under the Constitution

........Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants -- to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."........http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000685.html

"kangaroo court" or "kangaroo courts" or "potemkin court" or "potemkin. courts"
or "denied due process" or "mob rule" or "mob justice" or "denial of ...

Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest

US District Judge James Robertson [official profile], one of 11 members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) [constituitive statute], has resigned in protest over the National Security Agency's secret domestic surveillance program.
Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; Page A01

A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

James Robertson sent his resignation to the chief justice.

U.S. Congress

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Robertson, who was appointed to the federal bench in Washington by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday.

Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.

Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.

Hagel and Snowe joined Democrats Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate judiciary and intelligence panels into the classified program.

The hearings would occur at the start of a midterm election year during which the prosecution of the Iraq war could figure prominently in House and Senate races.

Not all Republicans agreed with the need for hearings and backed White House assertions that the program is a vital tool in the war against al Qaeda.

"I am personally comfortable with everything I know about it," Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a phone interview.

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act.

Revelation of the program last week by the New York Times also spurred considerable debate among federal judges, including some who serve on the secret FISA court. For more than a quarter-century, that court had been seen as the only body that could legally authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects, and only when the Justice Department could show probable cause that its targets were foreign governments or their agents.

Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants -- to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."

Robertson is considered a liberal judge who has often ruled against the Bush administration's assertions of broad powers in the terrorism fight, most notably in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld . Robertson held in that case that the Pentagon's military commissions for prosecuting terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were illegal and stacked against the detainees.

Some FISA judges said they were saddened by the news of Robertson's resignation and want to hear more about the president's program.

"I guess that's a decision he's made and I respect him," said Judge George P. Kazen, another FISA judge. "But it's just too quick for me to say I've got it all figured out."

Bush said Monday that the White House briefed Congress more than a dozen times. But those briefings were conducted with only a handful of lawmakers who were sworn to secrecy and prevented from discussing the matter with anyone or from seeking outside legal opinions.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) revealed Monday that he had written to Vice President Cheney the day he was first briefed on the program in July 2003, raising serious concerns about the surveillance effort. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she also expressed concerns in a letter to Cheney, which she did not make public.

The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), issued a public rebuke of Rockefeller for making his letter public.

In response to a question about the letter, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested that Rockefeller should have done more if he was seriously concerned. "If I thought someone was breaking the law, I don't care if it was classified or unclassified, I would stand up and say 'the law's being broken here.' "

But Rockefeller said the secrecy surrounding the briefings left him with no other choice. "I made my concerns known to the vice president and to others who were briefed," Rockefeller said. "The White House never addressed my concerns."

Staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Charles Babington and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.


Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 22, 2005

The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources.

Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court.

U.S. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, expects officials from NSA and the Justice Department to explain the warrantless spying. (AP)

"The questions are obvious," said U.S. District Judge Dee Benson of Utah. "What have you been doing, and how might it affect the reliability and credibility of the information we're getting in our court?"

Such comments underscored the continuing questions among judges about the program, which most of them learned about when it was disclosed last week by the New York Times. On Monday, one of 10 FISA judges, federal Judge James Robertson, submitted his resignation -- in protest of the president's action, according to two sources familiar with his decision. He will maintain his position on the U.S. District Court here.

Other judges contacted yesterday said they do not plan to resign but are seeking more information about the president's initiative. Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who also sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, told fellow FISA court members by e-mail Monday that she is arranging for them to convene in Washington, preferably early next month, for a secret briefing on the program, several judges confirmed yesterday.

Two intelligence sources familiar with the plan said Kollar-Kotelly expects top-ranking officials from the National Security Agency and the Justice Department to outline the classified program to the members.

The judges could, depending on their level of satisfaction with the answers, demand that the Justice Department produce proof that previous wiretaps were not tainted, according to government officials knowledgeable about the FISA court. Warrants obtained through secret surveillance could be thrown into question. One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity, also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of the president's suggestion that he has the power to bypass the court.

The highly classified FISA court was set up in the 1970s to authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects within the United States. Under the law setting up the court, the Justice Department must show probable cause that its targets are foreign governments or their agents. The FISA law does include emergency provisions that allow warrantless eavesdropping for up to 72 hours if the attorney general certifies there is no other way to get the information.

Still, Bush and his advisers have said they need to operate outside the FISA system in order to move quickly against suspected terrorists. In explaining the program, Bush has made the distinction between detecting threats and plots and monitoring likely, known targets, as FISA would allow.

Bush administration officials believe it is not possible, in a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to provide the kind of evidence the court requires to approve a warrant. Sources knowledgeable about the program said there is no way to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in on a vast array of communications in the hopes of finding something that sounds suspicious. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the White House had tried but failed to find a way.

One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.

"For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the wiretap," said the official. "They couldn't dream one up."

The NSA program, and the technology on which it is based, makes it impossible to meet that criterion because the program is designed to intercept selected conversations in real time from among an enormous number relayed at any moment through satellites.

"There is a difference between detecting, so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it's important to note the distinction between the two," Bush said Monday. But he added: "If there is a need based upon evidence, we will take that evidence to a court in order to be able to monitor calls within the United States."

The American Civil Liberties Union formally requested yesterday that Gonzales appoint an outside special counsel to investigate and prosecute any criminal acts and violations of laws as a result of the spying effort.

Also yesterday, John D. Negroponte, Bush's director of national intelligence, sent an e-mail to the entire intelligence community defending the program. The politically tinged memo referred to the disclosure as "egregious" and called the program a vital, constitutionally valid tool in the war against al Qaeda.

Benson said it is too soon for him to judge whether the surveillance program was legal until he hears directly from the government.

"I need to know more about it to decide whether it was so distasteful," Benson said. "But I wonder: If you've got us here, why didn't you go through us? They've said it's faster [to bypass FISA], but they have emergency authority under FISA, so I don't know."

As it launched the dramatic change in domestic surveillance policy, the administration chose to secretly brief only the presiding FISA court judges about it. Officials first advised U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, the head of FISA in the fall of 2001, and then Kollar-Kotelly, who replaced him in that position in May 2002. U.S. District Judge George Kazen of the Southern District of Texas said in an interview yesterday that his information about the program has been largely limited to press accounts over the past several days.

"Why didn't it go through FISA," Kazen asked. "I think those are valid questions. The president at first said he didn't want to talk about it. Now he says, 'You're darn right I did it, and it's completely legal.' I gather he's got lawyers telling him this is legal. I want to hear those arguments." Judge Michael J. Davis of Minnesota said he, too, wants to be sure the secret program did not produce unreliable or legally suspect information that was then used to obtain FISA warrants.

"I share the other judges' concerns," he said.

But Judge Malcolm Howard of eastern North Carolina said he tends to think the terrorist threat to the United States is so grave that the president should use every tool available and every ounce of executive power to combat it.

"I am not overly concerned" about the surveillance program, he said, but "I would welcome hearing more specifics."

Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.


Experts warn disputed wiretaps could taint terror court cases
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press writer

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration's decision to sometimes bypass the secretive U.S. court that governs terrorism wiretaps could threaten cases against terror suspects that rely on evidence uncovered during the disputed eavesdropping, some legal experts cautioned.
These experts pointed to this week's unprecedented resignation from the government's spy court by U.S. District Judge James Robertson as an indicator of the judiciary's unease over domestic wiretaps ordered without warrants under a highly classified domestic spying program authorized by President Bush.
Neither Robertson nor the White House would comment yesterday on his abrupt resignation from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the little-known panel of 11 U.S. judges that secretively approves wiretaps and searches in the most sensitive terrorism and espionage cases. But legal experts were astonished.
"This is a very big deal. Judges get upset with government lawyers all the time, but they don't resign in protest unless they're really offended to the point of saying they're being misused," said Kenneth C. Bass, a former senior Justice Department lawyer who oversaw such wiretap requests during the Carter administration.
"This was definitely a statement of protest," agreed Scott Silliman, a former Air Force attorney and Duke University law professor. "It is unusual because it signifies that at least one member of the court believes that the president has exceeded his legal authority."
Robertson's surprise resignation added to a chorus of pointed questions in Washington over the propriety of the surveillance, which the White House said had successfully detected and prevented attacks inside the United States.
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he intends to begin oversight hearings in January to assess the stated justifications for the spying.
"When the attorney general says the force resolution gives the president the power to conduct these surveillances, I have grave doubts about that," Specter said.
Separately, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman of California, said she was informed about the program in 2003 and believes it is "essential to U.S. national security." But Harman also complained it was inappropriate for the White House to discuss the secret program only with leaders of the intelligence committees.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., the committee chairman, said he participated in at least six briefings on the spying program since August 2004. He said he is comfortable the surveillance was aimed at al-Qaida terrorists and people associated with al-Qaida inside the United States. Hoekstra also said lawmakers who were notified about the surveillance won't resign like Robertson.
"We all decided that we are going to stay, and we are going to keep our jobs," he said.
Under the spying program, secretly authorized by President Bush in October 2001, the National Security Agency was permitted to eavesdrop without a judge's approval on communications between suspected terrorists overseas and people inside the United States.
Officials have said they only performed such wiretaps when there was a reasonable basis to conclude that the conversation included a suspected terrorist and one party was overseas. Citing national security, officials have declined to say how many times they have done so.
A court-approved wiretap under traditional surveillance law requires a higher legal standard, demonstrating probable cause to the spy court that the target is an agent of a foreign power, such as a terrorist group. That law also says no such wiretaps can be performed except under its provisions.
Since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, the government has focused on preventing and disrupting attacks rather than building court cases against suspected terrorists. But experts cautioned that future legal prosecutions could be tainted if evidence was uncovered about a terror plot using a wiretap determined to be improper.
"Imagine if there is evidence critical to a criminal prosecution and the defendant challenges the evidence because it is constitutionally suspect," said Beryl Howell, former general counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It could jeopardize any criminal case."  http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-22-05/a09wn237.htm


Did George Bush Break the Law?

Posted by Tim Tagaris on December 20, 2005 at 12:17 PM
(Moments ago, Governor Dean sent out this letter to supporters across the country. Please take a moment to add your name to his on the Freedom of Information Act request -- Tim)


This is not an easy letter to write, and I'm afraid it may be a hard one to believe.

By now you have probably heard the news that George Bush is using the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance on American citizens without the consent of any court. After initially refusing to confirm the story, the President has admitted to personally overseeing this domestic spying program for years and he says he intends to continue the program.

These actions explicitly violate a law designed to protect US citizens. But the administration says that other laws somehow allow for this unprecedented use of a foreign intelligence agency to spy on Americans right here in the United States. According to reports, political appointees in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote still-classified legal opinions laying out the supposed justification for this program.

I have asked our General Counsel to draft a Freedom of Information Act request for the relevant legal opinions and memos written by that office. Since the program's existence is no longer a secret, these memos should be released -- Americans deserve to know exactly what authority this administration believes it has.

You can help pressure the administration to release these documents by signing on to our Freedom of Information Act request in the next 48 hours:


This extra-legal activity is even more disturbing because it is unnecessary -- the administration already has access to a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That court was created precisely to provide speedy, secure judicial review to the actions of our intelligence agencies.

To allow authorities act as quickly as possible, officials can even apply for a retroactive warrant days after the surveillance has already begun. Secret warrants have been approved over 19,000 times -- only five applications were rejected in nearly thirty years. The court, which regularly acts within hours, is hardly a roadblock, but it prevents abuse by providing the oversight required by our system of checks and balances.

This administration must demonstrate clearly what legal authority allows it to disregard criminal prohibitions on unilateral domestic spying. Sign on to the request now -- it will be delivered on Thursday:


In an interview on Monday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez admitted that the administration asked certain Members of Congress about getting a new law to allow spying on Americans without a warrant. Realizing that even a Republican-controlled Congress wouldn't authorize such a measure, they decided to manipulate current law and proceed with the program anyway.

Manipulation of a law like this is dangerous. The same Office of Legal Counsel used vague assertions of sweeping authority in the infamous torture memos. The victim of this reasoning is the rule of law itself -- when this administration asserts sweeping authority to step over any line of legality, it asserts that there are no lines at all.

Does this administration believe there are any lines it can't cross? Americans deserve to know. Join our Freedom of Information Act request now:


Some Republicans will try to pretend that this is just another political fight. But Americans of every political viewpoint are rightfully disturbed by this extra-legal activity. The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, shocked by the report of this activity, promised to convene hearings in January.

Even Bob Barr, who was one of the most conservative members of Congress and the first member to file articles of impeachment against President Clinton, said:

"What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, it's bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order."

We need to know whether George Bush went beyond the limits of the law -- and whether he and his administration believe that there are any limits at all. Please join this important request:


Even after the press found out about these actions, the administration tried to cover up its existence. According to Newsweek, George Bush summoned the publisher and executive editor of the New York Times to the Oval Office to try to stop them from running the story of these illegal activities.

We have seen this kind of arrogance of power before.

Richard Nixon once said in an interview that, "if the president does it, it can't be illegal."

He found out that wasn't true. This administration may need a reminder.

Thank you.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.



Judge who resigned from spy court critical of detainees' treatment
Thu Dec 22, 2005 02:27


Judge who resigned from spy court critical of detainees' treatment

BY CAROL ROSENBERG, http://www.ledgerenquirer.com, 12/21/05
Knight Ridder Newspapers

The federal judge who quit the nation's secret spy court in protest over the Bush administration's covert domestic wiretaps has been one of the judiciary's most active and feisty critics of the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, where hundreds of foreigners have been held for years without charge.

Despite his resignation from the spy court, U.S. District Judge James Robertson, 67, remains on the federal bench and is expected to issue another ruling in a Guantanamo case later this week.

The 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is perhaps the most secretive in America, created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It reviews U.S. government requests for surreptitious eavesdropping to gather intelligence on suspected U.S. enemies. Last year, according to a report to Congress, it received 1,758 warrant requests - and approved all but four.

President Bush set off a political and civil libertarian firestorm on Saturday by confirming a New York Times story that he'd secretly authorized the eavesdropping of U.S-foreign calls, as well as some e-mail, without seeking warrants, as part of a National Security Agency program to gather intelligence on al-Qaida.

Bush administration officials cited the need for "agility" in bypassing the FISA court - despite its ability to obtain warrants after the fact. Now the Senate Judiciary Committee is calling hearings to examine Bush's assertion that his war powers permitted him to authorize the eavesdropping program, which he did more than 30 times.

"Apparently Judge Robertson did not want to aid and abet criminal NSA electronic surveillance," the New York Center for Constitutional Rights said in a statement. The center has alleged for four years that Bush has been overstepping his war powers in his Guantanamo and enemy combatant practices.

Robertson was unrelenting in his criticism of the Bush administration when he shut down the Pentagon-created Guantanamo war-crimes court a year ago in a 45-page opinion that accused the White House of using a pick-and-choose approach on prisoner of war policies.

"The government has asserted a position starkly different from the positions and behavior of the United States in previous conflicts," he wrote, "one that can only weaken the United States' own ability to demand application of the Geneva Conventions to Americans captured during armed conflicts abroad."

On Nov. 8, 2004, Robertson issued a restraining order against the Pentagon's military commission accusing Salim Hamdan of Yemen of war crimes or serving as Osama bin Laden's driver. That same day, 1,300 miles away, a Marine delivered the ruling to an Army colonel at Guantanamo, bringing the president's war-crimes court to a halt.

Robertson, who was appointed to the bench by President Clinton in 1994 and to the FISA court by Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist in 2002, has repeatedly bristled at the government's exercise of war powers since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Duke University law professor Scott Silliman cast Robertson as one of the judiciary's leading critics of the president's war powers; his Hamdan ruling declared the president's commissions both unconstitutional and in defiance of the Geneva Conventions.

"He feels strongly that the rule of law must pertain to some of these cases," said Silliman, who doesn't know the judge but has read his rulings. "He is aware of the fact that until a court rules on what rights these detainees at Guantanamo Bay have, they are in legal limbo."

A federal appeals court overruled Robertson on the war-crimes commission, setting the stage for a Supreme Court showdown. Oral arguments are in March. In the meantime, Silliman said, it appears that Robertson is concerned that the Bush administration's use of warrant-less wiretaps may have contaminated some FISA certifications.

By resigning, "Robertson is adding his voice to Congress and saying there needs to be some focus put on these claims of presidential authority," said Silliman, a retired Air Force judge advocate and head of Duke's Center on Law Ethics and National Security.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended the NSA surveillance program Wednesday.

"I'm not going to speculate why a judge would step down from the FISA court," he said. "We believe the president has both the statutory authority and constitutional authority to engage in the intelligence during a time of war with our enemy."

[JR: By resigning, Robertson may be adding his voice to Congress and saying there needs to be some focus put on these claims of presidential authority ... however without him, FISA will not have him as a Rule of Law balance on the panel. His replacement may be from Dubya's camp and not challenge his unconstitutional policies.]

Bush's Secret 'Kangaroo' Court
........Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants -- to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."...

“Secret law is an abomination,” wrote Professor Kenneth Davis in Administrative Law Treatise 137 in 1970. This quote has been cited in numerous federal cases involving freedom of information act (F.O.I.A.) requests. Two of the cases, Cox v. United States Department of Justice, 576 F.2d 1302, 1309 (8th Cir. 1978) and Stokes v. Brennan, 476 F.2d 699, 701-02 (5th Cir. 1973) are just two examples where the courts argued that secret law is wrong and government agencies, which the Courts are, are to make their documents available for public inspection. It is crucial to public confidence in the courts that judges be seen as enforcing the law and obeying it themselves. U.S. v. Muniz, 49 F.3d 36, 43 (1st Cir. 1995).

Sounds good so far.
FULL REPORT:>> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretcourts.htm

Spy court judges to meet with Bush
Published December 22, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Judges on a court overseeing U.S. government intelligence matters set a meeting with Bush administration officials on spying on people in the United States.
Last week The New York Times reported the National Security Agency, acting on orders from President George Bush, was monitoring telephone calls and e-mail communication in the United States. Bush has said the program is constitutional since one end of the watched conversation was in a foreign country.
But judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, led by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, say they plan to ask Justice Department and National Security Agency personnel about the legality of the program, The Washington Post reported Thursday. The newspaper said Kollar-Kotelly sent e-mail to her FISA court colleagues about a meeting, probably next month in Washington, about the program.
The Post earlier reported one of the 10 FISA judges had resigned because of the NSA program.
Some legislators have asked why the administration didn't use the FISA court for the NSA program, since it was set up in the 1970s to deal with intelligence questions and issue warrants -- sometimes after the fact -- for some surveillance.


George Orwell's 1984


Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

Secret Court - Secret Laws

Police searches & Seizures

Documents Show FBI Web Surveillance

Get That Gold Fringe Off My Flag

The Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

Citizen's Rule Book 44 pages
Download here: http://www.apfn.org/pdf/citizen.pdf


"Radar flashlight" lets cops spot people through walls



Just click "search" for more information on Bush's Court:

Web www.apfn.org

Click here to subscribe to the APFN RSS feed.

Subscribe to the APFN.org RSS feed

You can subscribe to this RSS feed in a number of ways, including the following:

  • Drag the orange RSS button into your News Reader
  • Drag the URL of the RSS feed into your News Reader
  • Cut and paste the URL of the RSS feed into your News Reader
One-click subscriptions
If you use one of the following web-based News Readers, click on the appropriate button to subscribe to the RSS feed.

my yahoo


 **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.

American Patriot Friends Network

"....a network of net workers...."

APFN Contents Page

APFN Home Page

E-Mail: apfn@apfn.org


Hit Counter