FISA judges....the following reads a bit different than your version.....
iht.com
Here's the first page......
Formal court role urged in overseeing wiretaps
By Eric Lichtblau The New York Times
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006
WASHINGTON Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President George W. Bush's domestic eavesdropping, have urged Congress to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.
In a rare glimpse Tuesday into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. And they suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.
Harold Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said that the president is bound by the law "like everyone else."
If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, he said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril."
Baker and three other judges who also served on the intelligence court testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in support of a proposal by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, to give the court formal oversight of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program.
Committee members also heard portions of a letter in support of the proposal from a fifth judge, James Robertson, who left the court last December days after the eavesdropping program was disclosed.
Bush's decision to effectively bypass the court in permitting eavesdropping without warrants has raised the court's profile. That was underscored by the appearance on Tuesday of the four former judges on the court - Baker; Stanley Brotman, who left the panel in 2004; John Keenan, who left in 2001, and William Stafford Jr., who left in 2003. All four still sit on the federal judiciary.
The former judges discussed in detail their views on the standards of proof required by the court, its relations with the Justice Department, and the constitutional, balance-of-power issues at the heart of the debate over the National Security Agency program.
The most pointed testimony may have come from a man who was not at the hearing - Robertson.
A sitting judge in federal court in Washington, Robertson resigned from the intelligence court in December, just days after the National Security Agency program was disclosed.
Colleagues say he resigned in frustration over the fact that none of the court's 11 judges, except for the presiding judge, were briefed on the program or knew of its existence.
Robertson's comments represented his first public remarks on the issue.
In a March 23 letter in response to a query from Specter, the judge said that he supported Specter's proposal "to give approval authority over the administration's electronic surveillance program" to the court.
The Bush administration, in its continued defense of the program, maintains that no change in the law is needed because the president has the inherent constitutional authority to order wiretaps without warrants in defense of the country.
Specter's proposal seeks to give the intelligence court a role in ruling on the legitimacy of the program. A competing proposal by Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, would allow the president to authorize wiretaps for 45 days without congressional oversight or judicial approval.
Robertson made clear that he believed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court should review the surveillance program. "Seeking judicial approval for government activities that implicate constitutional protections is, of course, the American way," he wrote.
But Robertson argued that the court should not conduct a "general review" of the surveillance operation, as Specter proposed. Instead, he said the court should rule on individual warrant applications for eavesdropping lasting 45 or 90 days.
WASHINGTON Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President George W. Bush's domestic eavesdropping, have urged Congress to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.
In a rare glimpse Tuesday into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. And they suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.
Harold Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said that the president is bound by the law "like everyone else."
If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, he said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril."
Baker and three other judges who also served on the intelligence court testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in support of a proposal by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, to give the court formal oversight of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program.
Committee members also heard portions of a letter in support of the proposal from a fifth judge, James Robertson, who left the court last December days after the eavesdropping program was disclosed.
Bush's decision to effectively bypass the court in permitting eavesdropping without warrants has raised the court's profile. That was underscored by the appearance on Tuesday of the four former judges on the court - Baker; Stanley Brotman, who left the panel in 2004; John Keenan, who left in 2001, and William Stafford Jr., who left in 2003. All four still sit on the federal judiciary.
The former judges discussed in detail their views on the standards of proof required by the court, its relations with the Justice Department, and the constitutional, balance-of-power issues at the heart of the debate over the National Security Agency program.
The most pointed testimony may have come from a man who was not at the hearing - Robertson.
A sitting judge in federal court in Washington, Robertson resigned from the intelligence court in December, just days after the National Security Agency program was disclosed.
Colleagues say he resigned in frustration over the fact that none of the court's 11 judges, except for the presiding judge, were briefed on the program or knew of its existence.
Robertson's comments represented his first public remarks on the issue.
In a March 23 letter in response to a query from Specter, the judge said that he supported Specter's proposal "to give approval authority over the administration's electronic surveillance program" to the court.
The Bush administration, in its continued defense of the program, maintains that no change in the law is needed because the president has the inherent constitutional authority to order wiretaps without warrants in defense of the country.
Specter's proposal seeks to give the intelligence court a role in ruling on the legitimacy of the program. A competing proposal by Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, would allow the president to authorize wiretaps for 45 days without congressional oversight or judicial approval.
Robertson made clear that he believed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court should review the surveillance program. "Seeking judicial approval for government activities that implicate constitutional protections is, of course, the American way," he wrote.
But Robertson argued that the court should not conduct a "general review" of the surveillance operation, as Specter proposed. Instead, he said the court should rule on individual warrant applications for eavesdropping lasting 45 or 90 days.
WASHINGTON Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President George W. Bush's domestic eavesdropping, have urged Congress to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.
In a rare glimpse Tuesday into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. And they suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.
Harold Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said that the president is bound by the law "like everyone else."
If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, he said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril."
Baker and three other judges who also served on the intelligence court testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in support of a proposal by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, to give the court formal oversight of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program.
Committee members also heard portions of a letter in support of the proposal from a fifth judge, James Robertson, who left the court last December days after the eavesdropping program was disclosed.
Bush's decision to effectively bypass the court in permitting eavesdropping without warrants has raised the court's profile. That was underscored by the appearance on Tuesday of the four former judges on the court - Baker; Stanley Brotman, who left the panel in 2004; John Keenan, who left in 2001, and William Stafford Jr., who left in 2003. All four still sit on the federal judiciary.
The former judges discussed in detail their views on the standards of proof required by the court, its relations with the Justice Department, and the constitutional, balance-of-power issues at the heart of the debate over the National Security Agency program.
The most pointed testimony may have come from a man who was not at the hearing - Robertson.
A sitting judge in federal court in Washington, Robertson resigned from the intelligence court in December, just days after the National Security Agency program was disclosed.
Colleagues say he resigned in frustration over the fact that none of the court's 11 judges, except for the presiding judge, were briefed on the program or knew of its existence.
Robertson's comments represented his first public remarks on the issue.
In a March 23 letter in response to a query from Specter, the judge said that he supported Specter's proposal "to give approval authority over the administration's electronic surveillance program" to the court.
The Bush administration, in its continued defense of the program, maintains that no change in the law is needed because the president has the inherent constitutional authority to order wiretaps without warrants in defense of the country.
Specter's proposal seeks to give the intelligence court a role in ruling on the legitimacy of the program. A competing proposal by Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, would allow the president to authorize wiretaps for 45 days without congressional oversight or judicial approval.
Robertson made clear that he believed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court should review the surveillance program. "Seeking judicial approval for government activities that implicate constitutional protections is, of course, the American way," he wrote.
But Robertson argued that the court should not conduct a "general review" of the surveillance operation, as Specter proposed. Instead, he said the court should rule on individual warrant applications for eavesdropping lasting 45 or 90 days.
WASHINGTON Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President George W. Bush's domestic eavesdropping, have urged Congress to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.
In a rare glimpse Tuesday into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. And they suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.
Harold Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said that the president is bound by the law "like everyone else."
If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, he said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril."
Baker and three other judges who also served on the intelligence court testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in support of a proposal by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, to give the court formal oversight of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program.
Committee members also heard portions of a letter in support of the proposal from a fifth judge, James Robertson, who left the court last December days after the eavesdropping program was disclosed.
Bush's decision to effectively bypass the court in permitting eavesdropping without warrants has raised the court's profile. That was underscored by the appearance on Tuesday of the four former judges on the court - Baker; Stanley Brotman, who left the panel in 2004; John Keenan, who le |
