Bush Haters and FISA

"The judges, who are assigned to the court by the chief justice of the United States, concluded that the government's protections and restrictions included in the 2007 procedures were appropriate. "Our decision recognizes that where the government has instituted several layers of serviceable safeguards to protect individuals against unwarranted harms and to minimize incidental intrusions, its efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts," Selya wrote in the 29-page opinion.

He added that requiring a warrant in such cases would probably "hinder the government's ability to collect time-sensitive information and, thus, would impede the vital national security interests that are at stake."

A Justice Department statement about the ruling called it "important" because it upheld the legality of Bush administration surveillance directives in 2007.

But independent experts said it is unclear whether the ruling would have a broader effect. The case involved the Protect America Act, a surveillance law that Congress has since altered. The court also declared that its review addressed only how the law was applied in 2007, not its underlying constitutionality.

Since then, Congress has approved new foreign intelligence surveillance legislation. It does not require, for example, that agencies have "probable cause" to believe that the person being targeted is a foreign agent, but instead allows more wide-ranging surveillance. It also does not limit the intelligence-gathering to a 90-day period, as previously required."

- rest at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011502311.html?hpid=topnews

 

You all happy that this list and all your email is vetted by the NSA?

You all happy that evidence obtained in illegal arrests is admissible in court? Want me to explain how that works?

 

not really.

I would like you to.

 

Say some snitch tells local police officer that you are growing pot in your living room. he can't get a warrant, so he goes to a phone booth and calls 911, saying that it sounds like a woman is getting raped in your house. The officer gets the call and kicks in your front door to save the woman.
He sees the plant and seizes your house which is auctioned off and the city keeps the money.

Say The officer has a good warrant for your neighbor's house and kicks in your door. You think it is a home invasion robbery and take a shot at the robber. Who goes to jail?

Say you are stopped for being black in Bill Gates' neighborhood and you have several cases of untaxed booze (purchased out of state) in the trunk of your car. You go to jail for bootlegging.

Most illegal searches are made because the officer is to lazy to do it the right way.

 

My concern is that surveillance and searchs may be done for reasons of creed or politics, if government and LEO is given unbridled power.

..... and connected to billwald's post, the courts recently passed on a case that concerned criminal evidence gathered 'in good faith' searchs such as mistaken or transposing address in a warrant.... that it (evidence) could be allowed to prosecute a party though wrongfully searched.

And, under the 'patriot act' suspected 'terrorist' may be incarcerated and held for trial without knowing the extent of charges, or facing their accusers ('classified' or undercover), and evidence which may be accepted by the court as classified kept from the eyes or discovery of evidence and statements normally allowed the defense to defend the accused. What a potential mess this makes of our rights for the sake of security...... which has the potential for abuse.

My question is: By what authority of law or in the constitution is the 'federal intelligence court' established? What are the provisions for appeal? Under whoes jurisdiction does it serve?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=2