| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Membership |
| 2005-12-27 |
| 8 of the 11 Members of the court were appointed to it by Bush, so he ought to have a court that sees things his way. But if one looks at those 8, 4 were appointed to their district court seats by Carter or Clinton giving the Carter/Clinton nominees a 6-5 advantage on the FISC. Someone in the WH really screwed up on nominating so many Clinton/Cater stooges to this court. |
| Posted by:Unoluper Thomomp4576 |
| #6 GT - teh majority of judge decisions which I disagree with and which seem conjured out of thin air seem to come from Carter and Clinton appointees. Coincidence? About as coincidential as your using an anonymous nym to refute it. ( see: Liars and propagandists in the dictionary) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-12-27 23:30 |
| #5 FISA was established post-Watergate to provide an expedited way to allow the Executive to move quickly in Security/Intelligence matters without completely abandoning the principle of judicial review. It's track record was hardly that of a "deliberative" body and by definition it had nothing to do with criminal matters - they stayed in the regular courts. And the idea that any judge appointed by Carter or Clinton is ipso facto an unworthy "stooge" is as idiotic as the idea that the Nixon appointees who voted against him in the key Watergate case in '74 were "Nixon stooges." With a few exceptions (like Harriet Miers) this WH has done a pretty good job of vetting appointees and getting what they wanted. This program sounds like a reasonable emergency action post 9/11. To still be operating it on an emergency basis 4+ years later is not as wise. This administration got just about everything they wanted in the National Security area until the Patriot Act vote the other week. That they didn't think this would fly in that environment, or that they didn't want to bother, should raise the eyebrows of anyone who believes in limited government. should raise the eyebrows of anyone who believes in limited government. |
| Posted by: Glaviting Thineth6488 2005-12-27 23:06 |
| #4 UT, last I checked Watergate was (is) a hotel/business complex and it was frequented by some group called the plumbers-- a two-bit cadre of criminals. Now, there are often two or more tracks to everything done in DC. Sure the interest was in restricting the executive branch. The ebb and flow in the power of the executive branch rests with the presidents leverage. Bush has been riding high post 9/11 which is acceptable to most Repubs (sans Specter, McCain, etc.), but entirely unacceptable to donks seeking to score wins in '06 and '08. Donks are picking the wrong scab on the FISA issue, particularly if there is another terrorist attack in '06 through '08. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-12-27 22:42 |
| #3 IMO Dubya's main prob is that the technology available is so superior/capable that it makes concepts or questions of "source", "purpose/ intent", andor "citizenship", etc. per se irrelevant. Dubya's second prob is that many Lefties quietly seek to PC extend US Constitutional and Federal limits and protections over non-American territories or world states, for the sake of Global Socialism and OWG. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-12-27 22:17 |
| #2 This court was created post-Watergate to hobble the executive's ability to use intelligence assets. The reason for this was that the executive had misused them for domestic political purposes. You don't really think anyone cared about crime or criminals, aside from those elected to Congress, when they set this up, do you? |
| Posted by: Unoluper Thomomp4576 2005-12-27 19:00 |
| #1 The composition of this court is one thing. The other, perhaps more important factor, is the mission of this court. It's mission was established in a pre-terrorism era intended more for fighting domestic crime. Courts and Congress are deliberative bodies that are inappropriate for homeland security. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-12-27 15:41 |