home

The FISC Decision On the Protect America Act

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:21:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

As discussed earlier, the FISC appellate court issued a decision today on the constitutionality of the Bush Administration's application of the Protect America Act. The panel was composed of Bruce Selya of the First Circuit, and Senior Judges Ralph Winter of the Second Circuit and Richard Arnold of the Eighth Circuit. The panel does not pass on any actions by the Bush Administration prior to the enactment of the PAA. To wit, the panel states that this is an "as applied" challenge to the Bush Administration's application of the PAA. More after I read the opinion.

Here is the least satisfying, persuasive and honest portion of the decision:

The petitioner suggests that by placing entirely in the discretion of the Executive Branch, without prior judicial involvement, the procedures cede to that Branch overly broad power that invites abuse. But this is little more than a lament about the risk that government officials will not operate in good faith. That sort of risk exists even when a warrant is required. . .

Indeed, why even have a separation of powers? Who needs a 4th Amendment for that matter. Sheesh. Other than that, the opinion is boilerplate.

The questions Eric Lichtblau believes are implicated, the Bush Administration's actions in violation of FISA from 2001 to 2007, are not even remotely discussed here.

A disappointing opinion intellectually, but nothing extraordinariiy bad.

Speaking for me only

< BART Cop Charged With Murder of Unarmed Oakland Man | USAirways Plane Lands In The Hudson River >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The FISC Decision On the Protect America Act | 16 comments (16 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Haha (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:23:32 PM EST
    Awesome typo in the last sentence.  Please don't correct it!

    You beat me! (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:24:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Boooooo (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:30:22 PM EST
    BTD is no fun.

    Parent
    Will you repeat it? (none / 0) (#5)
    by CST on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:36:25 PM EST
    I missed it :)

    Parent
    He said (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:37:07 PM EST
    "More after I dread the opinion."

    Parent
    Now it's just extraordinariiy, ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by cymro on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:01:59 PM EST
    ... but not so awesome.

    Parent
    The thing our Government (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by SOS on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:40:05 PM EST
    loves about stuff like PAA is that so much can be hidden under "National Security"-defense appropriations, Cabalist activities, frauds, and corruption schemes. That can all remain secret.
    yeah I know (none / 0) (#10)
    by SOS on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:55:46 PM EST
    that's a jolting thing to say but when your dealing with people at the highest levels who think they know it all and who cause more damage and suffering to humanity in the process of "trying" to making everything better then they do good for everyone you have to be Stoic.

    Parent
    Are stoicism and punctuation incompatible? (none / 0) (#14)
    by cymro on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:16:23 PM EST
    The process of adding punctuation can also reveal typing mistakes. There must be at least two such mistakes in your post, which obscure its intended meaning.

    Parent
    Protect America Act? (none / 0) (#4)
    by SOS on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:34:07 PM EST
    After this I suppose we should scrutinize Obama's nomination of Tom Vilsack . . a close Monsanto buddy and a strong supporter of NAIS, a Monsanto project to run the USDA.

    If you're really interested (none / 0) (#6)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:36:50 PM EST
    a good, detailed diary on Vilsack's confirmation hearing.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#9)
    by SOS on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:48:06 PM EST
    Looks like he's been "rubber stamped" and pushed ahead of the line for processing.

    :-)

    Parent

    Anyone here ever imagine (none / 0) (#11)
    by SOS on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:12:24 PM EST
    back during the 90's by 2009 we'd be facing  endless war, pollution in every form imaginable, hopeless debt and deficits, bombs, police states. . . .

    ??

    Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:37:48 PM EST
    June 1-4 in DC

    Deadline for proposals on presentations is Jan. 23

    Link

    Indeed, why bother (none / 0) (#15)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:20:09 PM EST
    But this is little more than a lament about the risk that government officials will not operate in good faith. That sort of risk exists even when a warrant is required. . .

    As BTD said "why even have a separation of powers?"

    For that matter why bother with a written constitution.

    Apparently this panel felt that since there is no absolute guarantee that government officials will not operate in good faith then why even bother to to make it difficult to act in bad faith.

    Personally I find it extraordinarily BAD.

    8 year of Cheney's "bad faith" (none / 0) (#16)
    by wurman on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:10:25 PM EST
    8 years of Bu$h xliii's "dumb faith."

    2 years of Democratic Congressional leadership's "blind faith."

    I'm somewhat fed up with all of this faith krapola in government.

    How 'bout some good "deeds" for a change?

    The FISC Decision On the Protect America Act | 16 comments (16 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment