Spy Court Judge Resigns In Protest!!!!

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 D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000685.html

My wife is saying the same thing right now.

It's as simple as that. What a shame about this proud judge.

He should be in jail. According to the law if you violate this law the punishment is five years in jail and I think some money too. I can't remember how much though. They shouldn't even be discussing impeachment. He admitted he broke a law and his oath of office. The proper authorities should be putting him in jail as we speak.

it will lend even more weight to the impeachment defense. I truly believe this will not go away. * has got to go...NOW!

If there was ever an expert on the subject, it will be this guy and he'll come out and tell the Marquis de Gonzalez to go to hell on TV in front of God and everybody.

Talk about your profiles in courage...

Doug

Congressional hearings might be held with most of the dirt in secret.

K&R :kick:

he's been upset with Bush since 2001.

I hope with all my heart that the MSM covers this.

It could be that the Bushoilinis ran an end-run around the FISA court after being refused on the basis of lack of justification.

A law professor stated flat out that the chimp broke a federal law. He said legally, it was an impeachable offense. He didn't know if it would be done politically.

He said he experienced the FISA court personally and it scared him. He believes the FISA law is unconstitutional as it is. And circumventing it for sure is a federal crime. He said the 4th amendment was one of our most cherished freedoms.

He argued cases before this judge. He praised the judge profusely and said the judge resigned as a protest of the chimp. The guy was great and I was left with the impression this issue will get real big. More folks are talking impeachment more easily.

It was a great interview.

I think he's a conservative.

I'll watch later.

dang, wish I'd seen it. thanks for the recap.

:rofl:

The shit has met fan!!!

:rofl:

WOW!!! Just,...WOW!!! :wow:

And the Freeper who posted it pointed out this was a Clinton apointee.

They DO NOT TOLERATE BAD NEWS FOR THEIR BOY THERE!

in VERY CLEAR PLAIN ENGLISH.

Good for him. A man with principles....rare these days.

Glad to see somebody voting with their feet. Not enough of that in D.C. these days...

:toast::bounce::toast:

Glad to have you aboard!

:hi:

And... GO JUDGE ROBERTSON!!!

:woohoo::wow::woohoo:

:kick:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=james_robertson

US District Judge James Robertson rules that the Combatant Status Review Tribunal being held at the Guantanamo base in Cuba to determine the status of detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan is unlawful and cannot continue. At the time of the decision, Hamdan is before the Guantanamo military commission. (USA Today, 11/9/2004; Washington Post, 11/9/2004) Robertson, in his 45-page opinion, says the government should have conducted special hearings to determine whether detainees qualified for prisoner-of-war protections under the Geneva Conventions at the time of capture. (USA Today, 11/9/2004) He says that the Bush administration violated the Geneva Conventions when it designated prisoners as enemy combatants, denied them POW protections, and sent them to Guantanamo. (Boston Globe, 11/9/2004) The Combatant Status Review Tribunals that are currently being held in response to a recent Supreme Court decision (see June 28, 2004) are inadequate, Robertson says, because their purpose is to determine whether detainees are enemy combatants, not POWs, as required by the Third Geneva Convention. (USA Today, 11/9/2004) Robertson also rejects the administration's claim that the courts must defer to the president in a time of war. “The president is not a ‘tribunal,’ ” the judge says. (USA Today, 11/9/2004) Clinton appointee Robertson thus squarely opposes both the president's military order of November 13, 2001 (see November 13, 2001) establishing the possibility of trial by military tribunal, and his executive order of February 7, 2002 (see February 7, 2002) declaring that the Geneva Conventions do not to apply to Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners. “The government has asserted a position starkly different from the positions and behavior of the United States in previous conflicts,” Robertson writes, “one that can only weaken the United States' own ability to demand application of the Geneva Conventions to Americans captured during armed conflicts abroad.” (USA Today, 11/9/2004; Washington Post, 11/9/2004; Boston Globe, 11/9/2004) Robertson orders that until the government conducts a hearing for Hamdan before a competent tribunal in accordance with the Third Geneva Conventions, he can only be tried in courts-martial, according to the same long-established military rules that apply to trials for US soldiers. (Boston Globe, 11/9/2004; Washington Post, 11/9/2004) Robertson's ruling is the first by a federal judge to assert that the commissions are illegal. (Washington Post, 11/9/2004) Anthony D. Romero, director of the American Civil Liberties Union; Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice; and Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, all applaud Robertson's ruling. (Boston Globe, 11/9/2004) The Bush administration refutes the court's ruling and announces its intention to submit a request to a higher court for an emergency stay and reversal of the decision. “We vigorously disagree. ... The judge has put terrorism on the same legal footing as legitimate methods of waging war,” Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo says. “The Constitution entrusts to the president the responsibility to safeguard the nation's security. The Department of Justice will continue to defend the president's ability and authority under the Constitution to fulfill that duty.” (Boston Globe, 11/9/2004; Washington Post, 11/9/2004) He also says that the commission rules were “carefully crafted to protect America from terrorists while affording those charged with violations of the laws of war with fair process.” (Boston Globe, 11/9/2004) Though the ruling technically only applies to Hamdan, Hamdan's civilian attorney, Neal Katyal, says it could affect other detainees. “The judge's order is designed only to deal with Mr. Hamdan's case,” Katyal says. “But the spirit of it ... extends more broadly to potentially everything that is going on here at Guantanamo.” (USA Today, 11/9/2004)

Judge declares Guantanamo tribunal invalid

ISN SECURITY WATCH (10/11/04) - A US district judge ruled late on Monday that a Guantanamo Bay detainee was to be treated as a prisoner of war rather than an “enemy combatant”, leading to the last-minute suspension of the pre-trial hearing of Osama bin Laden’s driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, by a “military commission”. District of Colombia Judge James Robertson ruled that the military commissions were invalid under US and international law and that that the 550 detainees at the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba may be prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions and, as such, were entitled to standard legal protection. The ruling was the result of an appeal by Hamden’s lawyers to find the “military commissions” invalid. The Bush administration slammed the ruling and promised to seek an emergency stay and to immediately appeal. Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said in a statement “by conferring protected legal status under the Geneva Conventions on members of al-Qaida the judge has put terrorism on the same legal footing as legitimate methods of waging war”. He added: “The process struck down by the district court today was carefully crafted to protect America from terrorists while affording those charged with violation of the laws of war fair process, and the department will make every effort to have this process restored through appeal.” According to the administration, the Guantanamo detainees - most of whom were detained in Afghanistan on suspicion of having fought alongside Taliban and al-Qaida forces and have been at the prison camp for over two years already without charges - are “enemy combatants”. However, only four detainees have so far been charged by the military commissions. Earlier, in June, the Supreme Court had ruled that Guantanamo suspects had the right to appeal their detentions in US courts and could not be held indefinitely without charges.

Printed from http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=10132

Didn't last though . . .
_____________________________________________________________

Gitmo Trials Are Legal, Says US Court

Agencies, Arab News
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2005%20News%20Archives/July/16%20n/Gitmo%20Trials%20Are%20Legal,%20Says%20US%20Court.htm

WASHINGTON, 16 July 2005 —

A federal appeals court put the Bush administration’s military commissions for terrorist suspects back on track yesterday, saying a detainee at the Guantanamo Bay prison who once was Osama bin-Laden’s driver can stand trial.

A three-judge panel ruled 3-0 against Salim Ahmed Hamdan, whose case was halted by a federal judge on grounds that commission procedures were unlawful.

“Congress authorized the military commission that will try Hamdan,” said the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The protections of the 1949 Geneva Convention do not apply to Al-Qaeda and its members, so Hamdan does not have a right to enforce its provisions in court, the appeals judges said.

That's the same case that Gonzales was crowing about in his news conference yesterday defending Bush on the NSA intercepts. He cited the fact that Congress had authorized use of force in the 'war on terror', and that the Supreme Court had ruled that the war legislation gave Bush the right to hold American citizens prisoner. His point (bullshit, I know) was that the legislation, coupled with the SC ruling gave Bush the authority to do whatever he wants as long as he says he's in pursuit of an 'enemy' in his 'war on terror'.

Thursday, September 16, 2004

A federal judge here yesterday rejected a request from President Bush's campaign for an injunction against the Federal Election Commission that Bush attorneys hoped would ultimately halt the efforts of independent Democratic organizations working to defeat the president.

>>>>The Bush-Cheney campaign sued the FEC on Sept. 1 seeking an emergency court order. The suit accused the commission of failing to act on its March complaint and of allowing "irreparable harm" by not stopping the activities of advocacy groups that support Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry. Bush's attorneys said those groups, which include MoveOn.org, the Media Fund and America Coming Together, are engaged in "massive" and "ongoing" violations of election laws.

The president's lawyers argued that some "527" fundraising organizations, named for the section of the tax code that governs them, were illegally coordinating their efforts with Kerry's campaign and had spent $80 million in unrestricted donations from labor unions, corporate and individual donors for anti-Bush ads, and voter drives.

Robertson, appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton, noted that he was rejecting the president's request based on "an impeccable decision by Judge Kenneth Starr . . . decided, figuratively speaking, when the shoe was on the other foot."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23343-2004Sep15.html

"US District Judge James Robertson responded to a suit brought by American watchdog outfit the Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) regarding the FBI's e-mail snoop apparatus Carnivore, by giving the Bureau ten working days to set a schedule for delivering records under expedited Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) handling.

In its application for a temporary restraining order against Carnivore, EPIC charged that the FBI and the US Department of Justice (DoJ) have violated the law by failing to act on its request for fast-track processing of its FOIA inquiry.

>>>>The Fourth Amendment states plainly that "No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

Thus the Carnivore system occupies a Constitutional grey area, because while the FBI claims it can be configured to trap and record only the e-mail traffic of a particular suspect named in a warrant, its potential for abuse is enormous as an entire ISP's traffic ultimately gets sifted. It's not terribly hard to imagine a few overzealous agents sneaking a peek at the e-mail correspondence of some secondary or tertiary 'person of interest', whether a warrant exists or not."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/08/03/judge_yanks_a_few/

temporary restraining order (available as a file download) http://www.epic.org/privacy/litigation/carnivore_TRO.pdf

Webster Hubbell Indictment Dismissed

A federal judge dismissed an indictment against former associate attorney general and long-time Clinton friend Webster Hubbell. U.S. District Judge James Robertson threw out the charges on July 1, 1998, ruling that Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr had overstepped his authority in bringing forth the Hubbell indictment. Robertson also charged that Starr had violated Hubbell's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination by building a case that relied on materials collected under an immunity agreement with Hubbell.

http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/government/whitewater/hubbell_dismiss.html

District Court Judge Allows 'Abaya' Lawsuit
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
October 01, 2002

(CNSNews.com) - A U.S. district court has denied a motion by the Department of Defense to dismiss the case of a U.S. Air Force pilot who charged her constitutional rights were violated when she was required to wear Muslim garb while off base in Saudi Arabia.

A ruling by U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson on Friday clears the way for the case of Lt. Col. Martha McSally to proceed to trial. McSally charged the requirement to wear the abaya - a long black garment customarily worn by women in Saudi Arabia - when off base last year violated her constitutional rights to freedom of religion and speech.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Pentagon\archive\200210\PEN20021001a.html

Federal district court upholds wetlands protections

WASHINGTON (04/07/04) -- Environmental groups claimed a victory for the protection the nation’s waters, recently, when a federal judge rejected a challenge to a key Clean Water Act rule that protects wetlands and streams from unpermitted destruction. The groups said the ruling from Judge James Robertson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will help to prevent damage to the country’s wetlands and streams resulting from landclearing, ditching, and mining.

“Industry groups were hoping that a federal court would give them a nationwide free pass to destroy wetlands and streams, but the court sent them packing,” said Howard Fox of Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm representing National Wildlife Federation, North Carolina Wildlife Federation, and Sierra Club in the suit. "That's great news for communities concerned about water quality and flooding, and for recreationists interested in fish and wildlife."

http://www.caprep.com/0404015.htm
______________________________________________________________

In April 2005, U.S. District Judge James Robertson ordered that the EPA must finally approve or disapprove smog reduction plans for the Washington, D.C. region by May 3, 2005, citing the agency's "unblemished record of nonperformance" under the Clean Air Act.

http://www.earthjustice.org/accomplishments/display.html?ID=220&friend=1

Washington, DC -- A federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service relied on flawed biology in failing to protect the Florida panther. The court's findings mirror concerns raised by one of the agency's own biologists who is now facing termination, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

This past Friday, U.S. District Judge James Robertson revoked a permit for a limestone mine slated for excavation amid 6,000 acres of endangered Florida panther habitat in the Western Everglades region near Ft. Myers. The judge ruled that the Fish & Wildlife Service illegally ignored scientific evidence indicating that further human intrusion could jeopardize the small remaining population of Florida panthers. There are only an estimated 87 of these big cats left in existence and they are considered among the rarest mammals on the planet.

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=400

The ruling Wednesday in Washington by U.S. District Judge James Robertson temporarily halted plans by WesternGeco, a major seismic exploration company, to search for oil and gas in the Dome Plateau region, a 23,000-acre expanse of wildlands popular with hikers and mountain bikers and home to the black-footed ferret, Mexican spotted owl and other endangered species.

Robertson agreed with environmental groups that brought the suit that the use of huge seismic "thumper trucks" to search for underground oil and gas reserves would irreparably harm the fragile soils, plants and animals as well as the area's visual beauty. But while giving the groups more time to argue that the exploration permits were granted in violation of federal environmental law, the judge warned that "the plaintiffs' ultimate success on the merits appears questionable."

The administration is mulling dozens of proposals to drill on public lands in Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah in the wake of the Senate decision this year to reject President Bush's plan for drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Since Bush took office, at least nine seismic oil and gas exploration projects have been started or completed in southern Utah, according to environmentalists -- a marked increase in activity from previous years.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/11/01/MN119605.DTL

"The Attorney General’s fulminations were directed at last week’s ruling by US District Judge James Robertson. Robertson had the temerity to suggest that Guantanamo prisoners are "entitled to protections afforded prisoners of war under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention" ... and that they "may not be tried by a military commission."

The ruling is an uncontroversial reading of both the Geneva Conventions and of any normal understanding of due process. Ashcroft, however, is not placated by anything as mundane as treaty obligations or 600 years of legal precedent. After all, we’re in the new epoch now, the age of terrorism; such nettlesome constraints on presidential authority are "obsolete" or at least "quaint".

"Without mentioning the case specifically, Ashcroft criticized rulings he said found ‘expansive private rights in treaties where they never existed’ that run counter to the broad discretionary powers given the president by the Constitution." (Associated Press)

"Expansive private rights"?

Does Ashcroft mean the right to due process or the more basic "presumption of innocence"? Or is he defending the right of the president to dump innocent men in 5’ by 7’ windowless cells for three years with no process in place to challenge the terms of their detention?

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/11/con04498.html

Judge blasts BIA for delays in recognition case
Tuesday, February 15, 2005

A federal judge accused the Bureau of Indian Affairs on Monday of mismanaging the federal recognition process but said his options for bringing the agency in line were limited.

At a lengthy hearing in Washington, D.C., U.S. District Judge James Robertson questioned why the BIA's Office of Federal Acknowledgment is taking so long to rule on the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe's petition for recognition. The Massachusetts tribe has been on the "ready" list for consideration for nine years, having filed its initial application in 1975.

"The people involved in making the decisions at the BIA have completely lost track of the whole concept of deadlines," Robertson said.

Silvia Sepulveda-Hambor, a Department of Justice lawyer who is representing the BIA, tried to show that progress has been made. She said the agency is implementing a strategic plan to streamline the process and that the Mashpees are now second in line for review.

"That's exciting," Robertson responded. "Stand back."

http://www.indianz.com/News/2005/006536.asp

growing cute legs... ain't that cute?

How many scandals by the way until the people have had enough

while the true slimebags and sellouts are the ones we can't beat out with a stick.

bad comes to stay.

We should recruit him to run for office.

-- duplicated info. --

Good for him. Good for democracy.

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

care to explain why?

I woke up and thought you wrote 'Judge Robertson'. Instead you wrote Roberts. Now that I can see, I agree that your bile is well directed.

:kick:

Bookmarked and reccomended. I hope MSM picks this up and runs with it. Runs far and wide.

for these guys to get ousted?

and a shovel . . .

Newsmax headline. The spin begins.

who we should defend

:bounce:

he has operated as a wing of our party in so many cases, I can't imagine that he's going to sit by idly as events unfold around him. Here's a bio:

"Judge Robertson was appointed United States District Judge in December 1994. He graduated from Princeton University in 1959 and received an LL.B. from George Washington University Law School in 1965 after serving in the U.S. Navy. From 1965 to 1969, he was in private practice with the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. From 1969 to 1972, Judge Robertson served with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, as chief counsel of the Committee’s litigation offices in Jackson, Mississippi, and as director in Washington, D.C. Judge Robertson then returned to private practice with Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, where he practiced until his appointment to the federal bench. While in private practice, he served as president of the District of Columbia Bar, co-chair of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and president of Southern Africa Legal Services and Legal Education Project, Inc.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/robertson-bio.html