ACLU knew since 2002? President's surveillance authorizations lawful?

**************************************************************
*****************Which is it? Lawful or unlawful?*******************
**************************************************************

Brief for the United States, redacted, to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, dated: August 21, 2002:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/082102appeal.html

Transcript of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Hearing on Docket No. 02-001, September 9, 2002, 9:00 a.m.:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/hrng090902.htm

56 page decision of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, argued on September 09, 2002 and decided on November 18, 2002:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/fisa111802opn.pdf

**************************************************************
******************The ACLU knew this since 2002******************
*****************and we are being surprised now?******************
**************************************************************

http://www.aclu.org//privacy/spying/15189prs20021118.html

"In First-Ever Ruling, Secret Appeals Court Allows Expanded Government Spying on U.S. Citizens (11/18/2002)

WASHINGTON - Ruling for the first time in its history, the ultra-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review today gave the green light to a Justice Department bid to broadly expand its powers to spy on U.S. citizens.

**************************************************************

Is the New York Times without an iota of credibility now?

Can former Republican Representative Bob Barr be misinformed on the law?

Can current U.S. Senator Russ Feingold be out of touch with the prevailing law of the land?

Can someone please set the record straight?

but that doesn't mean they are law.

They are the excessively broad opinions about the law.

There is no guarantee at all that the Supreme Court would support these arguments.

At issue in the case are warrants under FISA that then find criminal wrongdoing. The question is, can that information then be used in criminal prosecution. I don't see anything there relating to the C-in-C's ability to unilaterally allow the NSA to spy on American citizens without a warrant from the FISA review court. Granted, it is 6:00 in the morning and I read through this pretty quickly, so if you find something, please post an excerpt with a page number.

but says nothing giving the president authority to do surveillance without a warrant.
Only that surveillance can be done without a traditional probable-cause search warrant.

http://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/navy0903.pdf

surveillance. But I understood that a warrant was still needed -- although the process was speeded up.

In the cases we've just begun hearing about, no warrant was issued -- and they argue, even needed.

whatever he did was "lawful."

What many forget, "our" side, too, is that what happened in Germany was made "legal." Therein lies the horror.

There are many things in the U.S. which are legal, that doesn't make them right or good or honorable or anything near our ideals of democracy and freedom.

-they can do the eavesdropping for 3 days without a court order under current law! Thet did not need to break the law.

They must get an order within 72 hours of starting.

And they refuse to do so.

And it is a Court that never says no to the administration (the secret FISA Court).

Feingold is correct - the law is clear.

The NY Times only error was in not reporting this during the 2004 election campaign - and in buying the National Security/inherent power of the King idea.