WAR: Secret Court Judge Resigns

U.S. District Judge James Robertson resigned from a special court set up by Congress in 1978 to oversee government surveillance apparently in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a classified program that included spying on the overseas communications of US citizens. The judge refused to comment on his resignation which was tendered to Chief Justice John Roberts. The White House has also refused comment on the resignation, citing Robertson's decision not to comment.

---

While it is impossible to know completely what the judge's reasoning was for his resignation, his timing and collateral information suggest that he is unhappy with the surveillance operation approved by the Bush Administration. Without a doubt this is a highly controversial move by the Administration that will likely reverberate throughout the government for generations to come, spawning new laws and interpretations of existing law. Personally, I feel that the surveillance operation is good policy, but I have yet to form an opinion of the methods by which it was implemented. That assessment will come to light, I'm sure, in the coming months as a result of a Congressional inquiry.

Related News Links:
www.nytimes.com www.cbsnews.com
www.alertnet.org
www.washingtonpost.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
WAR: Bush Allowed NSA to Spy on U.S. International Calls
POLITICS: Documents Show FBI Surveilled Protest Groups

not so secret now huh???

i love these funny threads that talk about "secret government documents showing that the US is responsible for 9-11" and the like...

seriously though, good find...

I personally take this as a very significant event. Thanks for bringing this to us.

Secretly spying on American citizens by presidential decree, circumventing due process in a nation built on the supremacy of law and order is a good idea? I think not.

I heard this on the radio today.

Short on detail, the first thing that came to my mind was that a man who spent his whole life in the legal community finally drew the line (I assume on personal ethical grounds) when it came to performing an illegal activity.

And who better than someone like him to make that judgement call?

We need more people to stand up for what is right in this world, although if they all have to resign or get fired in doing that, then where does that leave us?
.

It seems to me that perhaps this man was found as the source of this leaked information and perhaps now he is being forced to resign.

Considering that the whole story is that Bush didn't go to the FISA court to get warrants, and this judge was on the FISA court, why would he even know anything to leak?

Thanks Grady for the news,

I agree that surveillance is necessary in times of war to protect our nation.

But . . . I agree also that it should be under the most necessary means and with the most care not to violate the American citizens constitutional rights unless that American citizens is prove to be guilty of wrong doing after the surveillance.

I believe that the judge in this case is steeping down because he wants to stay away from the whole scandal that obviously is now facing our government in the most higher ranks.

The American people is a very good forgiving people and we have seen how forgiving it has been throughout its history.

But when it comes to constitutional rights and the allegations and declarations of our elected politicians steeping over the only thing that most Americans hold more dear than life, then it will be more than just this judge that will probably step down and will turn against the master minders of the whole spying issue.

I think you may be on to something, but I don't think the man leaked anything. There are two broad possibilities for his resignation, however:

1. His personal ideals and morals were in deep conflict with the eavesdropping being done by the NSA

2. He expects to be named unfavorably in connection with the incident as investigation into this issue continues.

My money is on the latter.

Yup, not only can they now 'legally' watch anything and everything you do, they can also come uniformed and pick you up without a Warrant, and 'legally' hold you Incommunicado, at an undisclosed location indefinately without charge or trial, on any contrived form of terror suspicions they care to apply to the matter. They Own the Vote, they own the media, and they control the money. Our constitutional rights are being leeched away in carte blanche legislations that would make Gaius Caligula blush. It isn't paranoid conspiracy theories anymore folks, it's law. If you follow history at all, you should recognise the trend by now.

Or quite simply: Most Americans are too concerned with those damn pesky "Islamofascists" to see that their own government are garden variety fascists in the first place.

As a German i keep wondering why the us is more intent on spying on its on citizens rather then foreigners or the rest of the world in general



Can anyone clear me up on this ?

I guess the real question is, what makes you think that is a true statement?

The FISA was created to


As far as spying on foreign citizens and governments, I doubt that anybody here on ATS knows the extent of it. As well it should be, imo.

jsobecky : i hope i understood your reply correctly

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just looking at that thread and checking those links makes me wonder what the war on terrorism is really all about

or this link : news.yahoo.com...

It looks like your administration is more intent on keeping its own people under control then fighting terrorists.

Again let me stress this is my personal view from europe when watching /reading german media or media found on the internet .

Fett Pinkus

You aren't alone in that sentiment. I hear that a lot from people that don't live here.

Two things lead to that feeling, imo: your own culture(s), which are much different than ours to begin with ( there are still many monarchies and theocracies, for example ) lead to a different outlook on authority in general, and the unparalleled freedoms we enjoy here in the USA, despite what some of our citizens think.

Believe me, I feel under absolutely no excessive pressure or control. I'm sure I could talk myself into those feelings, if I chose, but I don't.

As far as this:

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Just the fact that terrorist sympathizers have the right to state their opinions is proof of our freedoms. Examples: Ward Churchill and Nicholas De Genova (who would like to see a million Mogadishus) are (or were) college professors free to state their twisted anti-American views. There are many others.

With these rights, there are bound to be clashes with those who disagree. That is why it appears to be what you see. But it is not.

Just think of how many countries in the world where your reward for exercising free speech, or opposing views, will earn you a bullet in the back of your head. Then you may realize that your views on the US needs to be revisited.

You have voted twitchy for the Way Above Top Secret award.

Bravo to you, twitchy, for putting the whole situation in perspective so succinctly. I completely agree.



I would amend this statement to read just as intent. When you couple the Patriot Act with the dramatic increase in transportation and energy costs, what you get is a populace that is staying close to home and is worried about making ends meet and staying out of trouble, for the most part. That, imo, is just the way the government prefers its sheeple these days.

[edit on 22-12-2005 by Icarus Rising]

When I heard of this, and it was also very brief, I got the impression, and like I say, it was/is only my own impression without ever have known the man, was that his abrupt resignation sounded a lot more like he was insulted, perhaps he felt somewhat of a "slap in the face", for having been picked by Bush to serve on a court that Bush obviously didn't regard as meaning anything at all.

If Bush had the court set up, then one can understand that a judge with any sort of morals and even human feelings might no longer want to serve on a Court that is of no significance to the one who set it up.

I could be wrong, but.........just MHO.

Where does that leave us? Another bit of truth comes out to the public. That's good. This man resigned and made news rather than sit back and keep it under cover. You are right - we need more like him! Every little bit of 'sacrifice' made in the search for truth is a sacrifice worth praise. I commend this judge for his difficult decision.

Thank you, Grady, for this story.

The significant words in the article are "... apparently in protest". As mentioned in the link ( and I heard of this two days ago), he gave no reason for his leaving, so any presumption as to WHY he left is pure, unadulterated speculation, and is a waste of bandwidth.

(edit for spelling)



[edit on 22-12-2005 by zappafan1]

REPLY: You obviously haven't done much research on the law(s) in question, as your statements pertaing to warrants, and without charge or trial, are mis-informed.

Referring to links to ATS threads are most certainly not, in most cases, proof of what you say or believe, and it appears you haven't read all the posts in this thread.

"... carte blanche" legislation is hardly the correct term for one law (enacted in 1978 by the way... so don't blame this on Bush.)

The people own the vote, and the money, and if you believe the Republicans own the media you haven't been paying attention, as I have for over 40 years. As to the media, there are simply too many things that prove contrary to what you say to list here; although I can list a few if required.