Renuncia del Juez James Robertson

Grave crisis en el gobierno de EE UU, por una preseunta violación a la ley.

El juez federal de los EE UU James Robertson, miembro del tribunal a cargo de autorizar las interceptaciones telefónicas, renunció en protesta después de conocerse el programa de espionaje secreto autorizado por el presidente Bush, informó este miércoles el diario The Washington Post.

El juez renunció el lunes 19 al Tribunal de Vigilancia de Inteligencia Extranjera (FISA), institución que supervisa las peticiones del gobierno para realizar espionaje secreto y persigue a ciudadanos extranjeros o estadunidenses sospechosos de terrorismo o espionaje.

El juez dimitió de su cargo ''sin ofrecer más explicaciones''. En una carta dirigida al presidente del Tribunal Supremo, John Roberts, le expresa su más "profunda preocupación" por la "dudosa" legalidad del programa de supervisión que el presidente de EE UU autorizó días después de los atentados terroristas del 11-S.

El espionaje telefónico fue descubierto y publicado la semana pasada por el diario The New York Times y causó gran revuelo en la Casa Blanca. El presidente, visiblemente molesto y enfadado, tildó de "acto vergonzoso" el que alguien diera a conocer "un programa muy importante en tiempos de guerra" y justificó el procedimiento.

Hace un año, cuando se le preguntó sobre el asunto, Bush respondió: "Una escucha telefónica exige una orden judicial. Nada ha cambiado. Cuando hablamos de perseguir terroristas hablamos de tener autorización judicial antes de hacerlo".

¿El terrorismo lo justifica?

La valiente renuncia es simplemnete como consecuencia de la confesión hecha por el presidente Bush en la que reconoció haber autorizado a la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional (NSA) de espiar sin autorización judicial.

Bush reafirmó que las intervecniones sin orden judicial eran perfectamente legales y que no había que pedir autorización a FISA.

Tanto Bush como el vicepresidente, Dick Cheney, han defendido y justificado el espionaje telefónico sin control judicial. El presidente se respalda en "la autoridad legal que se deriva de la Constitución" yrefuerza su decisión al apoyarse en la resolución que el Congreso aprobó tres días después del 11-S en la que autorizaba a usar "toda la fuerza necesaria y apropiada" para perseguir a los terroristas y así evitar otros atentados.

Pero el FISA y la ley del mismo nombre -creada en 1978- ha sido durante 25 años el único mecanismo capacitado para autorizar "legalmente" la intervención de las llamadas telefónicas cuando existía la sospecha de que se tratase de presuntos terroristas o actos de terrorismo contra EE UU.

Por lo pronto congresistas demócratas y republicanos han manifestado su grave malestar y han solicitado una investigación parlamentaria.

Los republicanos Chuck Hagel (Nebraska) y Olympia Snowe (Maine) y los demócratas Carl Levin (Michigan), Dianne Feinstein (California) y Ron Wyden (Oregón)- se han unido para exigir una investigación conjunta de los comités de Inteligencia y Judicial del Senado.

Por su parte, el líder de la minoría de la Cámara Alta, Harry Reid (demócrata por Nevada), manifestó que se inclinaba porque las audiencias fueran por separado, y aseguró que ya había prometido una investigación por parte del Comité de Inteligencia. Bill Frist, líder de la mayoría republicana optó por no pronunciarse.

Robertson fue designado juez federal por el ex presidente Bill Clinton en 1994 y, posteriormente, fue uno de los 11 miembros del tribunal especial dependiente del FISA.

Estas son las notas del Post.

The Washington Post, December21, 2005.

Spy Court Judge Quits In ProtestJurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna LinzerWashington Post Staff WritersWednesday, December 21, 2005; A01

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 G. 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.

Robertson, who was appointed to the federal bench in Washington by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday.

Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.

Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.

Hagel and Snowe joined Democrats Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate judiciary and intelligence panels into the classified program.

The hearings would occur at the start of a midterm election year during which the prosecution of the Iraq war could figure prominently in House and Senate races.

Not all Republicans agreed with the need for hearings and backed White House assertions that the program is a vital tool in the war against al Qaeda.

"I am personally comfortable with everything I know about it," Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a phone interview.

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act.

Revelation of the program last week by the New York Times also spurred considerable debate among federal judges, including some who serve on the secret FISA court. For more than a quarter-century, that court had been seen as the only body that could legally authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects, and only when the Justice Department could show probable cause that its targets were foreign governments or their agents.

Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants -- to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."

Robertson is considered a liberal judge who has often ruled against the Bush administration's assertions of broad powers in the terrorism fight, most notably in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld . Robertson held in that case that the Pentagon's military commissions for prosecuting terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were illegal and stacked against the detainees.

Some FISA judges said they were saddened by the news of Robertson's resignation and want to hear more about the president's program.

"I guess that's a decision he's made and I respect him," said Judge George P. Kazen, another FISA judge. "But it's just too quick for me to say I've got it all figured out."

Bush said Monday that the White House briefed Congress more than a dozen times. But those briefings were conducted with only a handful of lawmakers who were sworn to secrecy and prevented from discussing the matter with anyone or from seeking outside legal opinions.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) revealed Monday that he had written to Vice President Cheney the day he was first briefed on the program in July 2003, raising serious concerns about the surveillance effort. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she also expressed concerns in a letter to Cheney, which she did not make public.

The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), issued a public rebuke of Rockefeller for making his letter public.

In response to a question about the letter, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested that Rockefeller should have done more if he was seriously concerned. "If I thought someone was breaking the law, I don't care if it was classified or unclassified, I would stand up and say 'the law's being broken here.' "

But Rockefeller said the secrecy surrounding the briefings left him with no other choice. "I made my concerns known to the vice president and to others who were briefed," Rockefeller said. "The White House never addressed my concerns."

Staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Charles Babington and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

The Washington Post, December21, 2005.

Specter Wants Jan. Surveillance Hearings
By KIMBERLY HEFLINGThe Associated PressWednesday, December 21, 2005; 8:23 PM
WASHINGTON -- Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter said Wednesday he remains skeptical about a government surveillance program despite an explanation from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The two met for an hour Sunday to discuss the rationale for the warrantless eavesdropping by the National Security Agency that President Bush approved without obtaining any court orders.
"I would summarize it by saying I have grave doubts about his legal conclusion," Specter, R-Pa., said of a meeting with Gonzales, who was confirmed before Specter's committee early this year. "I'm skeptical, but I'm prepared to listen."
Specter said he expects Gonzales to be the leadoff witness at a hearing on the surveillance, which he said he would like to start next month after confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
There likely will be a national debate about whether the president really has the kind of power he's been using, said Specter, a five-term senator and former prosecutor.
"There may be legislation which will come out of it to restrict the president's power," Specter said.
Specter said he would seek a copy of the resignation letter of U.S. District Judge James Robertson, who stepped down from a special court set up to oversee government surveillance. The Washington Post reported that the resignation stemmed from Robertson's concerns over whether the surveillance was legal. Specter said he wants to meet with Robertson, and may ask him to appear before the committee.
President Bush's decision after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to allow domestic eavesdropping without court approval first came to light late last week, and he has defended the decision as a matter of protecting national security.
Specter said the issue isn't one he sought out _ that it came up on Friday while he was pushing for passage of the anti-terror Patriot Act.
"When a cannon hits you between the eyes, you take notice and I was immediately asked what I thought about it and I said, 'Well, it's a matter that requires a hearing,'" Specter said.