Did BushCo Engage In Warrantless Wiretapping on CNN's Christiane Amanpour?

From TV Newser (via Josh Marshall):

Yesterday, MSNBC.com published a transcript of Andrea Mitchell's interview with author James Risen about the CIA's domestic spying program. In it, Mitchell asked Risen if he had uncovered evidence that CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour was eavesdropped upon. It was a specific and pointed question that led AMERICAblog to ask if the veteran journalist had been spied on by the Bush administration. This afternoon, MSNBC.com removed the portion of the transcript that referred to Amanpour. (Here's what it originally said.) In a statement to TVNewser tonight, NBC explained why:

"Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely. It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on 'NBC Nightly News' nor on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry."

I think a clearer picture is starting to emerge as to why Bush avoided using the secret FISA court to secure warrants for his surveillance activities. BushCo's reluctance to take that route seems mystifying on its face, given that the FISA court has been pretty "liberal" when it comes to approving wiretaps. As CNN reports:

According to the Justice Department, from 1979 to 2004 the court approved 18,724 wiretaps and denied only three, all in 2003. (Despite the 2002 presidential order allowing the NSA to work without a warrant when it chooses to, the agency has continued in many cases to apply for them. Last year it sought 1,754.) But the court has been subjecting the applications to closer examination. It made what the Justice Department calls "substantive modifications" to 94 of last year's requests--for example, reducing the scope, timing or targets in the original application.

But the Bush Regime knew that even the extremely lenient FISA court wouldn't tolerate acts such as eavesdropping on a reporter without a pretty darned good reason. It makes me start to wonder who else has been subjected to BushCo eavesdropping.

By the way, Bush apparently had his fingers crossed when he signed the McCain-sponsored anti-torture bill last Friday:

When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.

Those "legal specialists" definitely have a talent for understatement.