Bush allowed NSA to spy within USA without warrants

[Hurin_Rules]

Republican senator Arlen Specter has vowed to hold hearings on this.

Bush reportedly OK'd NSA spying on Americans
Specter vows to hold hearings on alleged eavesdropping without warrants
NBC VIDEO

Updated: 12:38 p.m. ET Dec. 16, 2005
NEW YORK - A key Republican committee chairman put the Bush administration on notice Friday that his panel would hold hearings into a report that the National Security Agency eavesdropped without warrants on people inside the United States.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he would make oversight hearings by his panel next year “a very, very high priority.”

“There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,” said Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Other key bipartisan members of Congress also called on the administration to explain and said a congressional investigation may be necessary.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., appeared annoyed that the first he had heard of such a program was through a New York Times story published Friday. He said the report was troubling.

Asked about the story earlier Friday, neither Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice nor White House press secretary Scott McClellan would confirm or deny that the super-secret NSA had spied on as many as 500 people at any given time since 2002.

Emails, calls monitored
The Times reported Friday that following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, President Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States.

Before the program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.

Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting al-Qaida by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.

But Faris’ lawyer, David B. Smith, said on Friday the news puzzled him because none of the evidence against Faris appeared to have come from surveillance, other than officials eavesdropping on his cell phone calls while he was in FBI custody.

Lawmakers concerned
Lawmakers said they were concerned about the report.

“We need to look into that,” McCain told reporters at the White House after a meeting on Iraq with Bush. “Theoretically, I obviously wouldn’t like it. But I don’t know the extent of it and I don’t know enough about it to really make an informed comment. Ask me again in about a week.”

McCain said it’s not clear whether a congressional probe is warranted. He said the topic had not come up in the meeting with Bush.

“We should be informed as to exactly what is going on and then find out whether an investigation is called for,” he said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., also said he needed more information.

“Of course I was concerned about the story,” said Lieberman, who also attended the White House Iraq meeting. “I’m going to go back to the office and see if I can find out more about it.”
Other Democrats were more harsh.

“This is Big Brother run amok,” declared Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. “We cannot protect our borders if we cannot protect our ideals.” Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., called it a “shocking revelation” that he said “ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American.”

NBC report on domestic surveillance
The Times report came two days after NBC News reported on the existence of a secret Defense Department database of information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States, including anti-war groups.

The Times said reporters interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.

It also said in its story that editors at the newspaper had delayed publication of the report for a year because the White House said it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. The Times said it omitted information from the story that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists.

McClellan would not directly discuss specifics of the article at a briefing for reporters, but said that “there is congressional and oversight of intelligence activities and there are a lot of safeguards in place.”

He continued, “Soon after 9/11 the president made a commitment to do two things: Everything lawfully within his power to protect the American people and save lives ... and (to) remain fully committed to uphold the Constitution and protect the civil liberties of the American people. He has done both.”

Rice says Bush has ‘acted lawfully’
Rice used similar words when asked about the program on NBC “Today” show.

“I’m not going to comment on intelligence matters,” she said. But Rice did say that President Bush “has always said he would do everything he can to protect the American people, but within the law, and with due regard for civil liberties because he takes seriously his responsibility.”

“The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken,” Rice said, “to defend the American people and to defend the people within his constitutional responsibility.”


Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group’s initial reaction to the NSA disclosure was “shock that the administration has gone so far in violating American civil liberties to the extent where it seems to be a violation of federal law.”

Asked about the administration’s contention that the eavesdropping has disrupted terrorist attacks, Fredrickson said the ACLU couldn’t comment until it sees some evidence. “They’ve veiled these powers in secrecy so there’s no way for Congress or any independent organizations to exercise any oversight.”

The Times quoted officials familiar with the NSA operation as saying that Bush’s executive order allowing warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States was based on classified legal opinions stating that the president has broad powers to order such measures, based in part on a September 2001 congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

But some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.

NBC report on Pentagon database
Earlier this week, the Pentagon said it was reviewing its use of a classified database of information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States after the report by NBC News said the database listed activities of anti-war groups that were not a security threat to Pentagon property or personnel.

Pentagon spokesmen declined to discuss the matter on the record but issued a written statement Wednesday evening that implied — but did not explicitly acknowledge — that some information had been handled improperly.

The Bush administration had briefed congressional leaders about the NSA program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.

Aides to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, declined to comment Thursday night.

NBC News' Bob Kur and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/

Hey Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do!

[Grey_Fox]

Not surprising.

[Proletariat]

Real nice. I'm pretty sure I'm never voting again.

[drone]

Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting al-Qaida by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.

But Faris’ lawyer, David B. Smith, said on Friday the news puzzled him because none of the evidence against Faris appeared to have come from surveillance, other than officials eavesdropping on his cell phone calls while he was in FBI custody.

Don't know what his lawyer is confused about. Since the surveillance was questionable from a legal standpoint (and maybe classified as well), the prosecution probably figured it would be inadmissable and never brought it forward. They probably used the info to gain more concrete evidence under "legal" means.

Looks to me like they targeted suspicious individuals (sort of like profiling?), and used the results as a starter to hone in on people involved in illegal activity.

I'm all confused now. We have the FBI overseas, and the NSA reading citizens' mail. Shouldn't the CIA be running ops in the States, or are they outsourcing that job to India? Good thing I never take off my tinfoil hat...

[Xiahou]

Meh, not like the NYT has ever gotten a story wrong before now is it? Seriously though, there are situations, I believe, where this could be entirely legal- what will need to be seen is if the cases that it was done under match that narrow view or if they did not.

It does seem odd that they would do this without permission, since the court having jurisdiction in this matter is practically a rubber stamp and rarely denies government requests. I think I'm going to wait for more facts to come out on this before I pitch in building that scaffold to hang them from that you're all working on.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What has been reported today by the New York Times is outrageous. It is false. It is misleading. It is deceitful -- and it is part of an ongoing effort within our country at the highest levels of the Democratic Party and the American media to destroy our ability to wage war against this enemy. I don't know if you've seen it. You probably have heard about it. Here's the headline of the story: "Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in the United States After 9/11, Officials Say." Bush secretly lifted some limits on spying in the United States after 9/11? The story is about how the National Security Agency was secretly told by George W. Bush to go ahead and start spying on domestic Americans as they made international phone calls and sent and received international e-mails. The only problem with the story is that Bush didn't do anything "secretly." There were all kinds of people in on this, including members of Congress and the special secret court that gets involved in these kinds of things. If you read very carefully, there's a couple of key paragraphs in this story. Here's one of them -- and, by the way, let me say this.

By the way, there are a lot of details about this. The writer of the story is James Risen. James Risen has a book coming out! The New York Times in this story claims that the White House asked them not to print this and that they held off for a year. They held off for a year out of concerns for the White House. That's absolute bunk. It is BS. They've been sitting on this story for a year. James Risen, the author of the story, has a book coming out. This is part of his book. The book is published by Simon & Schuster, the same editor that Richard Clarke's books have been published by and edited, Hillary's publisher -- and of course there will be a 60 Minutes appearance by Mr. Risen when his book comes out because Viacom owns both CBS and Simon & Schuster. So we've got the same synergy that we had during the 9/11 Commission hearings and that aftermath. So they haven't been sitting on this because of the White House. They've been sitting on it to promo a book. They've been sitting on it for a year. Why does it come out today? Because they want to cover up the great news that happened in Iraq yesterday. They want this and the Patriot Act and McCain's torture bill to be the subjects on the Sunday shows.

They're trying to switch the template here and take the great news happening in Iraq off everybody's mind, off the front page, and instead, focus efforts on the secret dealings of George W. Bush. Well, try this paragraph: "According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said." Well, how in the world can this be secret if Rockefeller knew about it and if the special court and the judge presiding over it -- it's the FISA court, by the way -- how can it possibly have been secret? It wasn't secret. The lead of this story starts this way: "Months after the September 11th attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the US to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying."

The Democrats are voting and the New York Times is publishing purely to embarrass Bush, and their purpose is to attempt to derail everything that he is doing, even as commander-in-chief. In my mind, they are loathsome. They are beneath contempt. But the Republicans who help them out are much worse, because we know who the Democrats are. We expect this from them. We expect the Democrats to be lower than low. When they look up, they see the gutter. We know what they're all about now. They've made it clear. We once had higher expectations of the press, but we no longer do. We know who they are, but the Republicans are another story. These gadfly Republicans signing on to all this -- and in some cases, like Senator McCain, leading all this -- need to be sent a message. Look what's happened this week. The greatest election we've had in Iraq after three in a row that have been successful, a stupendous story, and in the midst of all of it Congress passes a Bill of Rights for al-Qaeda: the McCain anti-torture bill, a Bill of Rights for al-Qaeda. Now they're weakening Patriot Act protections, and now we come out with a story that's designed to totally eliminate our ability and destroy our ability to conduct war and national defense against this enemy

LINK

[Reverend Joe]

I really don't think that Rush ****ing Limbaugh is a very credible source!

(That would sound a lot better if I could say it...)

[KafirChobee]

The really curious thing about the entire deal is that the NY Times had this story in Oct. 2004 - before the elections and opted to withhold it 'til now. One must ask themselves: Why? That is the real story here. Why would a newsagency withhold facts from the public - regardless of "timing". Face it, had the public known of this they just might have dumped Bush for "the other guy".

What is truely bothersome about it was Bush's response concerning it tonight in his interview with "Lehrer" (ms) - on The Newshour. "I can't comment on an on going investigation". - which is a samo-samo response for him on just about everything concerning his administration, and "We did everything within the law to protect american lives". OK, I almost buy that, but I would like to know who they were allowing illegal wire taps on [like they need them, unless someone is still using a corded phone (cordless phones have been ruled by the Supreme Court to be unrequiring any legal request since they are in the open air)], and how they are associated with terrorism.

You see, I for one am suspect to giving any branch of government the ability to single out people at "their" will to listen in on (without judicial or congressional supervision). Does anyone truely imagine that those in power would not use such an open ended device to attempt to find something on their "enemies" (anyone that doesn't drink from the same well they do, or maybe a friend needs a favor to close a deal, or maybe ....). The thing is, circumventing the judicial system and ignoring the congressional - pretty much puts the entire deck of cards in one hand to be dealt as they see fit. We live in a democracy - not a Theocracy or an Empireship. One need only look back to the "Edgar Hoover" years to realize what I am talking about. Knowledge is power .... abusive knowledge only corrupts those that gain it.

Ergo, someone other than those that want to have an open ended wire tapp system must be able to oversee it - preferably the party not in power. Were that the case? No problem, for me atleast.

[solypsist]

so much for the 4 amendment to the us constitution.

here's the deal: If there is a law stopping them from doing their job, then it's up to congress/parliament to ammend the law. That's the point of a democracy, so the government doesn't run around doing whatever the heck they want whenever they want!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I think you should all go bak and read the Rush article. It was no secret .Isnt it funny this comes out just as their about to vote on the patriot act and the guy is about to release his book.

[Tachikaze]

I've been struck a lot lately with the similarities between the Bush-Regime US and the Iron Curtain nations in 1960s spy movies. Not only do we have government spying on its own people, but I had a personal experience with a road block that was like something out of the movie Stripes when the heroes went into Communist Czeckoslovakia.

My car was surrounded by three officers armed with handguns who asked to see papers before we could continue driving through the southern California desert. The threat to US security? A 70-year-old Japanese couple in the back seat of my car, shaking in their boots (welcome to the United States!). The atmosphere had high tension as if we were on the verge of being taken out and detained or searched. They seemed to enjoy the intimidation, because I had no rights at that point. They could have arrested and detained me for "suspicion" at their whim.

I used to only see officers with assault rifles when I went into Mexico. Not long after the road block episode, I saw a gray-uniformed man standing in the main concourse of Los Angeles airport with an assault rifle.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I've been struck a lot lately with the similarities between the Bush-Regime US and the Iron Curtain nations in 1960s spy movies. Not only do we have government spying on its own people, but I had a personal experience with a road block that was like something out of the movie Stripes

Well whats your opinion of FDR in WW2 then? We have roadblocks here all the time just to check if we are wearing our stupid seatbellt. You would think the cops had more important reasons for trampling all over our rights than that.

[Strike For The South]

bad joke

[solypsist]

Well whats your opinion of FDR in WW2 then? We have roadblocks here all the time just to check if we are wearing our stupid seatbellt. You would think the cops had more important reasons for trampling all over our rights than that.

here's the difference:
1. There's not a "oh no we gotta hurry" exception to the LAW. You need a warrant, you call up a judge on his cell and give him the low-down.
2. The NSA is prohibited by law from doing domestic spying no matter WHO the target is.

[Xiahou]

here's the difference:
1. There's not a "oh no we gotta hurry" exception to the LAW. You need a warrant, you call up a judge on his cell and give him the low-down.
2. The NSA is prohibited by law from doing domestic spying no matter WHO the target is.

Actually, there's a pretty big exception that's getting alot of attention in the debate that I've been following.

US Code Title 18 Ch 2511 2(f) 'Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited':

Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system, utilizing a means other than electronic surveillance as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.

It basically says that restrictions don't apply if the wiretaps or whatever are for gathering foreign intelligence. There's also some discussion about the War Powers act, but I havent bothered to delve too deeply into that.

Personally, I'd say if they're monitoring a foreign suspect to gain intelligence and that person calls someone in the US- monitor it. Where it gets mucky is if the calls originate domesticly... if this was the case, I'd be interested in hearing why they couldn't be bothered to get a rubber stamp warrant first.

[Fragony]

Every security service does this, what is the big deal.

[Geoffrey S]

It's not necessarily the fact that it happened which is the problem, but rather the high-handed way with which the Bush administration has consistently ignored or sidelined the rights of the people it's governing in the name of a war against terror; something people in the US seem to be waking up to, now.

[Lemur]

Some interesting thoughts on the domestic spying issue, as spoken by Bob Barr, R-Georgia.

BARR: What’s wrong with it is several-fold. One, it’s bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it’s bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it’s bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order.

BARR: Well, the fact of the matter is that the Constitution is the Constitution, and I took an oath to abide by it. My good friend, my former colleague, Dana Rohrabacher, did and the president did. And I don't really care very much whether or not it can be justified based on some hypothetical. The fact of the matter is that, if you have any government official who deliberately orders that federal law be violated despite the best of motives, that certainly ought to be of concern to us.

BARR: The fact of the matter is the law prohibits--specifically prohibits--what apparently was done in this case, and for a member of Congress to say, oh, that doesn’t matter, I’m proud that the president violated the law is absolutely astounding."

[Tachikaze]

Well whats your opinion of FDR in WW2 then? We have roadblocks here all the time just to check if we are wearing our stupid seatbellt. You would think the cops had more important reasons for trampling all over our rights than that.

It's a problem of perception. The popular culture showed the Iron Curtain countries as police states by including roadblocks, wire taps, etc. The Homeland Security officers that stopped us acted exactly like the border guards in those James Bond movies, except they didn't have generic eastern European accents. But Americans have the false sense that they live in a "free country".

The US public is slowly being desensitized into accepting the same kinds of police-state behavior. Once they accept one step, they will accept the next, slightly more extreme, one until the US government has unprecedented control over us and knowledge of what we are doing.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The US public is slowly being desensitized into accepting the same kinds of police-state behavior. Once they accept one step, they will accept the next, slightly more extreme, one until the US government has unprecedented control over us and knowledge of what we are doing.

Well then you and I are in agreement on one of these rare occassions. I hate whats happened to our freedoms.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I used to only see officers with assault rifles when I went into Mexico. Not long after the road block episode, I saw a gray-uniformed man standing in the main concourse of Los Angeles airport with an assault rifle.

I think the US guys probably have unloaded rifles, or at least in a position closer to 'safe' than the Mexican forces.

Well then you and I are in agreement on one of these rare occassions. I hate whats happened to our freedoms.

I too am in agreement. This is bad-but the people in congress who knew shouldn't pretend that this is something they didn't know about and act aghast.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tachikaze]

Well then you and I are in agreement on one of these rare occassions. I hate whats happened to our freedoms.

Our common views go beyond just classic movies and classic rock?

I was going to mention that this is one area where liberals and conservatives have some agreement; if not in details, in concern about excessive and illegal government control.

[Del Arroyo]

Rush' piece says that all this spying was done with the approval of a special secret court and with the full knowledge of several select members of congress. This sounds credible-- is it true?

DA

[Geoffrey S]

I was going to mention that this is one area where liberals and conservatives have some agreement; if not in details, in concern about excessive and illegal government control.

Just that both sides differ on which rights and freedoms should be allowed; left is for the freedom to choose an abortion, right is for the freedom to bear arms for instance. But the principle remains a minimum of reduction of such rights on either side.

[Devastatin Dave]

Please notice the date of when this EO was signed.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

[Geoffrey S]

And? Sucks whoever does it.

[Devastatin Dave]

And? Sucks whoever does it.

To which I agree. BTW, I wonder how many European nations have this sort of operation within their own governments to which the citizens have no knowledge of. Governments are NEVER transparent. Its hypocritical of certain congressional members to act outraged when they themselves agreed and had knowledge of this. Much like its hypocritical of people from other countries using this as some sort of vindication that the US is some sort of evil empire that spies on its citizens when most if not all governments do the exact same thing.
The bottom line is that you'd have to be extemely gullable or extremely stupid to think that this is an issue that only effects the United States.

[Devastatin Dave]

And lets not forget the strange timing of this story, a year old BTW, and the book deal of the writer of this stroy..
Newspaper fails to inform readers "news break" is tied to book publication

On the front page of today's NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter James Risen claims that "months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States... without the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."

Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.

Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting.

But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many "explosive newsbreaking" stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book -- which he turned in 3 months ago!

The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale.

"STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration" is to be published by FREE PRESS in the coming weeks, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is being published.

The book editor of Bush critic Richard Clarke [AGAINST ALL ENEMIES] signed Risen to FREE PRESS.

I guess it will take a mushroom cloud in New York next time for liberals and elites to wake up and truelly see what we're up against. When national security means less than "How can we get George Bush", we will all suffer. Mark my words. The New York Times is the Al Jazeera in the United States.

[solypsist]

Im glad that bush is preserving our freedom and saving us from terrorists. if he werent president who knows what would be happening? Its like we'd be living in a place like communist russia or china; people controlling our every actions and spying on our private conversations by tapping our phone lines and such.

[Devastatin Dave]

Im glad that bush is preserving our freedom and saving us from terrorists. if he werent president who knows what would be happening? Its like we'd be living in a place like communist russia or china; people controlling our every actions and spying on our private conversations by tapping our phone lines and such.

Laugh it up Soly, New York, with the assistance of those trying to score political points, will be hit again. Will you play a fiddle while she burns?