Bush allowed NSA to spy within USA without warrants

[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.