Bush allowed NSA to spy within USA without warrants

[Strike For The South]

Phone taps and other things of that natuire could be of extreme use to the goverment. The police use them all the time. This is not the USSR we are not going to see Ted Kenedy dissaper from his bed. This is completly blown way out of proportion

[Kanamori]

Yet Bush appears to have overstepped his bounds by bypassing the courts; it isn't his place to tell us who is and who isn't worthy of being tapped or spied on, no matter how sound his judgement may have been in this case.

[Xiahou]

This is not the USSR we are not going to see Ted Kenedy dissaper from his bed.

And if he does, it's just because he's out getting drunk again.

[Strike For The South]

Yet Bush appears to have overstepped his bounds by bypassing the courts; it isn't his place to tell us who is and who isn't worthy of being tapped or spied on, no matter how sound his judgement may have been in this case.

That sort of worries me but former presidnets have done much worse without damage to the nation. The wire taps however do not bother me the police do this and we never here any complaints. This is sadly another attempent to make Bush out to be some facist dictator.

[Geoffrey S]

That sort of worries me but former presidnets have done much worse without damage to the nation. The wire taps however do not bother me the police do this and we never here any complaints. This is sadly another attempent to make Bush out to be some facist dictator.

Seperation of the executive, legislative and judiciary powers isn't without its reasons, y'know, and Bush clearly overstepped his bounds here.

[Strike For The South]

Seperation of the executive, legislative and judiciary powers isn't without its reasons, y'know, and Bush clearly overstepped his bounds here.

I quite understand that. Nothing will come of this. The PR investagation will turn friutless and this will eventually become backpage news. If you think goverments wernt already doing this you are sadly mistaken brotha man. Agian we will not see politcal rivales commit "suicide" members of the media dissaper. This is overblown

[Geoffrey S]

I quite understand that. Nothing will come of this. The PR investagation will turn friutless and this will eventually become backpage news. If you think goverments wernt already doing this you are sadly mistaken brotha man. Agian we will not see politcal rivales commit "suicide" members of the media dissaper. This is overblown

As I said earlier, I realise this happens in other cases and I object to that also; what makes this important is the fact it was such a blatant misuse of the President's jurisdiction, when it wasn't even entirely necessary. Heck, that it took so long for it to come out in the open shows how proud of these actions they are.

[Strike For The South]

As I said earlier, I realise this happens in other cases and I object to that also; what makes this important is the fact it was such a blatant misuse of the President's jurisdiction, when it wasn't even entirely necessary. Heck, that it took so long for it to come out in the open shows how proud of these actions they are.

Well than I agree the president overstepped his bounderies whether it be for good or not he did. Unfortuantly nothing will be done

[solypsist]

Thought this was kind of funny:

Bush Announces Do-Not-Wiretap List

(2005-12-19) — Just days after the New York Times released classified information about eavesdropping by the NSA on Americans linked to international terrorists, President George Bush at a news conference today announced creation of a new website which allows people to voluntarily exclude their phone numbers and email addresses from NSA wiretap lists.

The new National Do Not Wiretap Registry (DoNotWiretap.gov) follows the successful DoNotCall.gov model of allowing citizens to opt-out of harassment by electronic means.

“If you’re concerned that your civil rights might be violated simply because some al Qaeda member has your information in his cellphone or computer,” the president said, “then go to DoNotWiretap.gov, enter your contact phone number, email address, and names of terrorists who might have you on speed dial and we’ll let the National Security Administration know that you don’t want them eavesdropping on you.”

[Kanamori]

OK, I feel better now.

[Tribesman]

Right , all the Americans who have posted in this topic are now guilty of treason .
Your muppet of a leader has spoken . Discussing this issue is giving aid to the enemy , please turn yourselves in to the nearest police station you traitorous dogs .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Does anyone here have any proof that Bush overstepped his bounds? Ive never seen so much BS.

A former Ohio congressman, a man by the name of Clement Vallandigham called the prosecution of the Civil War wicked and cruel and he suggested that Lincoln and the Republican Party were using the Civil War to establish a dictatorship. Troops of the 115th Ohio Volunteer Infantry seized Clement Vallandigham from his home in Dayton. A military commission tried him for treasonable utterances and turned him over to the confederate army. Jefferson Davis didn't want Vallandigham any more than Lincoln did and eventually shipped him off to Canada from where he managed to slip back into the United States. Abraham Lincoln lamented, "Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert?" Why, this conjures up all kinds of fun things! Grabbing Dingy Harry, putting him on trial, and expelling him to the remote regions of Pakistan where Al-Qaeda is holing up. That's interesting to contemplate. Abraham Lincoln did it. I don't know how he ever got a monument. The Democrats must have been looking the other way. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," Abraham Lincoln. This is exactly how the Democrats would like it to read today. It is a suicide pact. We must extend constitutional rights to enemy combatants, according to the left, according to Senator McCain. We have the Tim Russert sound bite. Can we play that, please? Here's Russert. This is after the president's press conference today.

RUSSERT: The reason we go to war is to protect our civil liberties. Constant references obviously to President Nixon back in '72 who tried to monitor, eavesdrop on American citizens and the Supreme Court said, no, you can't do that. I remember President Nixon having the doctrine of preventive detention where he would arrest war demonstrators ahead of time and here in Washington put them into RFK stadium and the courts threw that out.

RUSH: Russert, yesterday, the Meet the Press show today, can't get off of Nixon. He can't get off of Watergate. Because that's the mode; that's the template: Bush is Nixon. This is Watergate. The war is Vietnam -- and they're not going to stop until they convince the American people of this. We don't go to war to protect our civil liberties; we go to war to save our lives. Our civil liberties are worthless if we are dead. If we have all assumed room temperature, folks, our civil liberties don't count diddly-squat. Again, I have to ask these people, what civil liberty is being violated here? I would love for the press to answer this question, what civil liberties are we losing? The press can be as disloyal to the country as they've ever been, nobody is stopping them from being anti-American or their reporting being anti-American. Take it back. Pat Fitzgerald put a woman in jail, but they wanted that prosecutor. They wanted that case.


FDR? Did he protect civil liberties when he rounded up 110,000 Japanese and moved them from their homes and businesses to internment camps? And Lincoln suspended habeas corpus? Lincoln actually deported somebody he thought was just an agitator? Somebody he thought was just an agitator? How about RFK, Robert F. Kennedy, authorizing the wiretapping of Martin Luther King, Jr.? Last I looked, Lincoln and FDR are among our greatest presidents ever, among our greatest civil libertarians ever. You want to test this, go tell some Democrat friend of yours that FDR was no friend of civil liberties. See what you get. They think he's the greatest guy we've ever had, and RFK the greatest president we almost had is also considered to be a fabulous guy and he's out there wiretapping Martin Luther King. Are these the kind of civil liberties these people are talking about? I need to have this answered because I can round up all kinds of Democrats that violate civil liberties left and right in the prosecution of war because the Constitution is not a death sentence, Abraham Lincoln. It's not a suicide pact.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: You want to hear some more history? Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus when he had reporters thrown into prison, because they wrote against him in the union. He threw nine members of the Maryland legislature into prison to prevent that state from possibly pulling out of the union. This is all history and when you understand history, it will put him in even greater context just how legally and in a restrained fashion Bush is fighting this war. Lincoln is one of our greatest presidents ever. Here he deports an agitator to the south. The south, "We don't want the guy." They recognize a traitor when they see one. They send him to Canada. Can you imagine sending Dingy Harry over to Pakistan or Afghanistan? Ha-ha! Can you imagine putting New York Times reporters in jail? Except the president didn't do that. Sorry, the prosecutor they asked for did. Can you imagine the president doing this? Folks, folks, I can't tell you what I would do if the president decided to put the press in jail. (Gasping)

We are in the midst of a war, and when you understand that everything changes -- and if you don't have a historical context for these kinds of things, if you think history began the day you were born, and so nothing that has happened outside your lifetime is relevant, you're not going to understand the important things about the country's past and preserving our country's future. This business of going to war to protect civil liberties that Tim Russert's been on the past couple days, the Supreme Court has made clear that at a time of war the president has inherent powers to protect national security. That's why there's one commander-in-chief and not 535 of them. The court's made a distinction between the criminal justice system and military actions, including intelligence activities related to national security. It's all in the opinions, Tim, go read the opinions, they're right there for everybody to read. You people in the media can read these opinions. They're worried about judicial review, go review some judicial works. It's all in there. It's why some of this stuff is so frustrating. I watched these people ask the president questions and comment, and it's clear they don't know any history, either. Can you imagine the argument you would get into with your average run-of-the-mill White House reporter if sit them down and say, "You know what Lincoln did to people like you? Put you in jail!"

"He did not!"

"Yes, he did."

"Well, he must have had a reason."

They can't really complain about Lincoln because he ended slavery. How can they start criticizing Lincoln, the libs? And you know what else he did? He put nine members of the Maryland legislature in jail too, and he suspended the writ of habeas corpus and he deported some former congressman from Ohio who was an agitator, and you think what's going on now poses a threat to the country? You're the threat! But you send an average reporter down and give them just this little bit of history and I guarantee you it will be all over the world that Limbaugh lies, makes things up just to fit his context. They won't even bother looking it up, they'll find it so absurd.

"Not possible in this country," they'll say.

LINK

Or better yet try this out for size.

December 19, 2005, 8:59 a.m.
Unwarranted Outrage
The Times blew our cover.



I have no doubt that revelations in the New York Times that the NSA has been conducting selective and limited surveillance of terrorist communications crossing into or out of the United States will be immensely valuable to our enemies. I also have no doubt that these and similar actions can be legal, even when conducted without warrants.




How could that be? From the sound and fury of the last few days from politicians and pundits, you would think this is a development as scandalous as Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's authorization to wiretap Martin Luther King Jr. But the legality of the acts can be demonstrated with a look through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). For example, check out section 1802, "Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order." It is most instructive. There you will learn that "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year" (emphasis mine).

Naturally, there are conditions. For example, the surveillance must be aimed at "the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers." Wait, is a terrorist group considered a foreign power? Yes, as defined in section 1801, subsection (a), "foreign power" can mean "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore," though the statue language would explicitly apply to "a faction of a foreign nation or nations."

But isn't international terrorism that which takes place abroad, as opposed to homegrown domestic terrorism? Not exactly: Section 1801 subsection (c) defines international terrorism as, among other things, terrorist actions that "occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum." So if you are hiding, making plans, facilitating, attacking, or intending to spread fear inside the US, and have a link abroad, you are an international terrorist. Quite sensible.

O.K. fine, but what about the condition that there be "no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party?" Doesn't that necessarily cut out any and all communication that is domestic in origin or destination? Well, not quite. Return to section 1801, subsection (i): "United States person," which includes citizens, legal aliens, and businesses, explicitly "does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power."

Well sure, but does that mean that even if you are a citizen you cash in your abovementioned rights by collaborating with terrorists? Yes you do. You have then become an "Agent of a foreign power" as defined under subsection (b)(2)(C). Such agents include anyone who "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power," and even includes those who aid and abet or knowingly conspire with those engaged in such behavior.

Wait, that includes anyone, even citizens? Yes — subsection (b)(1) is the part that applies to foreigners; (b)(2) covers everybody. And the whole point of the act is to collect "foreign intelligence information," which is defined under section 1801 subsection (e)(1)(B) as "information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

Whoa, you say, that is way too much power for the president to wield without checks and balances! Well, true, and since Congress wrote this law, they included reporting requirements. The attorney general must report to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 30 days prior to the surveillance, except in cases of emergency, when he must report immediately. He must furthermore "fully inform" those committees on a semiannual basis thereafter, per section 1808 subsection (a). He must also send a copy of the surveillance authorization under seal to the so-called FISA Court as established in section 1803; not for a warrant, but to remain under seal unless certification is necessary under future court actions from aggrieved parties under section 1806 (f).

This is significant, because it means that some of the same politicians who have been charging abuse of power may also have been briefed on what was going on long ago. The White House should get ahead of the story by noting which congressmen were informed of these activities, instead of allowing them to grandstand so shamelessly. It would also help if the White House released some information on how the surveillance has helped keep the country safe. What attacks were disrupted, what terrorists were taken down, how many people saved? A few declassified examples would be very useful to ground the discussion in reality rather than rhetoric.

So how do the revelations in the Times help the terrorists? Think it through — if you were a terrorist and you believed (as most people seem to) that the NSA would ignore your communications if they crossed U.S. borders, your best move would be to set up communications relay stations inside the U.S. Terrorists are well known for their ability to find and exploit loopholes in our laws, and this would be a natural. For all we know our intelligence agencies have been exploiting these types of communications for years without the terrorists knowing it. Now they will fall silent, because now the bad guys know better. So New York Times writer James Risen will sell his book, the Times will increase circulation, politicians will beat their breasts and send out fundraising letters, and who will pay in the end?

You can answer that one.

LINKhttp://www.nationalreview.com/robbin...0512190859.asp

[Red Harvest]

I won't have much time for the Backroom for the next few weeks, but this latest revelation only further illustrates the abuse of power that characterizes this administration from stem to stern.

This one is gonna cost him. Why? The problem is that from what I heard a few minutes ago, the existing law already allows the NSA to go to the court *retro-actively* for approval on urgent matters. The whole defense of having to wait appears to be a SMOKESCREEN. There is no need to bypass the law.

Bush seems to be determined to get himself impeached. The real question is will the public catch on, or will the GOP be able to stuff another skeleton back in the closet?

The biggest threat to our country is not Osama, terrorism, Iran, China, or North Korea. The biggest threat to the country is of having our liberties and open society undermined by a president and administration utterly lacking in judgement, ethics, veracity, competence to govern, and basic scruples. They can do far more damage from inside, than anyone else can from outside.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This one is gonna cost him. Why? The problem is that from what I heard a few minutes ago, the existing law already allows the NSA to go to the court *retro-actively* for approval on urgent matters. The whole defense of having to wait appears to be a SMOKESCREEN. There is no need to bypass the law.

And if you read the article I posted you will see that he didnt. It was no secret and congress was consulted.

[Red Harvest]

And if you read the article I posted you will see that he didnt. It was no secret and congress was consulted.

Your Rush article? That oxycontin freak can't find his butt with both hands intellectually. He's going on about Lincoln and the Civil War when the nation had literally been torn in two. His articles are half truths at best, I prefer sources that contain at least some shred of intellectual honesty. Rush is an entertainer, like Stern.

Or the 2nd article? Talk about flawed logic. The author is doing a lot of twisting to try to extend the exemption, labeling citizens agents of foreign powers without ever providing proof that they are indeed agents as such. (Just trust Dubya?) Not to mention that the foreign power definition itself is quite stretched in the context, since they represent no known government and might indeed be homegrown entities. That's the reason the check step is there. So rather than having some idiot boot licking minion sign off ("Here Brownie, sign this for me") he should be getting some judicial authorization. He of course finishes with the standard GOP conservative line, that those questioning the president are aiding terrorists. I think we should be allowed to take the author out and beat him senseless...although it appears that wouldn't be much of a beating...or perhaps none.

But the best part is the defense of lack of oversight being responsible for Dubya's actions. It's always the other guy that is responsible for him abusing his powers. As with the WMD intelligence our lawmakers were not adequately or accurately informed by the Administration. Even GOP members are saying so on this one. THEY do not feel properly informed. Dubya can get away with misleading them, he's done it before. It isn't so easy when he has to do it through a judge rather than through an appendage of his party's apparatus that happens to be Congress.

Thank God for the Free Press. I feel safer knowing they are out there, rather than relying on Dubya' judgement.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Thank God for the Free Press. I feel safer knowing they are out there, rather than relying on Dubya' judgement.

Your deluding yourself if that makes you feel safer. I suppose you feel safer without the patriot act also. Next you will be telling me you feel safer without the armed forces. You will see this like all the other crap theve tried to pin on Bush will come back to bite them.

[Red Harvest]

Your deluding yourself if that makes you feel safer. I suppose you feel safer without the patriot act also. Next you will be telling me you feel safer without the armed forces. You will see this like all the other crap theve tried to pin on Bush will come back to bite them.

LOL, no, I don't think it has bitten them. Dubya is certainly making his mark in history, and none of it in a positive way. I am enjoying watching the sense of shock and discovery of others as they realize how this country has really been run for the past 5 years. They didn't want to believe any of it.

I'm happy with the armed forces, just not the civilian leadership of it at the moment. I've been pretty clear about that. And I'm still getting a big contented chuckle over the backtracking by the Admin to say we are going to start drawing down soon and be way down by the end of 2006. Sound familiar? They must be cutting and running right?

I see some serious vulnerabilities for the GOP in 2006. The Democrats could easily turn the tables on "family values" and religious conservatism by playing to the independents with a different bent. The religious side is easy: just point out that the GOP leaders talk about God alot, but Jesus is never in their message. Remind people that it is called "Christianity" for a reason...one that the Old Testament GOP seems utterly unaware of with the "greed is good" approach to everything. GOP = Grand Old Pharisees, empty phrases, meaningless symbology, and ineffective, non-compasionate government.

[Xiahou]

I'm happy with the armed forces, just not the civilian leadership of it at the moment. I've been pretty clear about that. And I'm still getting a big contented chuckle over the backtracking by the Admin to say we are going to start drawing down soon and be way down by the end of 2006. Sound familiar? They must be cutting and running right?

Yeah, that does sound familiar.... a post election drawdown has been planned for how many months now? But no, I'm sure what they're doing is adopting the Murtha "immediate withdrawal" plan....

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Just to show you how silly the title of this thread is listen here. Like Bush started this.

[BDC]

The new National Do Not Wiretap Registry (DoNotWiretap.gov) follows the successful DoNotCall.gov model of allowing citizens to opt-out of harassment by electronic means.

Also known as ImATerroristBugMe.gov.

[Red Harvest]

Yeah, that does sound familiar.... a post election drawdown has been planned for how many months now? But no, I'm sure what they're doing is adopting the Murtha "immediate withdrawal" plan....

We are drifting off topic...
but you are stepping off a cliff with this one: Lots of draw downs have been planned by the Administration for the past several years. Lots of projections have been made about how this event or that would allow us to draw down. And what has happened? We've continued to trickle in more instead because the insurgency has not weakened.

How many times have we heard that this election or event was the reason for increased attacks/security? Only to be followed by another a few months later. That is why Americans have not seen progress and stopped believing the message. If you are wrong a half a dozen times on your projections on a subject, and never right, then you have a credibility problem.

Credibility problems...like those here and in the Admin who were claiming we should be building up during the Murtha stir, but are now "cutting and running" by going to this "planned" drawdown. At the same time they are claiming: no timetable. Yet now they say this was the timetable all along. So which side of their mouths are they lying out of?

Nah, the truth is that the Admin and the GOP now realize they have to work on an actual exit. The American majority has clearly said it wants a plan to get out, not more thrashing about looking for a plan to stabilize the country with inadequate levels of troops. The face saving move is amusing. Bush/bubble boy even took the rare step of multiple addresses and taking questions. It is rare that the emperor allows such an audience to any of his subjects.

Murtha's plan was not immediate withdrawal--that's the GOP/Admin spin. You know, like "compassionate conservative" and "mission accomplished" or "Browine, you're doing a heckuva job!"

[solypsist]

our presence will soon only be enough forces to protect oilfields and pipelines.

Yeah, that does sound familiar.... a post election drawdown has been planned for how many months now? But no, I'm sure what they're doing is adopting the Murtha "immediate withdrawal" plan....

[solypsist]

Domestic Surveillance: Spooks React

"A few current and former signals intelligence guys have been checking in since this NSA domestic spying story broke. Their reactions range between midly creeped out and completely pissed off.

All of the sigint specialists emphasized repeatedly that keeping tabs on Americans is way beyond the bounds of what they ordinarily do -- no matter what the conspiracy crowd may think.

"It's drilled into you from minute one that you should not ever, ever, ever, under any _______ circumstances turn this massive apparatus on an American citizen," one source says. "You do a lot of weird ____. But at least you don't ____ with your own people."

[Red Harvest]

You've of course seen the Newsweek online commentary that says Bush tried to personally get the NYT article killed. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

Yes, it is an editorial commentary, and empties both barrels on Bush, but it does ring true on the particulars. All of the information I've seen suggests that the supposed restriction Bush was claiming to need to avoid DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST. In other words, the President and everyone in his administration that has commented on this is LYING to us again. Yes, it is a lie, because it is intentional and they know it is false.

By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
Updated: 6:17 p.m. ET Dec. 19, 2005
Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting,
but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow—as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way required extra-constitutional action.

This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.

In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor Turner Catledge that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba.

This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

[Major Robert Dump]

Although the timing and "intent" of the people who broke the story is conspicuous, it does not change the facts of what has happened.

Although the issue really wasnt a "secret" within some of the circles now complaining, it does not change the facts of what has happened.

FISA allows for quick approval of wiretapping requests. Since 1979 it has approved thousands of requests and only rejected four, and many of these requests were approved after the act was done, making it an after-the-fact warrant in some cases. The taps were arrpoved within hours and sometimes within minutes, and like i just said they could be approved AFTER THE FACT

The Whitehouse would have you believe that FISA was a slow process, which it was not. Bush trying to kill the story had less to do with national security and more to do with saving face.

Classic politics on both sides.

And as far as jeopordizing national security by discussing this issue, that is based on presumption after presumption. Yes, the terorrists will find new ways to communicate now, IF they already hadnt. I would also like to see the info on "who" was wiretapped and whether or not the incidents exonerated or proved guilt of the individuals being watched. If it wasn't effective to begin with, then how are we being hurt by not doing it anymore or by talking about it.

I find it odd that no one is talking about the FISA and how this secret wiretapping essentially did the same thing FISA did so why was it being done?

And please, stop comparing Bush to Lincoln.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And please, stop comparing Bush to Lincoln.

Yes Linclon openly trampled all over our civil rights.

[Xiahou]

It's not going to make it smell any better, but here is further legal cover for warrantless monitoring... Here's testimony by Jamie Gorelick during the Clinton administration when they were doing essentially the same thing:

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

link

Here is a link to the text of Executive Order 12333, put forth by Reagan. I believe this is the relevant part:

2.5 Attorney General Approval. The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order.

Basically allowing for the AG to approve warrantless searches/wiretaps if it's directed against a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.

That brings me to a whole other mess- Executive Orders. They basically have the force of law and are put into effect with no Congressional approval and are often, imo, an abuse of executive power- but they're a fact of life... which is the whole point- You can say the whole thing stinks, but it's going to be very difficult to show that it was illegal.

[Red Harvest]

Yes Linclon openly trampled all over our civil rights.

Really? I didn't think you were THAT old. I know I'm not.

Typical tactic, compare the current person being defending to someone you think was an utter curr. I fail to see how doing that strengthens the argument in any way? You say that Lincoln abused his power and that is your defense??? Defendant hurriedly rises: "Your Honor, I would like to request new counsel on the grounds that my current counsel is incompetent."

Don't compare Bush to Lincoln, it is wholly inappropriate. Nixon is far closer to the mark and in the same basic era.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You say that Lincoln abused his power and that is your defense???

No Im saying much as I dislike it , it was within his power. Same for FDR. Why do you think it is that congress created the war powers act. It was to handcuff the president not help him. If war were to be declared Bush could do a lot more than this.

And lets look at that article you posted Red

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker.

Did Bush tell him this? Do you think Bush sees himself as a law breaker? Or is it in reality this guys opinion?

And this part as well

This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.

Hes reporting it like facts and not opinion. But then your big on using opinions as facts as well.

[Lemur]

Yes yes yes, Lincoln and Clinton were bad, so Bush gets a pass on everything. I think we've all heard this before.

On a more interesting note, you may want to read some of the reactions coming in from professional spooks. Linky.

A few current and former signals intelligence guys have been checking in since this NSA domestic spying story broke. Their reactions range between midly creeped out and completely pissed off.

All of the sigint specialists emphasized repeatedly that keeping tabs on Americans is way beyond the bounds of what they ordinarily do -- no matter what the conspiracy crowd may think.

"It's drilled into you from minute one that you should not ever, ever, ever, under any ****** circumstances turn this massive apparatus on an American citizen," one source says. "You do a lot of weird ****. But at least you don't **** with your own people."