Bush authorized NSA to spy on Americans

Personal attack on THR Member deleted. Check your PMs

The National Security Agency is doing exactly what the National Security Agency was created to do, monitor the communications of those who are deemed threats to our nations national security.

And as already explained by HeadlessThompsonGunner there was no legal requirement for a warrant to be issued by a civilian court for our military to collect intelligence on our "enemies" in a time of war.

And before you utter something else increadibly stupid keep in mind that even citizens of the United States of America who are suspected of plotting/acting against the United States can also be classified as "enemies" as per the War Powers Act of 1917 & 1933.

Who determines that? The President & the Pentagon make those determinations, not a civilian court.

The Constitution isnt a suicide pact, stop trying to turn it into one.

Whoa .. cool the name calling.

I've read us wrestling over this thread and I'd like to recap what I've seen the last several days:

1. This dude James Risen for the New York Times ("all the news that is Left to print") published this article to pimp a book he has coming out, and the times admitted in the story that the White House did not want it published for national security reasons.

2. The President is not either ignoring or covering up this story. He is saying he did what the story says, and he is further saying that the times (capitalization missing intentionally) endangered US by publishing it. And he is pissed!

3. If it is so easy to get a FISA warrant, why did the President not do it? Think. You can throw any insult or personal assault at W you want to, but he is a political animal, as they all are. Why not do it? Why not go to this "rubberstamp" (at least according to the SMSM) court and get the warrant? Biker asserts you can go AFTER the FACT and still have the goods?
Why risk the current tempest? There HAS TO BE A REASON... Here are two:

a.security and concern about leaks.
b.speed

If you can go after the fact to "legalize" your actions, speed is not a reason.

This was a lose-lose call... If he _didn't_ authorize the high-tech wiretaps, and something nasty happened, what would you be screaming about right now? As it was, he did. And folks are getting bent out of shape about it.

Click to expand...

The way you put this indicates you have zero understanding of what is at stake here. This wasn't a choice between doing this or not doing this. This was a choice between doing this in accordance with the Constitution, which would have meant seeking a FISA warrant after the fact--no waiting involved--or doing it with blatant disregard to the Constitution, which is what the administration elected to do.

Why is this technicality important to us? Because the entire Consitution is a technicality. When the Bush administration starts sliding down this slippery slope there is no telling how low it will sink. Once they've broken the law and violated the Constitution, there is no reason for them not to do so in the future, even if that means confiscating our guns "for our own protection."

I've been amazed and even a bit impressed by the intellectual and moral backflips the Bush apologists have done to swallow this one (Clinton did it to, so shut up you Bush-bashing meanies). Well two wrongs don't make a right. I didn't vote for Clinton either.

I generally enjoy the back and forth of hot topics. This one has seen an excess of noise and precious little of value. I read every post and it wasn't until #177 that I saw the stirring of informed speculation. Some posters did an excellent point of clarifying relevant issue but by and large the content of this thread is substandard for THR.

All the while reading the thread I have a quotation running through my head by one Adolph Hitler, a mid-20th century european political figure who had some impact on the development of Chermany. The quotation I've seen attributed to him goes something like this, "You can stand there with your law books, and I'll stand here with my bayonet and we will see who prevails."

I can usually count on THR forum members to think with their heads but in the case of this thread usually logical, rational people begin to think with their hormones.

Come'on people, you've done better.

Get a warrant? How long will that take? I want the info from a captured enemy communication device in the system NOW.

Click to expand...

Bogie, I don't mean to pick on you, but the answer to your question is directly above your post:

Horse-hockey--there is a provision in the law that lets the taps be done and then you can go to the FISA court a couple of weeks later to get a warrant, if the urgency is that great.

Click to expand...

I've seen others hold your posts up as good examples of the Bush apologist argument, but the only way one can buy into your logic is if one only reads your posts and no one elses.

There are people out there plotting to contaminate/poison our food/drinking water, distribute radioactive/biological materials in our population centers, and all sorts of other diabloical schemes that I cant even begin to imagine.

Click to expand...

For the most part I try not to get between a man and his irrational fears because, frankly, I can usually figure out a way to turn those fears to my own advantage, but in this case I see a group of people manipulating this irrational fear against me--namely the Bush administration, which is using your fears to destroy my freedom. Once the President has declared himself above the law and the Constitution, our way of life has been lost. I will not tolorate that.

Personally I'm a lot more afraid of losing my constitutional rights than I am of these ephemeral terrorists who are going to drop a nuclear bomb on my city or whatever vague, undefined fears that are making some of you roll over and urinate on your soft underbellies in submission.

The logic here seems to be that if we hand over our freedom and our control of our own destiny to the government, the government will protect us and take care of everything, even though the government can't make sure my Victoria's Secret catalogs get to the right address.

I will fight this obscene desecration of our Constitutional freedom until my last breath, but if I lose, the frightened little sheeple among us will have gotten exactly what they deserve, and as Benjiman Franklin pointed out, that will be neither freedom nor safety. What we will have will be a country run in much the same way as our public school system.

Puppy said:

And before you utter something else increadibly stupid keep in mind that even citizens of the United States of America who are suspected of plotting/acting against the United States can also be classified as "enemies" as per the War Powers Act of 1917 & 1933.

Click to expand...

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said:

We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure!

-- The Gulag Archipelago

Click to expand...

Since Bush didn't need to do this for speed (already well established that he could have acted first and got the warrant after the fact), I'm guessing it's for secrecy. Not that going to the secret FISA court wasn't secure enough, but that the spectacle of agents lining up around the block to submit for warrants would have aroused submission.

With 30,000+ "national security letters" with gag orders being issued every year since Patriot[sic] Act, I'm guessing that the sheer volume of these wiretaps is what's going to be staggering.

Puppy said:

Mindpilot,

Are you retarded?

The National Security Agency is doing exactly what the National Security Agency was created to do, monitor the communications of those who are deemed threats to our nations national security.

And as already explained by HeadlessThompsonGunner there was no legal requirement for a warrant to be issued by a civilian court for our military to collect intelligence on our "enemies" in a time of war.

And before you utter something else increadibly stupid keep in mind that even citizens of the United States of America who are suspected of plotting/acting against the United States can also be classified as "enemies" as per the War Powers Act of 1917 & 1933.

Who determines that? The President & the Pentagon make those determinations, not a civilian court.

The Constitution isnt a suicide pact, stop trying to turn it into one.

Click to expand...

No PUPPET, I am well versed in the laws that apply to the Agencies of certain Departments in this country, What I am not versed in is the making up of laws as WE (GW) goes along to support his agenda. In the end the Supreme Court Decides not the NSA, FBI, or CIA. They are all in the same gene pool that got....washed.

Doing some more research, it appears that the time limit is 72 hours -- so the NSA/FBI/whoever can implement the tap, then they have 72 hours to go get it approved by the court. I guess that if the court dis-approves, they would have to terminate the tap, but that is just my assumption at this time.

Click to expand...

Since 1978 government spies have sought tens of thousands of FISA warrants. They have been denied only five times, so that is a non-issue. Of course it wouldn't be a non-issue if the Bush administration started wire tapping people in a reckless, unjustified, and possibly illegal fashion, say, for example, political opponents who have no connections to terrorism whatsoever. I assume that most of us are law-abiding citizens or we would have trouble purchasing guns and getting carry permits. If the NSA started spying on us, they might run into trouble getting FISA warrants to tap our phones and bug our houses.

So ask yourself why would Bush even consider breaking the FISA law? Could it be that his definition of terrorist differs from that used by a reasonable court? What if he broadened the definition to include anyone who has legally purchased a firearm in the past 10 years, for example?

Now don't you all feel safer?

mindpilot said:

What I am not versed in is the making up of laws as WE (GW) goes along to support his agenda...

Click to expand...

Did you not hear the president say two years previous that this is a different kind of war? Do you expect the terrorists to play by the established rules of warfare? Will they seek a court's permission before they detonate bombs on buses, blow up stadiums, or worse? Why are you handicapping the same government you expect to protect you?

Have you been harmed by the Patriot Act? Explain when and where... Or are you doing your best Chicken Little act?

I see Barbara Boxer liberal leftism in your emotion... this is not an emotional issue but one of survival... why are you handicapping the government in this war against terror?

Waitone said:

I read every post and it wasn't until #177 that I saw the stirring of informed speculation.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Waitone.

Camp David said:

Why are you handicapping the same government you expect to protect you?

Click to expand...

I thought no member of this forum relied on the government, the police, or any other authority for protection. That's why everyone has an AR-15 or some AK variant, right?

I do not think that this is an abuse of power... Siccin' the IRS on political enemies... Now _that's_ an abuse of power... But did we hear much about that in the mass media?

Our people need the intelligence _now_ (no meetings to concur that it may be something they'd want to pursue a warrant on... etc... no penalty), and they need it to be SECURE. How many of these FISA warrants are disallowed? I'm guessing that what we're talking about is essentially nothing but a bureaucratic nicety... Thing is - I want things to be easy. I don't want some low-level person worrying about his career - I want him doing his job. The NSA can do this. The FBI doesn't have the equipment or the knowledge. Just because your wife tells you to use that little tack hammer from her toy toolkit on the spike you're putting in the deck doesn't mean that you're gonna take two hours to do it - you walk to the garage, and get the 28 oz framer...

We have a clear cut goal in this issue.

Which, in case some of y'all have forgotten, involves nailing islamic terrorists to the floor.

I _trust_ the average American, even those in government service. If there was a wide-ranging campaign of listening to Americans, don't you think we'd have heard a major leak about it by now? Besides, do you think they've got the resources? I'm sure they're stretched pretty thin, even with some serious capability, with just info from Iraq and the resulting linkages. Ever notice the intense need for Arabic translators?

These guys are listening to Abduhl and his buddies, and I don't have a problem with that. What I |_do_ have a problem with is that now Abduhl can't have missed the frenzy, and now he's going to change tactics. Our intelligence guys are back to square one on data gathering. Thanks, NYT...

Since 1978 government spies have sought tens of thousands of FISA warrants. They have been denied only five times, so that is a non-issue. Of course it wouldn't be a non-issue if the Bush administration started wire tapping people in a reckless, unjustified, and possibly illegal fashion, say, for example, political opponents who have no connections to terrorism whatsoever. I assume that most of us are law-abiding citizens or we would have trouble purchasing guns and getting carry permits. If the NSA started spying on us, they might run into trouble getting FISA warrants to tap our phones and bug our houses.
So ask yourself why would Bush even consider breaking the FISA law? Could it be that his definition of terrorist differs from that used by a reasonable court? What if he broadened the definition to include anyone who has legally Purchased a firearm in the past 10 years, for example?

Now don't you all feel safer?

Click to expand...

I am afraid that I have to agreee with Lobotomy Boy here that is the only thing that makes sense, Bush must have been approving wiretaps on folks where he would not have been able to make a arguement for a warrant from FISA.

I'm thinking it was members of the news media, and other politically connected individuals who could have found out and made a big stink.

Otherwise it makes no sense at all.

As far as war powers go, it makes no sense that the govt. can show up at your door and shoot you in the head a couple of times because it looks like you might be a terrorist and thats OK. But they cant listen in on your phone calls.

For the most part I try not to get between a man and his irrational fears because, frankly, I can usually figure out a way to turn those fears to my own advantage, but in this case I see a group of people manipulating this irrational fear against me--namely the Bush administration, which is using your fears to destroy my freedom. Once the President has declared himself above the law and the Constitution, our way of life has been lost. I will not tolorate that.

Click to expand...

You know, you must be right - these fears about terrorists must be irrational. I mean, there's no way that they could get a few folks together and do something like flying a couple of improvised cruise missiles into major buildings...

Mongo the Mutterer said:

Whoa .. cool the name calling.

I've read us wrestling over this thread and I'd like to recap what I've seen the last several days:

<snip>

3. If it is so easy to get a FISA warrant, why did the President not do it? Think. You can throw any insult or personal assault at W you want to, but he is a political animal, as they all are. Why not do it? Why not go to this "rubberstamp" (at least according to the SMSM) court and get the warrant? Biker asserts you can go AFTER the FACT and still have the goods?
Why risk the current tempest? There HAS TO BE A REASON... Here are two:

a.security and concern about leaks.
b.speed

If you can go after the fact to "legalize" your actions, speed is not a reason.

Click to expand...

Mongo, what you say is correct, however the "issues" both come into play. Since the press has once again outed specific methods and procedures, lets take a look at what has been released- the TLA monitors "specific" overseas numbers...
1.) One of those numbers calls a phone in the USA... IMMEDIATE monitoring is required, so no time for a FISA warrant ahead of time. The phone number is a payphone... No FISA as there is no "person" attached to that phone.
2.) There is one call to a number with multiple persons living at the location... Whom do you FISA? They may all be RA or Illegals... FISA does not apply as they are not US citizens.
3.) If more than two people know something, it's no longer a secret... Especially if they are media or politicians- They will blow security in a heartbeat to advance their own agendas... e.g. NYT
4.) We are still at WAR- The war powers act allows certain occurances outside normal constitutional rights via Presidential Findings.
5.) Anybody that really believes they have a right to privacy in either phone calls or emails is not accepting reality. Echelon and Carnivore (and a few more) are out there to protect the US, as there are no where near enough boots on the ground to actually cover all the potential bad guys with analysts. Remember the statements after 9/11? 2-3 analyst working 2-3000 intercepts a day- and these are snippets not plain language. It's really easy in hindsight to see the pattern (of course at that point you "know" who to look at); Phone calls are routinely monitored by Overseas operators, third parties, disparate intelligence agencies (non-US) and others including the phone companies. I have personally been in overseas locations where we "knew" phones were being monitored, due to what happened with selected calls.
My .02 is that what we are doing is correct, I don't care if they monitor my phone and email; if it helps catch the terrorists, or stops some of the leaks and prevents another attack here, more power to them, and maybe they correct some of my punctuation

Camp David said:

Did you not hear the president say two years previous that this is a different kind of war? Do you expect the terrorists to play by the established rules of warfare? Will they seek a court's permission before they detonate bombs on buses, blow up stadiums, or worse? Why are you handicapping the same government you expect to protect you?

Have you been harmed by the Patriot Act? Explain when and where... Or are you doing your best Chicken Little act?

I see Barbara Boxer liberal leftism in your emotion... this is not an emotional issue but one of survival... why are you handicapping the government in this war against terror?

Click to expand...

Given that people potentially harmed by the Patriot Act either may not know it yet (Section 505 sneak n peek warrants) or may be prevented from talking about it (Section 515 National Security Letters), your question is obviously tongue-in-cheek.

And given that there are at least three cases pending on those sections (two of them have US District Court rulings saying relevant parts of section 505 and 515 are unconstitutional, the third hasn't been heard yet), the constitutionality issue is at best (for you) undecided.

bogie said:

You know, you must be right - these fears about terrorists must be irrational. I mean, there's no way that they could get a few folks together and do something like flying a couple of improvised cruise missiles into major buildings...

Click to expand...

Yeah, and these fears about executive abuse of power must be irrational, too. I mean, there's no way that the President would want to use dirty tricks or enemies lists or FBI records to investigate and subvert political opponents and/or antiwar organizations, or lie about the conduct of a war, or try to prevent newspapers from revealing those lies.

Igloodude said:

Given that people potentially harmed by the Patriot Act either may not know it.

Click to expand...

Potentially Harmed? May not know it?

WOW!

Are you similarly concerned about neurotoxins given off by Martians that may have landed in New Hampshire?

bogie said:

These guys are listening to Abduhl and his buddies, and I don't have a problem with that.

Click to expand...

Holy national security leaks! You've heard the tapes and can verify? No, wait, you just accept the word of a man who is above the concept of checks and balances.

bogie said:

What I |_do_ have a problem with is that now Abduhl can't have missed the frenzy, and now he's going to change tactics. Our intelligence guys are back to square one on data gathering. Thanks, NYT...

Click to expand...

This is still BS, but I guess you have to keep repeating things to
Catapult the Propaganda

MarkDido said:

Yeah, America would be so much of a hap-hap-happier place had the poodle been elected..... :banghead:

Click to expand...

I should've been more clear. If by the 'poodle' you mean Kerry, I don't truly know if we'd be better off with him or not, but I doubt it. I didn't vote for Kerry or Bush.
Biker

Biker said:

I didn't vote for Kerry or Bush.

Click to expand...

So you voted for which 3rd party candidate in last election? Just curious...

Camp David said:

Potentially Harmed? May not know it?

WOW!

Are you similarly concerned about neurotoxins given off by Martians that may have landed in New Hampshire?

Click to expand...

Sorry, you're going to have to come up with something other than taunting at some point. I can prove that hundreds of people have been "potentially harmed" and "may not know it", if you can prove anything about alien neurotoxins in New Hampshire I'd appreciate a link.

The FBI, with only a piece of paper signed by the special agent in charge of your local FBI office, can demand detailed information about your private Internet communications directly from your ISP without court review or approval, without you being suspected of a crime, and without ever having to tell you that it happened. The National Security Letters used to do this are real, and have been used on hundreds of people, the exact list of who they've been used on is available here: http://www.aclu.org/patriot_foia/FOIA/NSLlists.pdf

Camp David said:

So you voted for which 3rd party candidate in last election? Just curious...

Click to expand...

I went Libertarian last election although I voted for Bush in 2000.
Biker

Igloodude said:

I can prove that hundreds of people have been "potentially harmed

Click to expand...

How about real proof of one (1) person being really harmed, rather than the hundreds you imagine and the outrage you assume? How about yourself? Have you been harmed?