Bush authorized NSA to spy on Americans

[Art Eatman]

Yeah, Echelon and Carnivore. The Echelon thing was all over the Internet back before Bush, IIRC. The technology exists, and governments are gonna use it. Have been using it.

Hey, figure it like this: Clinton told us how much fun it is to be able to sign an Executive Order. That makes it all legal. So, Bush did the same. What's the problem?

Since when does anybody at THR think that "privacy" has any meaning? Privacy's been gone for so long that it's not even something to complain about. It's like worrying about whether your GGG-great-grandfather preferred suspenders to belts.

Having grown up in a world with a fair amount of privacy, I sure don't care much for this Brave(?) New World we've managed to bring about. I just don't see the point of wasting breath or bandwidth over dry bones.

Art

 

[Camp David]

NEW YORK - President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States — without getting search warrants — following the Sept. 11 attacks, The New York Times reports...

Why is this a surprise? That is precisely what the NSA is suppose to do! This is what is called a non-story, surfaced by the liberal ass New York Times yesterday to sink the Patriot Act renewal in Congress.

Result of this story should be immediate arrest of New York Times reporter and editor for treason...

 

[Shmackey]

Why is this a surprise? That is precisely what the NSA is suppose to do! This is what is called a non-story, surfaced by the liberal ass New York Times yesterday to sink the Patriot Act renewal in Congress.

Result of this story should be immediate arrest of New York Times reporter and editor for treason...

The "liberal-ass New York Times" agreed to ChimpCo's request to sit on this story for at least a year. (Gee, wonder what was happening just over a year ago...) The so-called liberal Times is ass-deep in this, and on the wrong side.

Like seansean said: anyone who supports this is a sheep. Supporting it just because it comes from a leader you like just makes you a fascist idiot sheep.

 

[hso]

I'm not going to clap my hands in glee over this nor am I going to leap to defend the President.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power.
Requests for surveilance are adjudicated by a special eleven member court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. All of this came about due government violations of the 4th ammendment during the 60's and 70's under the guise of national security with programs like NSA's Operation Shamrock and Operation Minaret, CIA's Operation CHAOS, the FBI's COINTELPRO. The supreme court resolved that limitations on government eavsdropping authority in the name of national security were needed and the FISA was the result.

What needs to be pointed out is that President Bush directed the NSA to intercept communications inside the U.S. without following the legalrequirement under the FISA to get the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to grant permission prior to or, on an emergency basis, after initiation of the surveilance to allow NSA to intercept communications inside the U.S. made by U.S. citizens. This mechanism was in place for the NSA to legally conduct these intercepts if the FISC had granted permission. This did not happen and it seems President Bush directed the NSA to not follow the legal process.

 

[cbsbyte]

If this is true than Bush should be impeached. Hopefully, the Dems won't cut and run on this issue.

 

[Shmackey]

If it's true and there's no impeachment, it's hard to imagine what would constitute an impeachable offense anymore. Or will this slip through the cracks because people won't take the five seconds to realize what's really going on?

 

[Waitone]

Let's wait for the story to play out. Hyperventilating before its appropriate is a waste. There is at least one more side to the story. There is also the evident conflict of interest in the reporting organ.

I'm an old fashioned kinda guy. I've no problem with impeaching a judge or president. I just want it to be for real live legal reasons. One complicating factor beyond the NYT's conflict of interest. Bush evidently notified leadership in both parties in a timely manner. Does that mean Senator Rockefeller is an accomplise to Bush's impeachable "crime?" Slow down and breathe deeply.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Folks, I never said I approved of the president (any president) using the NSA to spy on people. All I said is that it's status quo, and has been since the 1980's or earlier. This isn't new or unique to "King Jorge".

Carnivore, Echelon, and other NSA boogeymen were news back in the 90's. That's why PGP came into prominence. It was (and still is) thought to be the only way to thwart this sort of wholesale intelligence gathering.

Phil Zimmerman, PGP's creator, was an activist. He wrote his encryption software back in 1991 because he had concerns about the NSA eavesdropping on his BBS communications. He had to fight a huge court battle with the gov over its legality. The gov claimed it was military hardware, and posting it on the internet consituted illegal exportation of military equipment. Anyway...

NSA is authorized to monitor any communication that passes through international soil, sea, or space. It isn't supposed to listen in on Americans, unless the Attourney Genreal specifically authorizes it. Of course, there's nothing preventing the AG from granting authorization. And there's nothing to stop them from eavesdopping illegally. They've probably been doing that from the outset (which was back in the 50's or 60's, IIRC).

NBC "sat" on this story because it isn't really a story at all. It simply isn't news, and hasn't been for years. They released it now simply because it coincides with the vote on renewing the Patriot Act and/or the new book by the author. And of course there's ample Bush-bashing material here, which seems to be reason enough these days.

But news? Hardly...

 

[Wiley]

If in fact the NYT story is true, those in NSA who did the collection are up for 10 year Federal sentences. And if Bush signed an executive order authorizing it it is an impeachable offense.

The original NSA charter (about 1950) prohibits such activity and subsequent laws have reinforsed the prohibition.

The individuals should be prosecuted and Bush should be impeached.

 

[GigaBuist]

Having grown up in a world with a fair amount of privacy, I sure don't care much for this Brave(?) New World we've managed to bring about. I just don't see the point of wasting breath or bandwidth over dry bones.

Well... it'd be nice if we didn't have to pay for it with our tax dollars.

 

[Art Eatman]

GigaBuist, get used to it. I've yet to see any government of any country which improves liberty and personal sovereignty. All of them rip off the citizenry in order to pay for repressive efforts.

About all you can do is figure how how to evade and avoid to the greatest extent possible without going to jail, and figure out how much effort to put into lobbying for your own philosophical cause.

Activism is good, political efforts are always worth while. Spend time and money on them. Never forget, however, that's it's an unending battle against those who'd tell others how to do, how to live. Always keep perspective and look at the "big picture"--and take some time out for your own personal pleasures...

Art

 

[ceetee]

If it's true and there's no impeachment, it's hard to imagine what would constitute an impeachable offense anymore. Or will this slip through the cracks because people won't take the five seconds to realize what's really going on?

Obtaining sexual favors from a person not your spouse qualifies...

 

[stevelyn]

It would appear that Bush hasn't been letting that "god***n piece of paper" get in his way of progress for quite some time now.

 

[Shmackey]

Obtaining sexual favors from a person not your spouse qualifies...

But, ceetee, I barely know you!

But seriously, folks, remember, when that went down (snicker snicker), "it was all about the lying." The lying was the offense. The Chimperor is clearly innocent of... um... wait a minute...

 

[Krenn]

Well, it appears that Bush has confirmed the existence of such orders, that they have been repeatedly re-signed, and is angry at the press for leaking this fact.

Depending on the exact text of the executive order, and on how exactly it's been applied, this is very probably an impeachable offense.

Problem is, since Cheney was most likely knee deep in it, he'll have to be impeached at the same time... which will prove difficult.

Then of course, there's the problem of talking the speaker of the house and President pro tempore of the senate into resigning or refusing to take the oath, so that Condi can ascend to the presidency.

The only defense that the administration can really offer is that the PHYSICAL TAPS were placed on foreign soil, even if some of the conversations originated in US territory.

If this order is unusually broad, or if Bush re-signed it with knoweldge that is was being abused, then he OUGHT to be impeached, and hopefully will be.

technically, he ought to be impeached for signing anything of this nature in the first place, but my hopes aren't high.

 

[Delmar]

Can we just impeach the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government and start over? Sherriff Andy can be the judge, Barney can be the bailiff, and Floyd the barber can be the prosecuting attorney....

 

[Krenn]

That's traditionally reffered to as "Armed Revolution"

although a constitutional convention might also do it... I need to re-read that section of the Constitution.

For legal reasonings concerning "armed revolution" see the Declaration of Independance.

 

[Delmar]

Not much of an "armed revolution". Andy never wore a sidearm, and Barney was allowed a single bullet in his shirt pocket and had to ask Andy before he loaded the cylinder!

Of course, Floyd had those really sharp scissors..........

Make no mistake-I love my country, lived in it for most of my life when I was not serving overseas, but there are days when its hard to tell our justice system from the one the cops used to employ in Juarez back in the middle
70's.

Yep-well familiar with the D of I, but there are times when I should not read it. Not a "legal" document anyhow. I used to think the Constitution was, but its sometimes hard to tell with the way the government treats it. It's getting a lot harder to read the original with all the footprints on it these days:banghead:

 

[Delmar]

doubled?? Must be time for nappys!

 

[Thin Black Line]

It would appear that Bush hasn't been letting that "god***n piece of paper" get in his way of progress for quite some time now.

And neither did most of our previous presidents. However, it's interesting
to see all the things mounting up against this one recently such as the
blatant disregard of the Constitution, his earlier support of torture, and
still see so-called conservatives (especially gun-owners) continue to
support him. I can still remember the outrage expressed by gun-owners
when they learned of the anti-terror measures called on by Clinton and his
various beaurocrats. This was likened to the beginning of a totalitarian police
state that we would soon be under UN/Global Rule.

But now we have a chiming chorus of those who sing the song of "Get Over
it" when it comes to Bush. Hmmmm....with visions of the 1994 ban not
being renewed and folding stock firearms dancing in their heads have most
gun-owners been completely placated (ie, bought off) when it comes to the
continued erosion of our collective rights? Are we willingly trading more
of our rights away for the temporarily relaxed restrictions against another?

 

[Helmetcase]

What I don't get is that FISA provides for immediate emergency surveillance as long as you go back and apply for the warrants up to 72 hours later. The only reason to not apply for them is because you deliberately don't want to; the FISA courts were in no way an obstacle for timely and effective protection of this country, and the whole "he's protecting us from terrorists" line isn't going to wash this time.

He's either got very negligent counsel (and reading up on John Yoo seems to suggest that's the case), is every bit as stupid as the so called liberal media wants you to believe, or wanted to pick this fight.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

Well, I guess I have to stop taking all those collect calls from Osama

No, I don't like more government encroachment into my life. However, this just isn't on my give a sh** list.

Far more concerned about the 2 registered sex offenders within walking distance of my family.

 

[GlenJ]

I am with Headless on this, I see nothing wrong with the government listening to my phone calls. A court order would only get in the way of the government protecting us from the evil-doers. Rick Reno obviously must have ties to terrorists if he is opposed to the government scrutinizing his phone calls. Shame on you Rick. Now tell us where Osama is.

Would be singing a different tune if a Democrat were president. This is like gun control, give up a little and then they take more and more. Or actually it's more like Nazi Germany when people stood aside as other people were taken away then when they came for there group and as one writer put it "there was none left to fight for me". Put down the Kool Aid you GOP apologists.

 

[BryanP]

This is what is called a non-story, surfaced by the liberal ass New York Times yesterday to sink the Patriot Act renewal in Congress.
(

If this story results in the Patriot Act going down in flames for good I will have to start subscribing to the Times to show my gratitude and boundless appreciation.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

The Bush apologists on this thread have been using the argument that presidents have been acting in an unconstitutional manner since the 1980s so that is now the status quo. Thus if we have evidence that the president has violated the constitution, no big deal.

Others have offered the reasoning that even though our government violates our constitutional rights, other governments are worse.

Both groups might want to consider moving to one of those countries that are worse, because if they are willing to roll over and urinate on their soft underbellies in submission over this issue, they don't deserve to live in the United States. If they are not willing to lay down their lives in defense of the constitution just because "everyone violates it," then they are unfit to live in our countries and are by their inactions traitors and should be dealt with thusly.

The fact is that this is a very big deal. If we have evidence that the Bush administration has violated the Constitution of the United States, then we have obligation to do everything in our powers to ensure that the purpetrators of this crime are punished to the full extent of the law. If that means impeachment, impeach them. If that means prison, imprison them. If that means execution by firing squad, execute them. I'm not suggesting we execute members of the Bush administration; I'm just saying that if they have committed crimes that call for execution, we should not cut them any slack whatsoever.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.