Bush authorized NSA to spy on Americans

[Lone_Gunman]

GlenJ,

You realize, I hope, that I was being sarcastic?

 

[Art Eatman]

Lobotomy boy, the reason it's no big deal is the lack of intereest on the part of more than a few political opponents in the Congress and in the public at large.

What's important to you or me as to Constitutionality is irrelevant to the reality of the nation as a whole. Or as a hole.

Art

 

[FeebMaster]

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?

Nah, it's not a tradeoff. They were just upset that their guy wasn't in charge at the time.

 

[bogie]

I may be a little slow...

I thought the method used was "lift cell phones from terrorists (I refuse to call them "insurgents"), see who was on their phone book/recently called numbers, and then backtrack through those numbers on along the tree, and see if you hear anything that is of value."

I do NOT see anything wrong with that, even if the tree goes into US territory.

Thing is, now the terrorists know not to have cell phone phonebooks, and to delete their numbers called immediately.

 

[VorpalSpork]

Why now?

The official said that since October 2001, the program has been renewed more than three dozen times. Each time, the White House counsel and the attorney general certified the lawfulness of the program, the official said. Bush then signed the authorization.

“The president has authorized NSA to fully use its resources — let me underscore this now — consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution to defend the United States and its citizens,” the official said, adding that congressional leaders have also been briefed more than a dozen times.

So, if the program started in October 2001, and congressional leaders have been aware of it all this time, why is it that we are just hearing about this now?

 

[Live Free Or Die]

So, if the program started in October 2001, and congressional leaders have been aware of it all this time, why is it that we are just hearing about this now?

Because the information was supposedly leaked to the NYT very recently.

 

[Helmetcase]

Because the information was supposedly leaked to the NYT very recently.

They actually agreed to sit on it for a year. The MSM is such a joke anymore, and that's coming from a card carrying progressive (progun!) liberal.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

This is the point that really needs to be pounded home. If it really was necessary for NSA to spy on American citizens, there are procedures that allow that while still giving some element of protection. President Bush cannot even claim immediate necessity because under the Patriot Act he can initiate these procedures first and ask later. In this case, he never asked and the only people who have "certified" this as legal are the Attorney General (Executive Branch) and White House counsel (Executive Branch).

The President is wrong on this and not just a little bit wrong either. Even if the NSA is targeting only real terrorists in its effort, Bush is claiming that he can choose whether or not to follow the law and it is OK because his appointees have declared it legal. This is a SERIOUS issue. This is the kind of issue a Democratic President would be impeached over.

It is also the type of issue that makes me think that those who say a Democratic House would be a good thing are right. Plainly the current House doesn't have what it takes to do their job of oversight.

 

[Live Free Or Die]

The President is wrong on this and not just a little bit wrong either. Even if the NSA is targeting only real terrorists in its effort, Bush is claiming that he can choose whether or not to follow the law and it is OK because his appointees have declared it legal. This is a SERIOUS issue. This is the kind of issue a Democratic President would be impeached over.

+1, and I do not consider myself a liberal.

 

[GoRon]

We need a real opposition party soooo bad.

Even when the Dems stumble into something they are correct about half of the country ignores them because of their moonbat rhetoric.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by VorpalSpork
So, if the program started in October 2001, and congressional leaders have been aware of it all this time, why is it that we are just hearing about this now?


Because the information was supposedly leaked to the NYT very recently.

The timing of this was too perfect. Someone somewhere must have orchestrated the release of this information to scuttle the renewal of the Patriot Act provisions. If so, we owe that person or persons an incredible debt.

It is also the type of issue that makes me think that those who say a Democratic House would be a good thing are right. Plainly the current House doesn't have what it takes to do their job of oversight.

They're testing the waters of public opinion, which means infinitely more to them then such trivial issues as right and wrong. Bush could conceivably be indicted for this, in which case the testicularly challenged members of congress would act.

 

[BuddyOne]

Question

These bash Bush threads are very transparent. Do these girlie-men really own guns?

Buddy

 

[seansean]

These bash Bush threads are very transparent. Do these girlie-men really own guns?

Buddy

yeah, cause backing Bush means you're tougher than tough...you spit nails....and the rest of us are just weak-kneed liberal, moonbat, anti-gun, blue-state lovin', tin-foil hat wearin' girly girls with our panties in a bunch. Excuse me, I have to go paint my fingernails.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I wouldn't put too much stock in BuddyOne's comments, Seansean. I haven't seen him post anything remotely thoughtful--his posts primarily consist of calling other THR members names. Mostly he just calls other people trolls and leaves it at that.

Apparently defending the constitution makes us "girlie men" in his book. I suspect that if most of us caught him personally infringing on our Fourth Amendment rights he might rethink that opinion when we were through with him.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The timing of this was too perfect. Someone somewhere must have orchestrated the release of this information to scuttle the renewal of the Patriot Act provisions. If so, we owe that person or persons an incredible debt.

It was released by the NYT becase Simon & Schuster has an author with a book on this subject and the book is coming out. Simon & Schuster and the NYT are tight that way.

They're testing the waters of public opinion, which means infinitely more to them then such trivial issues as right and wrong. Bush could conceivably be indicted for this, in which case the testicularly challenged members of congress would act.

Bush is not going to be indicted for this; especially if the Administration sought the legal consultations they claim they sought. Despite that, the Administration is not entitled to issue legal opinions on its own directives. This needs to go to a court and it should probably be overturned just on the basis of making sure the Executive branch is appropriately balanced by other branches in the future when it tries this.

Finally, if you can't attack the argument and feel a need to attack the person, you need to refrain from posting or take it to PM. The old "He started it" excuse is not acceptable either. People who cannot comply with this simple request will lose their posting privileges.

 

[VorpalSpork]

Bush is claiming that he can choose whether or not to follow the law and it is OK because his appointees have declared it legal.

That statement doesn't even make any sense. Furthermore I'm not aware of anyone in the Bush administration ever claiming that “[they] can choose whether or not to follow the law.” The administrations position is that they are not breaking the law.

the Administration is not entitled to issue legal opinions on its own directives

IANAL, but it's my understanding that the court system doesn't simply issue legal opinions on request, they try cases. So what is the administration supposed to do to get a legal opinion from the court system, prosecute themselves?

 

[Helmetcase]

That statement doesn't even make any sense. Furthermore I'm not aware of anyone in the Bush administration ever claiming that “[they] can choose whether or not to follow the law.” The administrations position is that they are not breaking the law.

So was OJ's. Saying you're not, and A) knowing you're not or B) actually not breaking the law are entirely different things. Nice try. I do believe the Admin really did believe it didn't need to get warrants. Bully for them, but that's NOT a defense.

IANAL, but it's my understanding that the court system doesn't just issue opinions, they try cases. So what is the administration supposed to do to get a legal opinion, prosecute themselves?

The problem here is that W is getting bad legal counsel from that John Yoo asswipe, whose stance is essentially "you don't have to follow the rules in the GWOT." This appears to be pretty darn simple--the only reason to not seek the warrants was because you didn't feel you had to.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

If I understand this correctly, the Bush administration would only have needed to get warrants after the fact, but they were too contemptuous of the Constitution to even go through that formality.

 

[longeyes]

Spy or die, infidels!

 

[longeyes]

If I understand this correctly, the Bush administration would only have needed to get warrants after the fact, but they were too contemptuous of the Constitution to even go through that formality.

Or maybe given bad advice by lawyers held over--only God knows why--from the Clinton administration?

 

[VorpalSpork]

True, just because you say you are not breaking the law doesn't mean you aren't . However it seems most of the people posting in this thread are presupposing that the Bush Administration is in fact breaking the law, which is something that has not been established by the court system one way or the other yet.

 

[Michigander]

Let's see...

Brooklyn Bridge or Freedom?

Brooklyn Bridge or Freedom?

Brooklyn Bridge or Freedom?

Hmm. Could somebody help me out here? It's such a tough decision!

 

[Waitone]

Furthermore I'm not aware of anyone in the Bush administration ever claiming that “[they] can choose whether or not to follow the law.” The administrations position is that they are not breaking the law.

The administration does not have to claim that they can choose. By virture of failing to enforce it has just made the claim. I point your attention to the ongoing and growing fiasco call illegal immigration, among other terms. Here is a situation where we as a society already have a pallette full of laws prohibiting a whole sack full of activities associated with importation of labor. Yet, we also see an administration which does nothing to enforce existing code and piously stands around asking us to create more laws. The issue is not law. The issue is enforcement of existing law.

In other threads I've wondered aloud. We have a situation where government becomes lawbreaker by failing to enforce existing law. What happens when that same government begins to enforce law that doesn't exist. Perhaps we just saw the result with the Bush administration taking liberties the law does not permit (I refuse to begin clubbing Bush until facts are aired. Right now we are in spin mode from all sides and precious few facts are evident).

One other point. The battle over the supreme court is long past due. That said, one element of the battle has not been fought. Nominees are grilled on a host of issue but one issue is not addressed. That is the issue of presidential powers. Seems to me SCOTUS is reluctant to stand up and force limitations on the growth of executive power. I suspect any nominee is carefully screened to make sure he or she does not feel a need to slow down the accumulation of executive power. Why is that important? Take a hard look at the current flap over domestic spying.

 

[Waitone]

Weeell, whadaya know? Counter spin begins.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml

Sunday, Dec. 18, 2005 10:10 p.m. EST

Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls

During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.

On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices" when it "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants."

But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."

NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."

Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.

The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."

One Echelon operator working in Britain told "60 Minutes" that the NSA had even monitored and tape recorded the conversations of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.

Still, the Times repeatedly insisted on Friday that NSA surveillance under Bush had been unprecedented, at one point citing anonymously an alleged former national security official who claimed: "This is really a sea change. It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches."

 

[Shadizar]

This is the point that really needs to be pounded home. If it really was necessary for NSA to spy on American citizens, there are procedures that allow that while still giving some element of protection. President Bush cannot even claim immediate necessity because under the Patriot Act he can initiate these procedures first and ask later. In this case, he never asked and the only people who have "certified" this as legal are the Attorney General (Executive Branch) and White House counsel (Executive Branch).

The President is wrong on this and not just a little bit wrong either. Even if the NSA is targeting only real terrorists in its effort, Bush is claiming that he can choose whether or not to follow the law and it is OK because his appointees have declared it legal. This is a SERIOUS issue. This is the kind of issue a Democratic President would be impeached over.

It is also the type of issue that makes me think that those who say a Democratic House would be a good thing are right. Plainly the current House doesn't have what it takes to do their job of oversight.

I was going to post on this, but you said exactly what I was thinking. Good post.

-Shadizar