Bush renames spying

[rick_reno]

Well, I must confess - this changes everything. I didn't like that "domestic spying without a warrant" program - but this citizen supports the "terrorist surveillance program" 110%.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11018747/

WASHINGTON - President Bush heads to the National Security Agency on Wednesday for another speech defending his controversial spying program, one that he insists should be called a “terrorist surveillance program” — not domestic spying without a warrant.

In a speech to NSA staff, Bush is expected to reiterate his claim that he has the constitutional authority to have intelligence officials listen in on international phone calls of Americans with suspected ties to terrorists without court approval.

The White House says the program is not domestic spying, since one end of the phone call or e-mail is always outside the United States. A better term, the president said Monday, would be the “terrorist surveillance program.”

Congress holds hearings next month on whether the president has exceeded his authority.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told NBC’s “Today” show Wednesday that he’s not sure if the president went beyond legislation passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“I don't know the answer, that’s why I welcome the hearings,” McCain said.

Authorities should be able to eavesdrop, McCain said, but the scope of the program needs to be examined. Lawmakers need answers to questions like “what is the extent” and “who's being listened to,” he added.

Asked if the program should be referred to as domestic spying or terrorist surveillance, McCain said: “I don't know, that’s why I'm glad the president said he welcomes hearings.”

Attorney General’s defense
On Tuesday, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said a 15-day grace period allowing warrantless eavesdropping under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act demonstrates that Congress knew such surveillance “would be essential in wartime.”

Speaking to students at Georgetown University law school, Gonzales was confronted by more than a dozen young people who turned their backs to him and held up for a banner for television cameras. The banner, loosely based on a Benjamin Franklin quote, read: “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”

Before his appearance at Georgetown, Gonzales said in a television interview that some congressional leaders told the administration in 2004 that it would not be possible to write legislation regarding the warrantless surveillance effort without compromising its effectiveness.

“We did go to certain members of the congressional leadership a year and a half ago,” Gonzales said on CBS’s “The Early Show.”

During his remarks in a packed law school lecture room at Georgetown, the attorney general also said the legal standard the administration uses in deciding whether to carry out surveillance on people with suspected al-Qaida ties is equivalent to the standard required for complying with the Fourth Amendment, which bans unreasonable searches and seizures.

The reasonable basis standard, said Gonzales, “is essentially the same as the traditional Fourth Amendment probable cause standard.”

Law professors weigh in
Stephen Saltzburg, a law professor at George Washington University, said that Gonzales’ comments do not explain why the administration doesn’t go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain warrants.

“If they are using a probable cause standard, they would have no problem going to the FISA court,” said Saltzburg. “The executive might think there’s a reasonable basis. Courts might not agree.”

Georgetown University law professor David Cole said the reasonable basis standard is not equivalent to probable cause.

Moreover, said Cole, Gonzales’ comments seem to conflict with those on Monday by Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of national intelligence.

Hayden said that when weighing whether to proceed with surveillance under the president’s program, “the trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is” with FISA.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said there is no conflict between the statements of Gonzales and Hayden and that “it is really just a matter of speed; as the AG said, the standards are essentially the same.”

In his address, Gonzales said, “I keep hearing, ’Why not FISA?’ Why didn’t the president get orders from the FISA court?

“It is imperative for national security that we can detect reliably, immediately and without delay whenever communications associated with al-Qaida enter or leave the United States.”

The 15-day window
Gonzales told his audience: “You may have heard about the provision of FISA that allows the president to conduct warrantless surveillance for 15 days following a declaration of war. That provision shows that Congress knew that warrantless surveillance would be essential in wartime.”

Sharply disagreeing, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said FISA’s purpose “was never to grant warrantless surveillance for the war.”

“While Congress saw some need to loosen the standard in the initial days of a war, it wanted the president to comply with FISA in carrying out surveillance in the United States,” Turley said.

The attorney general said the program is limited in scope, and he blamed the news media for suggesting otherwise.

“These press accounts are in almost every case, in one way or another, misinformed, confusing or wrong,” said Gonzales. “And unfortunately, they have caused concern over the potential breadth of what the president has actually authorized.”

 

[Biker]

Try as you may, ya can't polish a turd.
Biker

 

[Lone_Gunman]

If same thing occurred while a Democrat was President, the Republicans would be going crazy to stop it. As it is, the Republicans are all blindly goose stepping right along with their president.

Party power trumps all other issues.

 

[rick_reno]

These Congressional "hearings" on this subject should be a joke. My crystal ball has already told me the results - the Bush domestic spying program without warrants is ok and can continue without oversight. Maybe those running the hearings will have the decency to show up with buckets of whitewash.

 

[Camp David]

Try as you may, ya can't polish a turd.
Biker

So Mr. Biker: If a call originates from a suspected terrorist in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq to party or parties domestically, you believe nothing should be done? Wow!

Not only do I support the President in regard to such “terrorist surveillance programs” I believe it would be gross incompetence if the government did not detect such calls and follow up on them! Such things led to 09/11/01.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

So Mr. Biker: If a call originates from a suspected terrorist in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq to party or parties domestically, you believe nothing should be done?

I don't mean to answer out of turn, but I think something should be done... The law should be followed!

Why is running the surveillance past a judge such a bad idea??? It takes very little time. Warrantless searches are a bad idea and will be expanded by future presidents. Do you really think Hillary Clinton needs the power to conduct warrantless phone taps and searches???

 

[Biker]

So Mr. Biker: If a call originates from a suspected terrorist in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq to party or parties domestically, you believe nothing should be done? Wow!

Not only do I support the President in regard to such ?terrorist surveillance programs? I believe it would be gross incompetence if the government did not detect such calls and follow up on them! Such things led to 09/11/01.

Well CD, there are protocalls already in place that allow such a call to be legaly monitored, but Bush seems to think that he is above the law.
That is my problem with this situation. Oh, and now he wants to piss down our collective necks and claim that it's raining. I gotta problem with that too.
Meanwhile, he - yes I said *he* - allows military troops from a foreign country to penetrate our borders and threaten citizen and LEO alike.
I couldn't be more proud of El Presidente.

Biker

 

[Camp David]

Why is running the surveillance past a judge such a bad idea?

The Attorney General spoke on this issue just yesterday and I urge you to read it...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...,1,6840973.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

"It is an early warning system with only one purpose: to detect and prevent the next attack on the United States," Gonzales said. "It is imperative for national security reasons that we can detect reliably, immediately and without delay whenever communications associated with Al Qaeda enter or leave the United States."

and

"Gonzales, drawing heavily on a 42-page Justice Department "white paper" issued last week, said the eavesdropping follows a long tradition of wartime surveillance and is conducted under the president's authority as commander in chief. Although FISA includes emergency provisions allowing short-term wiretapping without a warrant, Gonzales said the law would overly burden the government with paperwork and other requirements when it needs to respond quickly."

 

[Biker]

Gonzales is not the final arbitrater on this matter; FISA is. What do you expect Jorge's mouthpiece to say? Really CD, can you look at this objectively?
Biker

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Camp David, very little time is added to the suveillance by running it past a judge, this can be done in a matter of a few hours or less, 24 hours a day.

Also, I think it is unfair to call this "wartime" surveillance. We have not declared war on anything. There is no definable end to the war on terror. You are fooling yourself if you think this is only a temporary thing.

Do you really think it is good for Hillary Clinton to have this power?

 

[scubie02]

If same thing occurred while a Democrat was President, the Republicans would be going crazy to stop it. As it is, the Republicans are all blindly goose stepping right along with their president.

Party power trumps all other issues.

yep, thats the demoralizing thing--they all do the same things while in power, and the other side, whichever it is, cries foul over it. They are all just the same--its a big game.

I'm wondering how all those being all supportive are going to be when next time around there's a Democrat in power (a very large possibility) and they're using the same "program" to spy on people they see as a threat to what our country stands for, like those wacko militia type gun owners...

 

[Camp David]

Camp David, very little time is added to the suveillance by running it past a judge, this can be done in a matter of a few hours or less, 24 hours a day...

You miss the point...phone calls seldom last longer than minutes!

Do you really think it is good for Hillary Clinton to have this power?

Any president should be given the tools, in wartime, to win. What you want to do is handicap one side in a war. Surprised that the common sense of it escapes you!

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The President has already lost this fight, precisely because he let his opponents in the media define the terms. The issue is irrevocobably one of "domestic spying on Americans without a warrant", even though that term is pretty misleading. The spying was performed in foreign lands, it is hardly "domestic". The target of the spying was foreign terrorists, Al Qeada agents and such-like, not Americans. No warrant is necessary to do this sort of thing, provided the President, through the Attorney General, provides the necessary authorization (which is exactly what he did).

"Spying on Al Qeada, even when they communicate with Americans" is a far more accurate and ojbective way to describe the matter. It's also a lot more palatable, less Orwellian. He's going to get burned by this one. Not becuase he authorized "warrantless spying on Americans" (which, as previously mentioned, isn't exactly what he did), but because he let his opponents take the initiative and set the terms of the debate.

That's why the President needs to redefine the issue. But it's probably already too late for him. This political battle is already over.

EDIT: Now that I think about it more, the Prez as lost this debate for another reason: he let the media misrepresent what the law says. If you watch the news, you'd believe that the only legal way to conduct these sorts interceptions is by first getting a warrant from the FISA court. But this position is highly debatable. The past 5 presidential administrations have helding that the law allows for legal the interceptions (so long as the AG authorizes it) WITHOUT FISA WARRANTS. The preponderance of informed opinions agreed that the President has this authority (until recently,that is, when everyone magically forgot about this little detail).

Anyway, the media has been beating the drum to convince the coutnry that FISA warrants are the only legal way. True or not, that's what the country now believes. Bush is screwed, not becase of what he did, but because of the way it was presented in the media.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I read the article, CD, and it seems that Gonzalas is arguing that the Bush administration needs to conduct illegal wiretaps because going through the proper legal channels is "too cumbersome." The rest of his argument could be boiled down to: "Trust us. This is so because we say so."

If being too cumbersome is a valid excuse for breaking laws, do I need to obey stop signs and traffic signals? Is stopping for a stop light too cumbersome if I say it's too cumbersome? It seems to me that if this argument is enough to justify infringing our Fourth Amendment rights, it is certainly enough to justify running a stop sign.

 

[ceetee]

You miss the point...phone calls seldom last longer than minutes!

Any president should be given the tools, in wartime, to win. What you want to do is handicap one side in a war. Surprised that the common sense of it escapes you!

CD, this time you're missing the point. They can tap those calls, record them, act on them, and use that information to apply for the warrants. Up to three days later. There's nothing whatsoever to stop them from following the law. Why could they possibly want to violate the law when they don't have to?

 

[Camp David]

I read the article, CD, and it seems that Gonzalas is arguing that the Bush administration needs to conduct illegal wiretaps because going through the proper legal channels is "too cumbersome." The rest of his argument could be boiled down to: "Trust us. This is so because we say so."

I sympathize with your cautions and skeptism; indeed recent government activity gives us citizens little in the way of example for us to "trust" government officials! In this instance, however, I see a need to extend the "trust" the Executive Office occupant deserves for two reasons; 1) we are in a war and prior presidents have been extended the exact same type of latitude, and 2) nobody has yet surfaced an alternate way of monitoring this signal intelligence. Since President Bush has been successful to date of preventing all domestic terrorism since 09.11.01 I trust him to contunue his homeland security.

 

[rick_reno]

The "law" lets the president order warrantless surveillance during the first 15 days of a war and allows courts to authorise surveillance of agents of foreign powers or terrorist groups.

THE MOST detailed legal justification to date for the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance has emerged from the Bush administration, but the 42-page version isn't any more convincing than its shorter predecessors. In some ways — particularly in its broad conception of presidential power in wartime — it is more disturbing.

As it had implied previously but never flatly stated, the administration asserted that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would be unconstitutional if it were read to prevent the president from engaging in the kind of warrantless surveillance that the administration has been conducting.

This interpretation, with its expansive view of the commander in chief's powers, would call into question Congress's ability to prevent the administration from engaging in torture or cruel and inhuman treatment or to establish rules for detainees and military tribunals — exactly the areas in which we have been encouraging Congress to step up to the plate.

The administration, appropriately, would prefer to avoid the constitutional argument. Instead, it contends first that FISA's warrant requirements were superseded by the post-Sept. 11 congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which allows the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent "any future acts of international terrorism against the United States."

In other words, you get into a kind of "it all depends what is is" argument about implied authority. There are plenty of members of Congress (not all Democrats) who are suggesting their vote did not in-effect give the President new powers. The administration, on the other hand, argues that "necessary and appropriate FORCE" includes warrantless wiretaps.

Especially without knowing the parameters of the surveillance, it's difficult to second-guess the president's argument that FISA's limits are unduly constraining. The surveillance may be critical for national security, and a law written in a different technological age may well need to be refurbished. But the proper way to handle that — which the administration rejected — would have been to seek changes in the law, not to do a stealthy end run around the legislative process. In such an amorphous, long-running conflict as the war against terrorism, it's critical to ensure that limits are in place to prevent the executive branch from overreaching.

Indeed, you come back to the question: if the FISA courts basically gave the government almost anything it wanted and sided with it in all but a handful of cases, why wasn't (and isn't) there an attempt to change the law so there is no question or controversy over legality? Once again, the administration opted for the most controversial and divisive course. You'd think that, on national security at least, an attempt at fostering unity and consensus would be perceived as a virtue.

 

[ceetee]

I sympathize with your cautions and skeptism; indeed recent government activity gives us citizens little in the way of example for us to "trust" government officials! In this instance, however, I see a need to extend the "trust" the Executive Office occupant deserves for two reasons; 1) we are in a war and prior presidents have been extended the exact same type of latitude, and 2) nobody has yet surfaced an alternate way of monitoring this signal intelligence. Since President Bush has been successful to date of preventing all domestic terrorism since 09.11.01 I trust him to contunue his homeland security.

First, nobody needs to devise any "alternate way of monitoring" anything . The legal way works just fine.

Second, you never answered my question: Why could they possibly want to violate the law when they don't have to?

 

[fourays2]

I read the article, CD, and it seems that Gonzalas is arguing that the Bush administration needs to conduct illegal wiretaps because going through the proper legal channels is "too cumbersome." The rest of his argument could be boiled down to: "Trust us. This is so because we say so."

and I for one will sleep much better hearing Senior Gonzales say that.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

yep, thats the demoralizing thing--they all do the same things while in power, and the other side, whichever it is, cries foul over it. They are all just the same--its a big game.

Not exactly. Fact is, they two parties haven't done the same things while in power. Spying on the enemy in time of war (i.e. what Bush authorized) is exactly what the NSA exists for. That's why we have it, that's what it is supposed to do.

Echelon (which Clinton used heavily and the liberal media defended) is a very different matter. Echelon exists exclusively to circumvent the law. It allows the wholsale spying on ALL Americans for NO REASON WHATSOEVER.

Spying on specific Americans who receive phone calls from Al Qeada is OK with me, in fact I support it completely. Wholesale spying on all Americans without any cause is wrong. And there is a BIG difference between the two.

I agree with you that some people are playing political games with this issue. But holding a different opinion of what the different parties do, based their different actions while in power, isn't as inappropriate as you suggest.

 

[Camp David]

Second, you never answered my question: Why could they possibly want to violate the law when they don't have to?

I don't accept your premise. You assume that if the NSA intercepts a signals communication intercept opportunity it could dial "O" and immediately get a judge's Okeydokey to record... hardly! You are not realistically understanding the process, one in which I know intimately by the way.

I content that military communication (DoD) overseen by civilian employees (NSA) deal with 'needles in haystacks' with both landline and cellular communications traffic and opportunities rarely present themselves to know ahead of the time either caller or callee in a telephone circuit connection of anykind, particularly one in which one end of line originates internationally and may indeed be scrambled. I further contend that none of this intelligence violates any law; terrorism and its planning is the illegality. During WWII this sort of signals intelligence was practiced every day and led to the breaking of the Germany's Enigma-encrypted communications code. Congress gave the president authorization to fight terrorism and this signals intelligence is key part of it. The mistake, if there was one, was for anyone in the federal government (DoD, NSA, or the Executive Office) to give the traitors in the media and in the Democrat party the time of day on this issue. It would be much better to simply ignore questions on it, knowing that those that question it are themselves suspect.

 

[Biker]

M'kay CD, honestly answer a question if you would. If Hillary is elected President, will you feel comfortable with her wielding the same power?
Biker

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

M'kay CD, honestly answer a question if you would. If Hillary is elected President, will you feel comfortable with her wielding the same power?
Biker

I'm not Camp David, but if you were asking me tha answer would be a wholehearted YES.

Spying on the enemy in time of war (even when the enemy is in contact with Americans) is something the President is OBLIGATED to do. Not doing so would be an act of negligence, a violation of his (or her) oath of office.

I would be uncomfortable (to put it mildly) if President Hillary failed to do what Bush is doing now, if faced with the same circumstances.

 

[Biker]

I'm not Camp David, but if you were asking me tha answer would be a wholehearted YES.

Spying on the enemy in time of war (even when the enemy is in contact with Americans) is something the President is OBLIGATED to do. Not doing so would be an act of negligence, a violation of his (or her) oath of office.

I would be uncomfortable (to put it mildly) if President Hillary failed to do what Bush is doing now, if faced with the same circumstances.

So you're comfortable with giving the government free reign in determining who is and isn't a potential terrorist with no oversight? Checks and balances, so to speak?
Biker

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Spying on the enemy in time of war

The idea that these changes are temporary is ridiculous. We are now in a state of never-ending war on terror. This war can never end, there will always be terrorists of one form or another.

So don't fool yourself into believing these changes are just temporary. They are permanent.