Bush defends NSA domestic wiretapping program

Real Life Events.

Go off topic and I will break you!

Moderator: Dictators in Training

Bush defends NSA domestic wiretapping program

Postby Arlos » Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:12 pm

Bush acknowledges approving secret eavesdropping program
PRESIDENT SAYS MONITORING IS ``VITAL TOOL'' IN WAR AGAINST TERRORISM
By Jennifer Loven
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday he has no intention of stopping his personal authorizations of a post-Sept. 11 secret eavesdropping program in the U.S., lashing out at those involved in revealing it while defending it as crucial to preventing future attacks.

``This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security,'' he said in a radio address delivered live from the White House's Roosevelt Room.

``This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States,'' Bush said.

Angry members of Congress have demanded an explanation of the program, first revealed in Friday's New York Times and whether the monitoring by the National Security Agency without obtaining warrants from a court violates civil liberties. One Democrat said in response to Bush's remarks on the radio that Bush was acting more like a king than the elected president of a democracy.

Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used ``consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution.'' He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have ``a clear link'' to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.

The program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program, the president said.

Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program's activities.

The president also said the intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training to make sure civil liberties are not violated.

Appearing angry at points during his eight-minute address, Bush said he had reauthorized the program more than 30 times since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and plans to continue doing so.

``I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups,'' he said.

The president contended the program has helped ``detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the U.S. and abroad,'' but did not provide specific examples.

He said it is designed in part to fix problems raised by the Sept. 11 commission, which found that two of the suicide hijackers were communicating from San Diego with al-Qaida operatives overseas.

``The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9-11 hijackers will be identified and located in time,'' he said.

In an effort by the administration that appeared coordinated to stem criticism, Bush's remarks echoed -- in many cases word-for-word -- those issued Friday night by a senior intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The president's highly unusual discussion of classified activities showed the sensitive nature of the program, whose existence was revealed as Congress was trying to renew the terrorism-fighting Patriot Act and complicated that effort, a top priority of Bush's.

Senate Democrats joined with a handful of Republicans on Friday to stall the bill. Those opposing the renewal of key provisions of the act that are expiring say they threaten constitutional liberties.

Reacting to Bush's defense of the NSA program, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said the president's remarks were ``breathtaking in how extreme they were.''

Feingold said it was ``absurd'' that Bush said he relied on his inherent power as president to authorize the wiretaps.

``If that's true, he doesn't need the Patriot Act because he can just make it up as he goes along. I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for,'' Feingold told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

The president had harsh words for those who talked about the program to the media, saying their actions were illegal and improper.

``As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have,'' he said. ``The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.''


OK, everyone knows I've been against Bush from the beginning, and this does nothign to change my position, but this stuff is fucking SCARY. I mean, allowing the governent to wiretap whoever it feels like, whenever it feels like it, and WITHOUT any need to get a warrant? If he's authorizing this and trying to justify it cause it got leaked, what in hell else has he authorized secretly that is a further attack on our civil liberties? Cause hell, there's ALREADY law on the books that would allow them to do said wiretapping, they just have to get a warrant first, or, if it's an emergency, get one within 72 hours of starting the wiretap. At least the Senate is properly concerned about it, or seems to be, and it seems to be at least somewhat bi-partisan, based on the names and affiliations of those who filibustered renewing the Patriot Act.

So, what do you Bush supporters have to say about this?

-Arlos
User avatar
Arlos
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:39 pm

Postby Ouchyfish » Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:43 pm

I say who gives a fuck? Until they make ordinary shit illegal we have nothing to fear unless you're breaking the fucking law, and if that's the case, FUCK YOU.
Lyion wrote:If Hillary wins Texas and Ohio, she'll win the nomination.


Tossica wrote:Seriously, there is NO WAY Sony is going to put HD-DVD out of the game.
User avatar
Ouchyfish
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 4744
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:57 am

Postby Ouchyfish » Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:44 pm

by the way-you do know that the NSA monitored everything already, even before Bush, right?
Lyion wrote:If Hillary wins Texas and Ohio, she'll win the nomination.


Tossica wrote:Seriously, there is NO WAY Sony is going to put HD-DVD out of the game.
User avatar
Ouchyfish
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 4744
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:57 am

Postby mofish » Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:55 pm

Youre exactly the kind of dumbass that gets everything fucked. Youre raging to 'liberate' Iraq to bestow the gift of freedom, and yet you dont even understand what the fuck it means to be free.
You were right Tikker. We suck.
mofish
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:53 pm

Postby Tuggan » Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:57 pm

:lol:
Tuggan
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 3900
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Michigan

Postby Spazz » Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:05 pm

HAHA thats good tell that mother fucker how stupid he is
WHITE TRASH METAL SLUMMER
Why Immortal technique?
Perhaps its because I am afraid and he gives me courage.
User avatar
Spazz
Osama bin Spazz
Osama bin Spazz
 
Posts: 4752
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:29 pm
Location: Whitebread burbs

Postby DESX » Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:14 pm

NSA and CIA already did this crap anyway so. (^'.'^)
Image
User avatar
DESX
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 12:33 am

Postby Lyion » Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:29 pm

Gotta love it when things are taken out of context, and halfway truthful. Typical politcs

Too bad so many in the media are in bed with the Dems and won't report the truth.

Directly from W:

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late.

The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.

The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.

This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States
Last edited by Lyion on Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
C. S. Lewis
User avatar
Lyion
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 14376
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:42 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby Lyion » Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:47 pm

Great National Review Post on this:

I notice the Los Angeles Times and other newspapers are using carefully cherry-picked "experts" from the ranks of the ACLU and the former Clinton administration to provide comment on the president authorizing the NSA to do what the NSA does, i.e., spy, among other things. Many of these "experts" -- joined by a few uninformed, media-obsessed politicians like Arlen Specter and Russ Feingold -- have claimed shock at the eavesdropping and have either suggested or pronounced the president's acts illegal or even unconstitutional.

Now, what exactly do we know from these hysterical reports? Not very much. As I wrote yesterday, the FISA permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Today's Los Angeles Times writes that the program "was designed to enable the NSA to monitor communications between Americans in the U.S. and people overseas suspected of having ties to terrorist networks." Fine. That's not illegal or even unusual. And these "experts" know it. But the truth is that we have no idea of the contents of the president's executive order and, therefore, we have no idea what conduct we're supposed to be offended about. Perhaps the executive order expanded the authority of the NSA or expedited the processing of wiretaps. We just don't know. Unfortunately, the administration's hands are tied for while revealing the executive order's contents to the public might well demonstrate the appropriateness and legality of its conduct, thereby deflating the effort to create a scandal, it may well be too damaging to ongoing operations.

But clearly many members of Congress who have not spoken on the record do know about the program. As the president said today, Congress has been consulted, and often. It's remarkable that the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the Associated Press failed to uncover this fact. Indeed, they did the opposite. In addition to cherry-picking experts from the ACLU and the Clinton administration, the media are cherry-picking from their favorite politicians to give the opposite impression, i.e., that Congress was in the dark. And who better to react hysterically to hysterical reporting than Arlen Specter. The fact that Specter may not have been consulted, as he doesn't serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is of no consequence, except to Specter. He might want to ask his colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee what they know before stomping all over their congressional-oversight turf. But for a brief mention of Jay Rockefeller's knowledge of the program in yesterday's New York Times, we've hear nothing about of from the relevant committee members. Indeed, their silence, if anything, suggests to me their likely awareness of the program, consistent with the president's statement that Congress was aware.

What is clear is that this is not some Watergate-type rogue operation, as seemingly hoped by some. In addition to repeated congressional notification, the program has been heavily lawyered by multiple agencies, including the Department of Justice and NSA and White House, and is regularly reviewed. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of State Condi Rice have both insisted that program is legal. The fact that some might disagree with whatever legal advice and conclusions the president has received does not make them right or the program illegal. But at this point, we, the public, don't really know what these news stories are really about, do we?
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
C. S. Lewis
User avatar
Lyion
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 14376
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:42 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby Lionking » Sat Dec 17, 2005 10:56 pm

Lyion wrote:Gotta love it when things are taken out of context, and halfway truthful. Typical politcs

Too bad so many in the media are in bed with the Dems and won't report the truth.


Lyion, you seriously get it. I think your political thinking is very similar to mine. I could talk politics all day. That is all.

-Out

:vonk:
User avatar
Lionking
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 3:09 pm
Location: In front of my TV watching football

Postby Ouchyfish » Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:54 am

mofish wrote:Youre exactly the kind of dumbass that gets everything fucked. Youre raging to 'liberate' Iraq to bestow the gift of freedom, and yet you dont even understand what the fuck it means to be free.


Are you capable of debating anything without spouting off insults to support your stance? Every time you retort anything I say all I hear is "blah blah teen angst type rawrrr fuck cock shit motherfucker rawrrr angry man yelling hear me insult rawrrr"

Get a fucking life.
Lyion wrote:If Hillary wins Texas and Ohio, she'll win the nomination.


Tossica wrote:Seriously, there is NO WAY Sony is going to put HD-DVD out of the game.
User avatar
Ouchyfish
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 4744
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:57 am

Postby Spazz » Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:41 pm

Why would you expect someone to play civil with you when you post like a retard ?
WHITE TRASH METAL SLUMMER
Why Immortal technique?
Perhaps its because I am afraid and he gives me courage.
User avatar
Spazz
Osama bin Spazz
Osama bin Spazz
 
Posts: 4752
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:29 pm
Location: Whitebread burbs

Postby Yamori » Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:57 pm

OuchyFish wrote:I say who gives a fuck? Until they make ordinary shit illegal we have nothing to fear unless you're breaking the fucking law, and if that's the case, FUCK YOU.


Because every law that passes sets a precedent for future laws. Politicians use things like the patriot act as a stepping stone for more extreme laws. Even if the patriot act itself doesn't lead to significant big brother problems for the average citizen at the moment (which I bet it will in another 10 years or so, when they decide to start using it to target domestic fringe groups with it), it will have set the precedent that future lawmakers can cite as "proof" that they are allowed to make steps up from it.

A great example of this... did you know that there was no consistent personal income tax before the WW2 era? Politicians decided to lay an emergency personal income tax because of the "dire times" --- but lo and behold, a decade later when the conflicts were over, they decided to keep it since they liked the new funds so much. Fast forward to today, and citizens are compulsed to report their personal finances to a government agency, who can imprison them if they don't comply or do it wrongly. The codes are so complex that the majority of people with finances more complicated than a consistent paycheck have to hire professionals to do it for them.

Another example... recreational drugs were made illegal (questionably, as federal agencies have no authority over inner-state commerce) as a reactionary law primarily against heavy misuse of opiate-derivatives (which was a serious problem back then). Fast forward 75ish years, and various politicians (using precedent) decide that drugs are an extremely important issue, and pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the "war on drugs" - tying up the police and imprisoning huge numbers of drug users - the result being that the police have less resources to fight violent crime, and prisons are overcrowded and violent criminals must be released early.

You don't have to agree that these things are bad even... I'm just citing them as evidence that laws build off each other, and that if a law is not air tight in its limits it *will* be exploited down the road.
-Yamori
AKA ~~Baron Boshie of the Nameless~~
User avatar
Yamori
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2002
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:02 pm

Postby Arlos » Sun Dec 18, 2005 4:45 pm

Fish, let me just use someone else's words as to why it's oh-so dangerous to allow your liberties to be eroded and comply because you're not personally effected.

Martin Niemöller wrote:When the Nazis arrested the Communists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
When they arrested the trade unionists,
I said nothing; afterall, I was not a trade unionist.
When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.
When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.


For those who don't know who Martin Niemöller is, he was a U-Boat commander in WW1, then became a Lutheran priest who spoke up against the Nazis as early as 1934. He was put in a concentration camp in 1937 and was moved to Dachau in 1941, where he spent the entire rest of the war.

For further reference, I point you at the Benjamin Franklin quote I put in the "ooo, Rejected" thread.

-Arlos
User avatar
Arlos
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:39 pm

Postby alezrik » Sun Dec 18, 2005 5:16 pm

recreational drugs were made illegal (questionably, as federal agencies have no authority over inner-state commerce) as a reactionary law primarily against heavy misuse of opiate-derivatives


the first laws against drugs were specifically for the smokeing of opiates, it was legal to snort/shoot/drink it at the time, but smokeing was prohibited.

"Amazingly" enough whites were snorting/shooting/drinking it and the Phillipines/Chinese immegrants of the early 1900's were smokeing it. Throughout history the drug laws have been culturally targeted.
Alezrik 65th level Arcanist Ex-Officer of Fist of Fate Nameless Server
<img src="http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/pics6/friday2/flashanim.gif">
alezrik
NT Froglok
NT Froglok
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:59 pm

Postby Spazz » Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:38 pm

IF YOU DO DRUGS YOU BELONG IN PRISON. ITS AGAINST THE LAW.
WHITE TRASH METAL SLUMMER
Why Immortal technique?
Perhaps its because I am afraid and he gives me courage.
User avatar
Spazz
Osama bin Spazz
Osama bin Spazz
 
Posts: 4752
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:29 pm
Location: Whitebread burbs

Postby Sorina S » Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:50 pm

spazz wrote:IF YOU DO DRUGS YOU BELONG IN PRISON. ITS AGAINST THE LAW.


Actually it's the possesion of the 'drugs' that's unlawful. As well as operation of a motor vehicle under thier influence. "Doing drugs" is not in and of itself against the law.
God made man! But a monkey supplied the glue...
Sorina S
NT Disciple
NT Disciple
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:36 am
Location: Right behind you!

Postby brinstar » Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:57 pm

so if we smoke it all we can't get busted

hell yeah brah pass them greens dis way
compost the rich
User avatar
brinstar
Cat Crew
Cat Crew
 
Posts: 13142
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: 402

Postby Sorina S » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:00 pm

brinstar wrote:so if we smoke it all we can't get busted

hell yeah brah pass them greens dis way


Exactly, just don't drive stoned.
God made man! But a monkey supplied the glue...
Sorina S
NT Disciple
NT Disciple
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:36 am
Location: Right behind you!

Postby Spazz » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:25 pm

What if you drive better stoned ?
WHITE TRASH METAL SLUMMER
Why Immortal technique?
Perhaps its because I am afraid and he gives me courage.
User avatar
Spazz
Osama bin Spazz
Osama bin Spazz
 
Posts: 4752
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:29 pm
Location: Whitebread burbs

Postby Sorina S » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:38 pm

spazz wrote:What if you drive better stoned ?


Well that's basically the same logic as running faster while being shot at. It's subjective.
God made man! But a monkey supplied the glue...
Sorina S
NT Disciple
NT Disciple
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:36 am
Location: Right behind you!

Postby labbats » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:06 pm

I'm just resting easier at night knowing that all terrorists are plotting against the USA from outside our borders. Whew!
labbats
Mr. Ed
Mr. Ed
 
Posts: 3597
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:21 am

Postby Sorina S » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:10 pm

labbats wrote:I'm just resting easier at night knowing that all terrorists are plotting against the USA from outside our borders. Whew!


Yeah, that's what the folks in London were thinkin too...
God made man! But a monkey supplied the glue...
Sorina S
NT Disciple
NT Disciple
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:36 am
Location: Right behind you!

Postby Yamori » Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:02 am

alezrik wrote:
recreational drugs were made illegal (questionably, as federal agencies have no authority over inner-state commerce) as a reactionary law primarily against heavy misuse of opiate-derivatives


the first laws against drugs were specifically for the smokeing of opiates, it was legal to snort/shoot/drink it at the time, but smokeing was prohibited.

"Amazingly" enough whites were snorting/shooting/drinking it and the Phillipines/Chinese immegrants of the early 1900's were smokeing it. Throughout history the drug laws have been culturally targeted.


Yeah, the first prohibition law was against opium smoking in some california county because of issues with chinese immigrants - I was just being lazy with that... I don't really want to get in to the cultural angle of it and hijack the thread, since that would just beg for the "whiney liberal" finger to be pointed, and the real issue avoided.
-Yamori
AKA ~~Baron Boshie of the Nameless~~
User avatar
Yamori
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2002
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:02 pm

Postby Arlos » Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:58 am

One of the biggest reasons that people are so up in arms about this is that there is very clear law regarding when the NSA is and is not allowed to do domestic wiretapping. There is a specific Court that the NSA can go to if it feels there is pressing need to conduct a domestic wiretap, and if the court agrees, they can issue a warrant. The NSA is even empowered, in case of emergency, to do the wiretapping sans-warrant for 72 hours, as long as the request is filed at some point within that 3-day period.

What Bush did is usurp the position of the Court in this case, and allowed the NSA free reign to wiretap without any court oversight whatsoever. Now, maybe I'm alone in this, but when the Executive Branch siezes power that rightfuly belongs to a completely different branch, that's a HUGE cause for concern.

Oh, and Lyion, it is FAR from only the Dems who are protesting, there are a large number of Republicans who are equally up in arms about the whole thing. Bush's speech was nothing but an attempted whitewash. As for the article from national review, how about I trot out an article from MoveOn or Soros, just so we even out the biases, since NR is so far right they make Fox news look almost centrist.

-Arlos
User avatar
Arlos
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:39 pm

Next

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests