Bush defends NSA domestic wiretapping program

[labbats]

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

Lately I can't stand listening to the Washington talking heads murmur about every little thing, but if this is indeed the case, that's messed up. My cousin works for the NSA, I'll try and find out more.

[Lyion]

The Dems in the intel commitee were aware of this, and it's not random illegal wiretaps going on as some are trying to wrongfully portray. The simple truth is we do not know what is happening, but that it has been presented to a bipartisan group in the Senate for review and approval. It also has been reviewed by a lot of different legal groups and is very much legal and constitutional.

My guess is as more people see this and realize it is solely monitoring overseas potential terrorist calls into the U.S. from a very small list, most people will realize this is still part of the press W smear campaign and it'll backfire, and not an infringement on civil rights.

Hopefully we'll find out who leaked this and appropriately punish them.

[Arlos]

Actually, listen to the statements from Senators, even ones that SPECIFICALLY would have known if Bush was telling the truth about informing them, they've all, to a man, said they had no idea whatsoever that this was going on.

If it's so clear-cut "legal and consitutional", why are senators on BOTH sides demanding hearings to DETERMINE the legality? This is not one side bitching, Lyion, this is BOTH sides who are furious.

As for who leaked it, as whistle-blowers stopping a massive abuse of government, I hope they're lauded in the same way those who blew the whistle about watergate were later lauded.

Oh, and Lyion, if it WAS just a small list like you claim, why did Bush have to tell them to bypass the security Court? If it's all so above board, why couldn't they have gotten warrants? It's not an open court, it's a top secret clearance court, SPECIFICALLY put together to allow intelligence agencies to get warrants. No threat to National Security to go to them, so what was the problem, hmmm?

-Arlos

[Lyion]

I haven't read of many senators bitching. I see the usual suspects playing politics, and the President has pretty much outlined the basics of what was being done, and explained what measures and safeguards were in place, including bi partisan knowledge of the procedure.

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.

[Gargamellow]

I can't drive stoned. I am way too paranoid and I get pulled over for going slow. Well, one time anyway.

[alezrik]

Ms. Rice also said Mr. Bush decided to skirt the normal process of obtaining court-approved search warrants for the surveillance because it was too cumbersome for fast-paced counterterrorism investigations

those damn cumbersome warrents.

[Arlos]

Yeah, SO big a burden for them to have to provide reasons why they'd want to wiretap someone within 72 hours of starting to do so. Yeah, that's SUCH a odious burden. So much easier if we, just, you know, don't bother with all of those messy "Laws" things, they're just inconvenient, after all... Constitution? Who cares...

-Arlos

[Ouchyfish]

Who the fuck has time to get a warrant when a raghead is about to bomb a subway?

[Sorina S]

Who the fuck has time to get a warrant when a raghead is about to bomb a subway?

The Government of the United States of America?

[Arlos]

Fish, you miss the fact that the CURRENT law says that in case of emergency the NSA can engage in domestic wiretapping of a given subject for up to 72 hours BEFORE getting the warrant?

A) If you're so sure he's about to blow up a subway, providing evidence as to the necessity of a warrant should be no problem.

B) there's ZERO reason why the NSA couldn't send a representative to the court to ask for said warrant at SOME point in that 72 hour window.

Having to get a warrant before the government can start invading personal privacy is a right built into the Constitution. Awful cavalier of you to just toss that aside in the name of expediency. Yes, I am sure you're just fine with the executive branch just ignoring one of the other 3 branches, and ignoring those checks and balances built into the Constitution too, right?

-Arlos

[Captain Insano]

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.

Good post. I totally agree.

The Patriot Act is total fucking garbage through and through. Recent congressional findings have stated that we are absolutely NO safer than the day before the attacks on the twin towers.

So in my warped mind we might as well get rid of the Patriot Act and anything like it altogether...It hasn't helped so why give up any rights to have it?

While were on the subject we ought to shitcan the entire fucking Department of Homeland Security.

I read this story about it in Gangster's Quarterly (GQ)... Basically the DHS has spent 300 billion dollars on shit like bulletproof vests for bomb sniffing dogs and a 100k bomb disarming robot for some town in wyoming population 200 and all kinds of fucking total nonsense.

This entire post 9/11 government should be line up and fucking shot... Dems/Reps all of them... Hows that for fascism?

[Sorina S]

This entire post 9/11 government should be line up and fucking shot... Dems/Reps all of them... Hows that for fascism?

How's an open ended stay at Gitmo or Levenworth sound for writing those words? You think it's a joke? Think again.

We know who you are. We know where you live. If you make subversive threats like that against the government we will take you down. Sounds unbeliveable yes? It is hard to belive, until it happens to you. And once we have you, it never ends. No rights, no legal council, no trial...the Patriot Act is all there is, talk about a stacked deck.

It doesn't matter if you've broken the law, we make it up as we go along. Don't belive me? Good, ignorance is bliss.

[alezrik]

I'm not much of a history buff, but doesnt this seem like something you would read about durring McCarthyism of the 50's?

[Sorina S]

I'm not much of a history buff, but doesnt this seem like something you would read about durring McCarthyism of the 50's?

Not exactly, I read it in the 60's. Rings familliar yes? Read the Patriot Act, it's almost Orwellian.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

[Lyion]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051 ... -2897r.htm

The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence yesterday scathingly disputed claims by Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV that he harbored deep concerns about the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program when he was briefed on the matter.

Sen. Pat Roberts, Kansas Republican and chairman of the normally apolitical committee, said he was "puzzled" by a letter that Mr. Rockefeller, West Virginia Democrat and vice chairman of the committee, said he sent to Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 after one such briefing.

"In his letter ... Senator Rockefeller asserts that he had lingering concerns about the program designed to protect the American people from another attack, but was prohibited from doing anything about it," Mr. Roberts said in a statement yesterday. "A United States Senator has significant tools with which to wield power and influence over the executive branch. Feigning helplessness is not one of those tools."

In his 2003 letter to Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rockefeller said the program raised "profound oversight issues" and he regretted that high security of the program prevented him from seeking advice on the matter. Mr. Rockefeller also told Mr. Cheney that he had made a handwritten copy of the letter, which he distributed to the press Monday.

If Mr. Rockefeller had these concerns, Mr. Roberts said, he could have raised them with him or other members of Congress who had been briefed on the program.

"I have no recollection of Senator Rockefeller objecting to the program at the many briefings he and I attended together," Mr. Roberts said. "In fact, it is my recollection that on many occasions Senator Rockefeller expressed to the vice president his vocal support for the program," most recently, "two weeks ago."

"The real question is whether the Administration lived up to its statutory requirement to fully inform Congress and allow for adequate oversight and debate," Mr. Rockefeller said. "The simple answer is no."

Mr. Roberts accused Mr. Rockefeller of political opportunism.
"Now, when it appears to be politically advantageous, Senator Rockefeller has chosen to release his two and a half year old letter," he said. "Forgive me if I find this to be ... a bit disingenuous."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, announced that she wrote a letter, too, but couldn't provide it because, she said, it was classified.

"When I learned that the National Security Agency had been authorized to conduct the activities that President Bush referred to in his December 17 radio address, I expressed my strong concerns in a classified letter to the administration and later verbally," she said in a statement issued yesterday.

Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill agreed that hearings should be conducted into the matter, but disagreed over whether those hearings should be public or sealed to protect classified information.

[brinstar]

what a surprise, another example of corruption in washington, and lyion strikes up the band and tries to spin it away. seriously, are you on the payroll? do you get paid for being a gov't stooge? or is it pro bono?

[Martrae]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

Clinton signed an EO to let the Attorney General kick in your door without a warrant and use classified infrared sensors to watch you move about your home.

Carter did practically the same thing as Bush is doing.

I'd take Bush's snooping over Clinton's any day.

[Zanchief]

I'd take Bush's snooping over Clinton's any day.

Completely impartial opinion~

[Lyion]

what a surprise, another example of corruption in washington, and lyion strikes up the band and tries to spin it away. seriously, are you on the payroll? do you get paid for being a gov't stooge? or is it pro bono?

Can it be a jazz band? I'm preferential to good jazz during the winter months.

Unfortunately, I'm solely paid for being a DBA Ho. Perhaps one day I can throw out propaganda like politicians for cash, but unfortunately it's doubtful.

[Martrae]

I'd take Bush's snooping over Clinton's any day.

Completely impartial opinion~

Hmm...monitoring overseas calls or busting in my door....let me see....

[Zanchief]

I'll take the door. Atleast you'd know after the fact, and you'd have to use a certain amount of discretion.

[Lyion]

Except if you aren't calling the Middle East, then you know you aren't being monitored. Outside of foreign cell phones brought into this country, there are no domestic calls monitored.

The funny thing is NSA has always done this monitoring, and the simple fact is if it is known to be U.S. comms it is discarded and not eligible for use in federal or state court. That isn't changed with this program. Although, this time if its suspected Al Qaeda activity, it's monitored. If it's not, it again is probably discarded.

A spy agency that spies. Who'd a thunk?

[Zanchief]

That isn't changed with this program. Although, this time if its suspected Al Qaeda activity, it's monitored. If it's not, it again is probably discarded.

[alezrik]

Report: Spy court judge quits in protest
Bush's secret surveillance program said to be a concern

Wednesday, December 21, 2005; Posted: 7:37 a.m. EST (12:37 GMT)


President Bush defends the surveillance program and says it will continue.


The action by U.S. District Judge James Robertson stemmed from deep concern that the surveillance program that Bush authorized was legally questionable and may have tainted the work of the court that Robertson resigned from, the newspaper said in Wednesday's editions.

The Post quoted two associates of the judge.

Robertson was one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees government applications for secret surveillance or searches of foreigners and U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or espionage.

Quoting colleagues of Robertson, the Post said the judge had indicated he was concerned that information gained from the warrantless surveillance under Bush's program subsequently could have been used to obtain warrants under the FISA program.

The Post said Robertson, without providing an explanation, stepped down from the FISA court in a letter late Monday to Chief Justice John Roberts. He did not resign his parallel position as a federal district judge.

Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said early Wednesday she had no information to offer on the matter.

Robertson was appointed a federal judge by President Clinton in 1994. Chief Justice William Rehnquist later appointed Robertson to the FISA court as well.

Robertson has been critical of the Bush administration's treatment of detainees at the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, most memorably in a decision that sidetracked the president's system of military tribunals to put some detainees on trial.

Robertson's resignation was reported hours after Vice President Dick Cheney strongly defended the surveillance program and called for "strong and robust" presidential powers.

Cheney -- a former member of congress, defense secretary and White House chief of staff under President Ford -- said executive authority has been eroding since the Watergate and Vietnam eras.

"I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it," Cheney said.

"I would argue that the actions that we've taken there are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president. ... You know, it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years," the vice president said, speaking with reporters Tuesday on Air Force Two en route from Pakistan to Oman.

Republicans said Congress must investigate whether Bush was within the law to allow the super-secret National Security Agency to eavesdrop -- without warrants -- on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al Qaeda.

"I believe the Congress -- as a coequal branch of government _ must immediately and expeditiously review the use of this practice," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Republican from Maine.

Snowe joined three other members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel, in calling for a joint inquiry by the Senate judiciary and intelligence committees.

Bush and his top advisers have suggested senior congressional leaders vetted the program in more than a dozen highly classified briefings. Several Democrats agreed said they were told of the program, but did not know the full details and had concerns.

West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, on Monday released a letter he wrote to Cheney in July 2003 that, given the program's secrecy, he was "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities."

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, pushed back on Tuesday. Roberts said that if Rockefeller had concerns about the program, he could have used the tools he has to wield influence, such as requesting committee or legislative action.

"Feigning helplessness is not one of those tools," Roberts said.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Arlos]

Washington -- A surveillance program approved by President Bush to eavesdrop without court warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.

-Arlos