Bush Authorized NSA To Spy Inside US

[BWG]

Anybody can pickup wireless communication relatively easily.
I always switch to a landline when doing any type of business that involves entering personal info (pins, account numbers, etc.). Not perfect, but better.

I think you underestimate them. They aren't ignorant people that just crawled out from under a rock.

 

[JustMyPOV]

Here are some plain, simple facts:

1. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was a tool created for law enforcement that works perfectly for discovering terrorist activities.

2. FISA allows for emergency wiretaps and other surveillance to be commenced immediately, provided that the FISA court is notified within 72 hours. This easily and readily allows for the speed that the President and Secretary of State say they need to keep tabs on terrorist activity.

3. The FISA court has received over 19,000 petitions to set up wiretaps and has declined to provide a warrant only 5 times since 1978.

4. FISA makes it expressly illegal to spy on American citizens without a warrant from the court.

Despite the fact that the tools he needed were provided by FISA, the president opted to operate in a manner inconsistant with federal law and spied on American citizens without any clearance from the courts. He cites that he has a right to do so under Article 2 of the Constitution, and I just don't see where he gets that he has the right to spy on American citizens without oversight from this:
Article 2 of the US Constitution

He also cites that he got clearance from the justice department. The problem with this is that the justice department doesn't have the legal jurisdiction to authorize such a program, nor is the administrative branch of government allowed to change or ignore the law on their own without the advice and consent of the Congress. In fact, Article 2 specifically states: "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

The few members of Congress that were briefed about this program were not allowed to talk about it with anyone due to its classified nature, so how exactly does that qualify as oversight? Yet, the president claims that this was all the oversight that was needed.

Even if his intentions were good and he really did need to move forward with this program, he should have gone through the appropriate channels and requested that FISA be changed by Congress to suit his needs, it was not a legal option for him to simply decide to simply circumvent it.

 

[cnredd]

I just skimmed article 2, and I didn't see any mention of wartime resolutions, which are decidedly there to equip the executive branch with special powers in certain times...

 

[JustMyPOV]

I just skimmed article 2, and I didn't see any mention of wartime resolutions, which are decidedly there to equip the executive branch with special powers in certain times...

Indeed, but since the power that the executive branch required to spy on terrorists and terrorist supporters was already enacted by the Congress in the form of FISA, complete with checks and provisions allowing for him to act, then seek permission retroactively, there was really no need for him to create this program at all. What it amounts to is that he didn't want to be limited by the courts as to whom he could order the NSA to spy on. I can't imagine any court that would grant a warrant on a petition to spy on a group of Quakers meeting in Florida. I'd hardly consider a group of Quakers a terrorist threat, nor can I imagine that they had any known links to Al Qaeda.

Source

Nixon used the same exact arguments that Bush is using today. I have a great deal of doubt that they'll stand up in court any better now then they did then, when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the president doesn't have the power to completely circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of private citizens in times of war.

 

[ANAV]

Oh, so if I rob a bank, then it's okay if you rob a bank? The problem here is that this adminstration has already shown it sees itself as being above the law, i.e., that it didn't have to follow the Geneva Conventions. Apparently, the same Justice lawyer who wrote the memo on legalizing torture (John Yoo) is the same one who said the president could ignore the law when it came to eavesdropping.

Please, Congress, show us that you will use the oversight that you have. No branch of government should have this much authority.

Go back and read the last line in my post. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, all I'm saying is this has been going on for years, it's nothing new.

 

[aps]

Go back and read the last line in my post. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, all I'm saying is this has been going on for years, it's nothing new.

Okay, but that doesn't make it okay.

This is really fun for me to watch Bush get so upset at people's disgust over this issue. Did you all see him going nuts at his press conference yesterday? He's confidence that what he did was legal, and his defensiveness, were laughable. Arrogance and defensiveness don't mix well.....

When Nixon was president, he did wiretapping without a warrant. The case went to the Supreme Court and it voted unanimously that what Nixon did was unconstitutional. I know, I know--that was prior to 9-11. *sarcasm* I am so sick and tired of Bush invoking September 11th as his excuse that he can do anything. I hope that Bush's surveillance goes to the Supreme Court. I really do.

 

[tecoyah]

Okay, but that doesn't make it okay.
*snip* I hope that Bush's surveillance goes to the Supreme Court. I really do.

Sadly.....it wont, and likely there will be no investigation at all. The price we pay for allowing the checks and balances built into out system to go by the wayside. It really is amazing to see the butterfly effect in action, as all it took was a bit of redistricting in Texas to set the stage for this.

 

[aps]

Sadly.....it wont, and likely there will be no investigation at all. The price we pay for allowing the checks and balances built into out system to go by the wayside. It really is amazing to see the butterfly effect in action, as all it took was a bit of redistricting in Texas to set the stage for this.

How dare you try to rain on my I-can't-stand-George-Bush-and-want-his-wiretapping-to-go-to-the-Supreme-Court parade! :x


Hee hee hee Just kidding.

 

[tecoyah]

How dare you try to rain on my I-can't-stand-George-Bush-and-want-his-wiretapping-to-go-to-the-Supreme-Court parade! :x


Hee hee hee Just kidding.

tecoyah Gives aps a cookie....and a peck on the cheek for good measure.

 

[Stace]

*sarcasm* I am so sick and tired of Bush invoking September 11th as his excuse that he can do anything. I hope that Bush's surveillance goes to the Supreme Court. I really do.

"Whoops, I keep nominating dips**** to the Supreme Court....but that's just because of 9/11"

"Whoops, I didn't practice the speech they wrote for me before I read it on T.V......but that's 9/11's fault."

"Whoops, our administration dropped the ball during Hurricane Katrina.....but that's 9/11's fault."

:lamo

 

[aps]

tecoyah Gives aps a cookie....and a peck on the cheek for good measure.

Is the "cookie" representative of something other than a cookie?

I'm baaaaad!

aps accepts cookie and peck on the cheek with a smile on her face. :lol:

 

[aps]

"Whoops, I keep nominating dips**** to the Supreme Court....but that's just because of 9/11"

"Whoops, I didn't practice the speech they wrote for me before I read it on T.V......but that's 9/11's fault."

"Whoops, our administration dropped the ball during Hurricane Katrina.....but that's 9/11's fault."

:lamo

Yeah, something like that. Everything he does that is not within his powers is to protect us from the people who attacked us on 9-11. When Condi Rice was arguing on Meet the Press about why the president should be able to wiretap without a warrant, all she could do was say, "The president should be able to do this, otherwise, thousands will die like on September 11th." I believe that someone else from his administration said that had he (Bush) done that before 9-11, it may have prevented it.

Oh give me a friggen break.

Laura Bush: Honey, you spilled red wine on our carpet.

Georgie Boy: Butter lips, that's because I was thinking about the terrorists from 9-11 and pretended that the wine was their blood.

:lol: :lol:

 

[Stace]

Yeah, something like that. Everything he does that is not within his powers is to protect us from the people who attacked us on 9-11. When Condi Rice was arguing on Meet the Press about why the president should be able to wiretap without a warrant, all she could do was say, "The president should be able to do this, otherwise, thousands will die like on September 11th." I believe that someone else from his administration said that had he (Bush) done that before 9-11, it may have prevented it.

Oh give me a friggen break.

Laura Bush: Honey, you spilled red wine on our carpet.

Georgie Boy: Butter lips, that's because I was thinking about the terrorists from 9-11 and pretended that the wine was their blood.

:lol: :lol:

LOL......

Seriously, I'm sick of this darn Patriot Act and everything surrounding it....there's no way to actually PROVE that we could have prevented 9/11, nor is there any way to PROVE that we're safer because of it.....without the use of a time machine, anyhow. And well, I don't see Doc or Marty McFly stepping forward to offer that one up......

 

[Hoot]

I've been reading everyone's comments and post #52, by Just my Pov, hits the nail on the head. If you want the truth, go back and read that post.

The Newsmax link is spin..." an operator from echelon told 60 minutes..." boy, that sounds like concrete proof, doesn't it? Plus, the Newsmax link doesn't even mention if the wiretaps, they accuse Clinton of, were foreign in nature...which falls out of the jurisdiction of our courts.

Only 8 members of Congress were kept informed with quartely reports by Bush, and they were all sworn to secrecy due to the classified nature of the report. This is NOT keeping Congress informed.

The bottom line, Bush can authorize any wire tap he wishes for matters of expediency and national security, but he then has 72 hours, after the tap, to get approval through FISA. (Foreign Intelligence Security Act)

Bush decided he didn't have to do this. Bush decided he didn't need court supervision. Bush decided he was above the law. Bush decided he was king, or worse, "God told him to do this." Who knows what Bush was listening to?

Under the law, this is a felony...an impeachable offense. I won't hold my breath, though, under a republican controlled Congress.

 

[MSgt]

LOL......

Seriously, I'm sick of this darn Patriot Act and everything surrounding it....there's no way to actually PROVE that we could have prevented 9/11, nor is there any way to PROVE that we're safer because of it.....without the use of a time machine, anyhow. And well, I don't see Doc or Marty McFly stepping forward to offer that one up......

Yes...great argument. There is no way to prove anything, therefore let's dismantle all laws and military. Get rid of anything that "supposedly" safe guards us, because their is no "proof." Stop working on our missile defense programs, because their is no proof that it will work. Get rid of all suicide prevention lines and all drunk driving prevention classes, because their is no "proof" that it works. In fact, because we can't "prove" so much, let's just do nothing. :roll:

 

[Stace]

Yes...great argument. There is no way to prove anything, therefore let's dismantle all laws and military. Get rid of anything that "supposedly" safe guards us, because their is no "proof." Stop working on our missile defense programs, because their is no proof that it will work. Get rid of all suicide prevention lines and all drunk driving prevention classes, because their is no "proof" that it works.:roll:

You obviously missed the sarcastic overtones in my post.

 

[YNKYH8R]

I believe that they assume they can call operatives inside the states, and not be heard, and vice versa, yes. But not any longer, thanks again leakers, you're real patriots.:roll:

If it is true that illegal activity has been going on then we are sacrificing some rights to protect other rights; is that how it works?

 

[MSgt]

If it is true that illegal activity has been going on then we are sacrificing some rights to protect other rights; is that how it works?

Right now, the only thing preventing terrorists from carrying out an attack on our soil is our CIA, military intel, operations in Bosnia and Pakistan, spying on suspected planners inside our country, and other things I'm sure I know nothing about.

I would hate for an American city to erupt in explosions because your right to check out a llibrary book on bomb building was being upheld. What exactly are you afraid of? It takes a lot to safe guard this nation. We are vulnerable and the only thing Americans can do is complain about it and have enough strength to whine about the remedies.

 

[YNKYH8R]

Right now, the only thing preventing terrorists from carrying out an attack on our soil is our CIA, military intel, operations in Bosnia and Pakistan, spying on suspected planners inside our country, and other things I'm sure I know nothing about.

Clearly.

I would hate for an American city to erupt in explosions because your right to check out a llibrary book on bomb building was being upheld.

Among other things

What exactly are you afraid of?

Nothing really.

It takes a lot to safe guard this nation. We are vulnerable and the only thing Americans can do is complain about it and have enough strength to whine about the remedies.

Oh I'm not whining about the remedies, just make them legal. If they're having a problem with the law they should make it tougher. When people in high positions of power are given these types of authority it has the possibility to lead to other forms of corruption.

Don't get me wrong I undertand your case. We need to have surveilance but it needs to be done legally.

*As Dr. McCoy once said "how can you get a permit to do a damn illegal thing?"

 

[MSgt]

Oh I'm not whining about the remedies, just make them legal. If they're having a problem with the law they should make it tougher. When people in high positions of power are given these types of authority it has the possibility to lead to other forms of corruption.

Don't get me wrong I undertand your case. We need to have surveilance but it needs to be done legally.

*As Dr. McCoy once said "how can you get a permit to do a damn illegal thing?"

Don't mean to be abrasive. It's carry over from another thread.


The problems with making laws tougher is that it never happens. Whenever a law changes it becomes more liberal...not tougher. Tougher is an "infringement"...or so we hear.

I don't think this is such a problem. I think it has gotten carried away with and the Democratic Party is riding it like they do everything else for all its worth. If Bush can "exxagerate intelligence" than the Democratic Party can "exxagerate the issues too." When people use terms loke "police state" and "dictatorship", they are being stupid. They'll be a new President in a couple years and there will be a mess of fresh complaining for the political minions of our nation.

One thing is sure...if that individual backs off from the Middle East, we are in trouble.

 

[YNKYH8R]

Don't mean to be abrasive. It's carry over from another thread.


The problems with making laws tougher is that it never happens. Whenever a law changes it becomes more liberal...not tougher. Tougher is an "infringement"...or so we hear.

I don't think this is such a problem. I think it has gotten carried away with and the Democratic Party is riding it like they do everything else for all its worth. If Bush can "exxagerate intelligence" than the Democratic Party can "exxagerate the issues too." When people use terms loke "police state" and "dictatorship", they are being stupid. They'll be a new President in a couple years and there will be a mess of fresh complaining for the political minions of our nation.

One thing is sure...if that individual backs off from the Middle East, we are in trouble.

I didn't think that it was being abrasive I thought it was making a generalization.
Anyway you are right Democrats could be "exagerating the issue." That is why I'd like to sit back and see what (if anything) transpires over this. If there is somehting illegal happening then it needs to be addressed.
I've never mentioned "police state" although I have seen the words fly around. I believe the thought is if the President can make an arbitrary decision to tap into 'suspects' phones and it's a secret then what's to stop him/her from not tapping? When does he shut it off? This could be a long war. Tapping phones and spying on emails and the like could be the new standard of America; slowly erroding the very rights we fight to protect.

All it takes is for someone to say "hey the government condones wire taps and survielence to get information (leagl or not) why can't we do it to put criminals behind bars?" That is how our leagl system works. "everyone else is doing it so why can't we?"

All it takes is for soimeone to set a precident somewhere to allow it everywhere. It may seem far fetched but you can't rule out the possibility.

 

[hipsterdufus]

If I were a reporter at Bush's press conference I would have asked the following question.

"In the administration's interpretation of the law, would there be anything to stop you from spying on the Kerry campaign or liberal journalists? Since you have publicly accused both of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. "

The answer is no - and I wouldn't put it past them. When/if a special prosecutor is named I hope they dig deep. They may find a 21st Century Watergate break in - all neatly wrapped up in protecting our safety.

 

[Caine]

Don't mean to be abrasive. It's carry over from another thread.


The problems with making laws tougher is that it never happens. Whenever a law changes it becomes more liberal...not tougher. Tougher is an "infringement"...or so we hear.

I don't think this is such a problem. I think it has gotten carried away with and the Democratic Party is riding it like they do everything else for all its worth. If Bush can "exxagerate intelligence" than the Democratic Party can "exxagerate the issues too." When people use terms loke "police state" and "dictatorship", they are being stupid. They'll be a new President in a couple years and there will be a mess of fresh complaining for the political minions of our nation.

One thing is sure...if that individual backs off from the Middle East, we are in trouble.

More complaining.

 

[JustMyPOV]

Don't mean to be abrasive. It's carry over from another thread.


The problems with making laws tougher is that it never happens. Whenever a law changes it becomes more liberal...not tougher. Tougher is an "infringement"...or so we hear.

I don't think this is such a problem. I think it has gotten carried away with and the Democratic Party is riding it like they do everything else for all its worth. If Bush can "exxagerate intelligence" than the Democratic Party can "exxagerate the issues too." When people use terms loke "police state" and "dictatorship", they are being stupid. They'll be a new President in a couple years and there will be a mess of fresh complaining for the political minions of our nation.

One thing is sure...if that individual backs off from the Middle East, we are in trouble.

Well, I have a few problems with this. Firstly, the law is already tough enough and provides for everything the president needed to gather intel to prevent terrorist plotting. He chose instead to ignore the law and procede with his own program with absolutely no judicial oversight. What it appears to amount to, as I said before, is that he didn't want to be limited to whom or what organizations he could spy on within the US. Given the "rubber stamp" nature of the FISA court and how easy it is to obtain a warrant therefrom, that would indicate to me that he was spying on people he shouldn't have been spying on.

The president is grasping at very weak legal straws, if you will, using the exact same arguments that Richard Nixon used to defend the actions. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously at that time that the president, even in times of war, does not get a blank check to create law on his own. This is the very reason FISA was created in the first place.

And one more thing... If the president's actions are found to be illegal, and I really don't see how they could be found legal, given the nature of the crime, we may not have to wait another 3 years for another president after all, according to Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. This isn't to say that this will happen, only that it could happen. Given the laws that have apparantly been violated, and given that there is already such a strong Supreme Court precedent on the matter, it will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
...and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General
...It is important to understand that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities
...Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise; Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."

-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick
Testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, July 14 1994

As usual, for the liberal democrats:
Clinton does it = OK
Bush does it = Bad! Bad!