Bush Permitted NSA to Spy in U.S. without warrants!

[JAG]

Report: Bush Permitted NSA to Spy in U.S.

41 minutes ago

NEW YORK - The National Security Agency has eavesdropped, without warrants, on as many 500 people inside the United States at any given time

That year, following the Sept. 11 attacks,
President Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States, the Times reported.

Before the program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.

The Times said reporters interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.

Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting al-Qaida by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.

But some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the
American Civil Liberties Union, said the group's initial reaction to the disclosure was "shock that the administration has gone so far in violating American civil liberties to the extent where it seems to be a violation of federal law."

Asked about the administration's contention that the eavesdropping has disrupted terrorist attacks, Fredrickson said the ACLU couldn't comment until it sees some evidence. "They've veiled these powers in secrecy so there's no way for Congress or any independent organizations to exercise any oversight."

The Bush administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.

Aides to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, declined to comment Thursday night.

The Times said it delayed publication of the report for a year because the White House said it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. The Times said it omitted information from the story that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists.

Earlier this week, NBC News reported it had obtained a document generated by an obscure
Pentagon agency that analyzes intelligence reports on suspicious domestic activity. The 400-page document included at least 20 references to U.S. citizens, plus information on anti-war meetings and protests.

The Pentagon said Wednesday that Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, had ordered a full review of the system for handling such information to ensure that it complies with Pentagon policies and federal law.

[JAG]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16cnd-spy.html

Bush Declines to Discuss Report on Eavesdropping
By CHRISTINE HAUSER
Published: December 16, 2005


President Bush said today that he would not discuss ongoing intelligence operations in the United States, after a report in The New York Times said he secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States.

"We do not discuss ongoing intelligence operations to protect the country, and the reason why is that there's an enemy that lurks, that would like to know exactly what we're trying to do to stop them," Mr. Bush said in an interview to be broadcast this evening on "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer."

Responding to a question from Mr. Lehrer about the report in today's Times, Mr. Bush said: "I will make this point. That whatever I do to protect the American people, and I have an obligation to do so, that we will uphold the law, and decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people."

"We don't talk about sources and methods," Mr. Bush said in the interview..............

[JJ Insane1]

Oh... its ok (Wink wink) ... They can listen because they are doing it to "protect" us from those dreaded fearsome terrorist (Wink wink).


BUSH authorized SPYING on his own fucking people.... Where are our fucking rights? How can one man single handedly piss all over our constitution and get away with it?

Now.. i know you hardcore Bush heads are going to defend this bullshit with the "if your not doing anything wrong, then what does it matter' excuse... or "we have to do everything to protect our country"... to this i say BULLSHIT!

There is no excuse for a president to BREAK THE LAW like Bush just did.
Break the law?
YES! He broke the law... that is a criminal act - period!

[JAG]

Bush Approved Eavesdropping, Official Says

By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer 56 minutes ago

WASHINGTON -
President Bush has personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times since October 2001, a senior intelligence official said Friday night.

The disclosure follows angry demands by lawmakers earlier in the day for congressional inquiries into whether the monitoring by the highly secretive National Security Agency violated civil liberties.......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_nsa

[STORM SHADOW]

I have no problem with this at all. He is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the USA. All Presidents have had and used this power in the interest of National Security. Hell...he could even pardon a Felon.

SS

[JJ Insane1]

He broke the law my friend. He did it on purpose. He accoplished nothing except removing our constitutional rights and freedoms.


There is not ONE single way you can defend this bullshit...

[STORM SHADOW]

Actually in the interest of National Security...he can do just about whatever he wants...sorry.

SS

[JAG]

I have no problem with this at all. He is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the USA. All Presidents have had and used this power in the interest of National Security.

I can not believe you are defending this.

And you are probably one of the republicans who was screaming for a strict construtionist for the supreme court, yet know you are happy to forget about the constitution.

[rugbythug]

I find this story very interesting.

1. The actual story was written over a year ago and held till when? The day of Successful Elections in Iraq? Seems like fishy timing.

2. There is only one side to the story being leaked and the President has refused to comment.

3. From what I understand the only Phone calls that were monitered were international calls.

4. Under the Patroit act there were special courts created to intiate these types of warrants. Why were they unable to be used?

[JAG]

1. The actual story was written over a year ago and held till when? The day of Successful Elections in Iraq? Seems like fishy timing.

True, but it appears the timing has more to do with book sales. The story is an excert from a book being released next month.

2. There is only one side to the story being leaked and the President has refused to comment.

President said this morning he did it. He says he told lawyers in the NSA and a few people in congress there for it was ok :confused:

3. From what I understand the only Phone calls that were monitered were international calls.

Does not matter, still illegal

4. Under the Patroit act there were special courts created to intiate these types of warrants. Why were they unable to be used?

EXACTLY!, The president decided he does not need oversight. It is legal to do this with out a warrant for 72 hours as long as you ask for one during that time. There is NO excuse, except total arrogance and disregard for the law /constitution!

[JJ Insane1]

Actually in the interest of National Security...he can do just about whatever he wants...sorry.

SS



Sorry to you... because NO he can not do what ever he wants. What he did is ILLEGAL. Period. Thats a fact. He can not spy on anyone he wants without a warrant or without asking for one.... so, no, he cant "do what ever he wants" .... he is not GOD.
He works for who? THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

Quote:
James Bamford, author of two books on the NSA, said the program could be problematic because it bypasses a special court set up by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to authorize eavesdropping on suspected terrorists.

''I didn't hear him specify any legal right, except his right as president, which in a democracy doesn't make much sense,'' Bamford said in an interview. ''Today, what Bush said is he went around the law, which is a violation of the law -- which is illegal.''

[rugbythug]

I think I am going to wait and see how this shakes out. Right now it seems to be very vague. Seems like the wrong thing done for the right reasons. Plus were wire taps used or just satillite intercepts? Were citizens targeted or foriegn nationals. Were warrants gotten but just not in time?

[STORM SHADOW]

You have no idea what the President can do in 'The Interest of National Security'. That's why we have a President. Expediency.

SS

[JJ Insane1]

You have no idea what the President can do in 'The Interest of National Security'. That's why we have a President. Expediency.

SS

The goddamn law says he can not fucking SPY on his own people bro... FUCK the "interest of national security".

If he thought banging your old lady was in the "interest of national security" would you also agree?
Yeah... you probably would.. remember, in your eyes.. HE IS GOD... HE IS THE KING OF MAN KIND! HE IS ABOVE THE LAW! HE IS UNTOUCHABLE!

Jesus CHRIST you people amaze me at how you let this mother fucking son of a bitch do anything he fucking wants... FUCK BUSH... FUCK HIM RIGHT SQUARE IN HIS BEADY EYED LITTLE FUCKING ASS!

[STORM SHADOW]

lol you are so far gone it's even funny anymore. Yes.. he can do JUST ABOUT whatever he wants in the Interests of National Security. Last I saw on TV also.. he defends that was he is doing is Constitutional. If it's not.. why is he not being impeached? eh? eh? eh? hahahahaha

Know why? 'cause he's right.

SS

[JAG]

he defends that was he is doing is Constitutional. If it's not.. why is he not being impeached? eh? eh? eh? hahahahaha

So becuase he claims it is, it is so? Even other republicans disagree. Funny how no one in the admin can give a statute that shows why its legal. They are relying on a law Congress passed in the chaotic days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that authorizes the president to wage war against al-Qaida and its supporters. There was nothing in that that allows domestic spying on American citizens.

There will be hearings especially after the following report

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa.html?ei=5094&en=c385132b746e1109&hp=&ex=1135141200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print


By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without 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.

[STORM SHADOW]

Actually they did quote from the Constitution... Article 2.

SS

[JAG]

Actually they did quote from the Constitution... Article 2.

Please find where it gives him authority? Here is a link
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/

Thats a VERY broad interpratation there using. Care to state one constitutional lawer that has publicly agreed.

BTW, if he has these powers why do we even need a patroit act?

[STORM SHADOW]

Please find where it gives him authority? Here is a link
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/

Thats a VERY broad interpratation there using. Care to state one constitutional lawer that has publicly agreed.

BTW, if he has these powers why do we even need a patroit act?

What Constitutional Attorney? He was on fox this morn...that's where I got it.

SS

[JAG]

They finally found one! i watched there coverage all weekend and every expert said he did not have authority. Was the one you saw part of the admin or GOP??

There will be hearings so we see how this turns out.

[STORM SHADOW]

They finally found one! i watched there coverage all weekend and every expert said he did not have authority. Was the one you saw part of the admin or GOP??

There will be hearings so we see how this turns out.

Hearings? wedo needno stinking hearings

SS

[STORM SHADOW]

Oh...and when the hearings start...is it ok for me to bitch about the cost of them just as the left did when we brought charges on President Clinton?

SS

[JAG]

There is no way the present admin. will let an anti American party take control of Iraq it would devisate the this country's

What is the US going to do then? The candidate they endorsed lost badly. This election just proved Iraq is deeply divided. Civil War is a distinct possiblibity. Even if it does not happen you will have muslim fundamentalists running Iraq. Whats Bush going to call a do-over?


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article334476.ece
Some excerpts

The Shia religious coalition has won a total victory in Baghdad and the south of Iraq.

Religious fundamentalists now have the upper hand. The secular and nationalist candidate backed by the US and Britain was humiliatingly defeated.......The election also means a decisive switch from a secular Iraq to a country in which religious law will be paramount.

[JAG]

now your worried about tax dollars...when your conservative president has increased government size to historic proportions! At least its over something more important than a blow job!

[STORM SHADOW]

I'm not worried about tax dollars at all my friend..that was a joke. It's just that the left bitched soooo much about the cost of Impeaching Clinton.

SS

[mus315]

How does this effect you if you have nothing to hide? I believe it is in our best interest. If he wanted to bust us for something else he would. He is watching for terrorist . We have too many rights and that is how we came to this. Had we been watching a little better and checking suspected phones a little better this might not have happened. There is alot of info that goes on over the phone. We had a guy that was a suspect try and buy 60 prepaid phones 2 miles from my house less than a week ago.

[mus315]

http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_2123540.shtml


and that was 2 miles from my house.

[mus315]

http://www.nbc11.com/news/3501084/detail.html

probaly just good ol boy going fishin right jj

[jrflex10er]

This is bullshit....Why don't we go back to the 1850's when the goverment could do whatever the fuck it wanted? We might as well start all over if the president thinks he is the king of the US. He has way to much power and whoever votes for this asshole might want to think twice about it. I'm sick of this fucking goverment thinking they can do whatever they want. Hey I have a idea...if you want to protect the United states pull all the troops out and have them protect the US! I don't even know why we have the rights....:rolleyes: I will never support this goverment....I Will ALWAYS support the US troops but the goverment can go to hell.

[Dirk T]

Actually it is not a fact that it is illegal. In recent testimony before the senate the AG cited numerous examples of past presidents doing the same thing. Even going much further than Pres. Bush.

From the transcripts.

"THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: General Washington, for example, instructed his army to intercept letters between British operatives, copy them, and then allow those communications to go on their way. President Lincoln used the warrantless wiretapping of telegraph messages during the Civil War to discern the movements and intentions of opposing troops. President Wilson, in World War I, authorized the military to intercept each and every cable, telephone and telegraph communication going into or out of the United States. During World War II, President Roosevelt instructed the government to use listening devices to learn the plans of spies in the United States. He also gave the military the authority to review, without warrant, all telecommunications, quote, "passing between the United States and any foreign country."

The AG's closing statment.

"THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: To end the program now would be to afford our enemy dangerous and potentially deadly new room for operations within our own borders. Our enemy is listening -- and I cannot help but wonder if they aren't shaking their heads in amazement at the thought that anyone would imperil such a sensitive program by leaking its existence in the first place and smiling at the prospect that we might now disclose even more or perhaps even unilaterally disarm ourselves of a key tool in the war on terror"


Which is what baffles me so much. The left is so focused on "getting bush" they are willing to forsake the security of the US to accomplish their goal. This is NOT cart blanche monitoring of US citizens. This is precise interception of international calls that are thought to be made to known terrorists. Why on earth would anyone have a problem with this other than their hatred of Bush and them possibly seeing an angle at which he can be attacked and persecuted. The Dem. senators know that they will lose this battle but just like the Alito hearings they will posture so that they can set forth their agenda. The increasingly funny thing to me is that it only hurts them. Most of the citizens of this country see right through them. They are only strengthening the republican base.

[Dirk T]

Futhermore if you want the facts and the courts precedent on this type of situation as well as what was said by Walter Dellinger back when he was in the office of legal counsel for President clinton then read this letter written by a man who has served for both Clinton and Bush. It explains that it is in FACT legal to do exactly what Bush has done and that the supreme court has previously upheld the right of the president in cases like this.

Here are some FACTS. Not just message board posting from an angry leftist who loves to claim facts.:rolleyes:

http://www.morgancunningham.net/downloads/article_18.pdf

[cjn1717]

I know this thread is old but it caught my attention.
After 9/11 the media, liberals, everyone basically cried and whined about "How come we didnt prevent it, where was our intelligence, blah, blah, blah" People tried and tried to place blame on someone when noone can be blamed for such an act except the terrorist. Well years later our country has changed and now the president is doing things differently. Supposedly "Spying" is one of them. Well maybe its a coincidence but we havent had a terroist attack since 9/11. People cried about how such a thing could happen and now the president does something about it and people start crying again. Its the f#4king media, "Bad news is good news" always wanting to start a fight somewhere. Would it make the media and liberals feel better if Bush wasnt doing anything. And then another attack would happen and the crying would begin again. If the president authorizes someone to peek in on my phone call or whatever and that keeps me feeling safe and not worrying about someone crashing a plane into my job or home then so be it. DO WHAT IT TAKES TO CATCH THESE F$@KS AND MAKE ME FEEL SAFE FOR MYSELF AND FAMILY.

[tbolking]

i guess alot has changed