PDA

View Full Version : NSA Spying Broader Than Bush Admitted


JAG
12-24-2005, 04:58 PM
Obviously, some of you did not have a problem with the NSA spying case as it was reported. As usual government has a tendency to abuse power and it appears Bush has gone much farther than initially reported. MY question to you guys is at point do you feel he has gone to far? Should be be able to do anything?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/domestic_spying_57;_ylt=AjGxbFrMJfhELC7c6Nkgz4bB4FkB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

NSA Spying Broader Than Bush Admitted

Sat Dec 24, 7:00 AM ET

NEW YORK - The National Security Agency has conducted much broader surveillance of e-mails and phone calls — without court orders — than the Bush administration has acknowledged, The New York Times reported on its Web site.

The NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained access to streams of domestic and international communications, said the Times in the report late Friday, citing unidentified current and former government officials.

The story did not name the companies.

Since the Times disclosed the domestic spying program last week,
President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al-Qaida.

But the Times said that NSA technicians have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might lead to terrorists.

The volume of information harvested from telecommunications data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the paper said, quoting an unnamed official.

The story quoted a former technology manager at a major telecommunications firm as saying that companies have been storing information on calling patterns since the Sept. 11 attacks, and giving it to the federal government. Neither the manager nor the company he worked for was identified.

STORM SHADOW
12-25-2005, 12:09 AM
They are making a mountain out of a mole hill actually. The President did not lie... he didn't state EXACTLY the extent of the survellance and how he did it. Those are National Security concerns that we are not privy to know. It's really not in the Nations interest for the President to tell me his every move on how and what he does. If I know then everybody knows... see where I'm going with this? President gave a broad statement. He said he was spying on 'COMMUNICATIONS' between the USA and KNOWN Terrorist countries. Didn't say exactly what kinds of communications, and didn't say only al-Qaida.
al-Qaida are NOT the only terrorist orgs ya know.


SS

I'm still not concerned. I don't expect him to watch me chat on yahoo.

Dirk T
02-08-2006, 04:02 AM
Its irrelevant. He has the authority. The precedent has been set by past presidents and upheld by the supreme court. For documentation see the other thread on this.

Call me crazy but I am glad the white house is being tight lipped and not divulging our secrets to the enemy to satisfy the left. I know the left doesn't care about that. They are completely preoccupied with trying to vilify Bush and posturing for the press that national security is a secondary concern to them.

JAG
02-12-2006, 08:18 PM
He has the authority. The precedent has been set by past presidents and upheld by the supreme court.

He does not. The first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality said the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments. The 44 page report was done by Congressional Research Service wich is very respected by both sides. There is no precedent set since the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is relatively new legislation created to outlaw this very issue.

Further more, the Bush administration rejected a 2002 Senate proposal that would have made it easier for FBI agents to obtain surveillance warrants in terrorism cases, concluding that the system was working well and that it would likely be unconstitutional to lower the legal standard.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502270.html