December 16th, 2005, 09:14 AM #1
Bush really does think it is just a piece of paper...
And he wiped his ass with the Fourth Amendment.
Report: Bush eased domestic spy rules after 9/11
Eavesdropping allowed without search warrants, NYT says
NEW YORK (AP) -- President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States -- without getting search warrants -- following the Sept. 11 attacks, The New York Times reports.
The presidential order, which Bush signed in 2002, has allowed the agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States, according to a story posted Thursday on the Times' Web site.
Before the new program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders to do so. Under the post-Sept. 11 program, the NSA has eavesdropped, without warrants, on as many 500 people inside the United States at any given time. 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 Qaeda 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.
December 16th, 2005, 09:24 AM #2
There's a bumper sticker --
"I never thought I'd miss Nixon!"
December 16th, 2005, 01:02 PM #3
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
And you can run the country better?
Though I do agree that some of the decisions he's made have been disgusting, especially in regards to how he's letting religion dictate how he views gay rights.
I do agree with the war however.
December 16th, 2005, 03:10 PM #4"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
December 19th, 2005, 11:49 AM #5
I'm amazed that people who label themselves as conservative have no trouble excusing a government from spying on its own people without a legal warrant. This is what we used to accuse the Communists of doing.
The fact is that if someone was a real threat, a judge would authorize a warrant in minutes. However, eavesdropping without search warrants posses a serious threat to all our liberties and is unconstitutional. It is also prohibited in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The real question to ask is why does the president feel that he can't get a judge to sign off on a warrant?
Last edited by MTAtech; December 19th, 2005 at 11:52 AM.Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
December 19th, 2005, 12:08 PM #6
The real question is, if the President believes he has the right to override any law or regulation, why does he need the USA PATRIOT Act?In judging a two-person singing contest, never award the prize to the second soprano having heard only the first.
-- Francis Bator
December 19th, 2005, 12:18 PM #7
Well, Bush may 'say' that he has the inherent authority but only the most reckless interpretation would conclude that he has. It's clear that Congress did not authorize such wiretaps. If so, where?
In the U.S. Supreme Court ruling YOUNGSTOWN CO. v. SAWYER, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) "To avert a nation-wide strike of steel workers in April 1952, which he believed would jeopardize national defense, the President issued an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate most of the steel mills. The Order was not based upon any specific statutory authority but was based generally upon all powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces." The court concluded:
When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system. http://www.justia.us/us/343/579/case.htmlConservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
December 19th, 2005, 12:20 PM #8
From Billmon:It's a Free Country
Bush declined to discuss the domestic eavesdropping program in a television interview, but he joined his aides in saying that the government acted lawfully and did not intrude on citizens' rights.
"Decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people," Bush said on "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer."Washington Post
Citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No person may be placed under arrest except by decision of a court or with the sanction of a procurator.
The inviolability of the homes of citizens and privacy of correspondence are protected by law.Constitution of the USSR
December 1936In judging a two-person singing contest, never award the prize to the second soprano having heard only the first.
-- Francis Bator
December 19th, 2005, 03:54 PM #9
"as the Supreme Court noted last year, the struggle with foreign enemies does not simply give him a blank check to do whatever he wants."Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
December 19th, 2005, 04:00 PM #10
Well, Condi can't answer the question (citing "I'm not a lawyer" at least a half-dozen times yesterday on Meet the Press), and obviously McClellan can't, and Alberto is prevaricating, so who exactly can cite the justification for this?
Maybe G. Gordon Liddy?
December 19th, 2005, 04:17 PM #11
he wiped his ass with the Fourth Amendment.Good job, friend-of-friends!
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Joplin, MO
- Blog Entries
December 19th, 2005, 04:30 PM #12
tony_j15, I take back most of the bad things I've said about you!
December 19th, 2005, 04:34 PM #13
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Joplin, MO
- Blog Entries
must be the holiday spiritGood job, friend-of-friends!
December 19th, 2005, 04:41 PM #14
To further the holiday spirit, Tony is right.
I am also told that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows for retroactive approval. So, there is no excuse - not even lack of time.
December 19th, 2005, 04:54 PM #15
Big meanie.Originally Posted by Gomer
December 19th, 2005, 05:03 PM #16
rmk, I've been Jewish longer than you and Gomer is right on target. BTW, nobody has to doing anything to make Bush unpopular. His wounds are self-inflicted.
December 19th, 2005, 05:07 PM #17Originally Posted by MTAtech
December 19th, 2005, 05:08 PM #18
I know he's made some mistakes and wrong decisions but I agree with the war. Without it we'd be getting much more terrorist attacks.
December 19th, 2005, 05:09 PM #19
And I've probably been Jewish longer than the both of you combined, and although I'd put it a little more delicately than Gomer, he's right on target. Exactly how many people do you have to lock up secretly or torture before the comparison becomes legitimate? I'd like to think we have a higher standard than "not quite as bad as Saddam/Pol Pot/Mao/Stalin/Hitler".
Answer to rmk11's question: I was born in 1940. That makes me 39 years older than you. I would have guessed from your style that you were rather younger than that; but some people are slow learners, I guess.
Last edited by Theophylact; December 19th, 2005 at 05:13 PM.In judging a two-person singing contest, never award the prize to the second soprano having heard only the first.
-- Francis Bator
December 19th, 2005, 05:13 PM #20Originally Posted by Theophylact
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By sixf00t4 in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 21Last Post: December 15th, 2005, 09:19 PM
By Theophylact in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 13Last Post: January 24th, 2005, 11:51 AM
By iNeb in forum Tech News DiscussionReplies: 7Last Post: October 22nd, 2003, 10:19 PM