Bush allowed NSA to spy without warrants...

[Kilmer17]

Where does it say there wont be any? You're making that claim, please show me why.

[Winslowalrob]

Where does it say there wont be any? You're making that claim, please show me why.

Just curious, where is the oversight for the Patriot Act

And where does it state that there will be oversight for the NSA actions?

Because it does not say one way or the other in the article. Are we to operate on assumptions now?

[Kilmer17]

Yes, we assume that laws are followed until we are shown that they are not.

The article is great example of Liberal propoganda. They omit specifics knowing that most people are too stupid to understand it all. So they leave out the specifics about oversight knowing that people will assume their isnt any.

[NavyDave]

So liberals and spineless republicans in Name only are blocking renewing the Patriot Act.

Just create a list of the NOs so when we are attacked again we can point directly at those who are to blame.

[Winslowalrob]

Yes, we assume that laws are followed until we are shown that they are not.

The article is great example of Liberal propoganda. They omit specifics knowing that most people are too stupid to understand it all. So they leave out the specifics about oversight knowing that people will assume their isnt any.

It is hardly Liberal propoganda, or else it would have come out last year despite the requested moratorium. You are right, there are people too stupid to to understand the article and its significance. After all, every NSA agent willingly complied with it .

[chomerics]

Doesn't the fact that our constitution grants citizens certain rights, and these rights are being taken away bother anyone? Where are the libertarians hollering how this is too much power?

Would you still feel the same way if Clinton did this?

Navy Dave, if Clinton did this, would you still feel the same way?

[Kilmer17]

It is hardly Liberal propoganda, or else it would have come out last year despite the requested moratorium. You are right, there are people too stupid to to understand the article and its significance. After all, every NSA agent willingly complied with it .

touche.

Seriously though, my first post on the thread still stands. As long as it isnt used as evidence to convict a US citizen, I dont have aproblem with it.

I just dont see the point of revealing this.

[NavyDave]

Doesn't the fact that our constitution grants citizens certain rights, and these rights are being taken away bother anyone? Where are the libertarians hollering how this is too much power?

Would you still feel the same way if Clinton did this?

Navy Dave, if Clinton did this, would you still feel the same way?

After a bombing? No problem what so ever.

While I hated his extra curricular actions we in the military respected the position of president so we didnt ***** about peace keeping in Bosnia or being shot at in Liberia or Sierra leone though I did put a cap in some ungrateful asses who had a couple of shots whizz over my head.

[DCRunner]

I believe there were agents and/or officials who refused to participate because they were conerned with the legality of such activities.

The problem with such powers is that inevitably they get used for other purposes. And please don't delude yourselves that the courts would automatically strike down such unintended uses. Ever since 9/11 the courts in their limited oversight role have pretty much rubber stamped everything the govt wants. So getting warrants for these wiretaps is incredibly easy. The govt hasn't needed to show much at all to get them approved. So if they're afraid to even ask for approval they must have zilch.

And why would anyone assume that there are controls or limits if there is no such language in the statute? If someone is to challenge illegal or unconstitutional acts by the govt you first have to know about them - pretty hard if everything is done in secret and there are draconian penalties for revealing any such info - and then you need representation and that lawyer has to have access to the info you need to argue your case - good luck getting that info.

I think we all need remedial classes in the Constitution and what this country stands for. If we're willing to go to war and die to protect our values and freedoms why aren't we willing to risk terrorism and the risk of war and death here to protect the same thing?

[Kilmer17]

For the exact same reasons that Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus.

Sometimes we need to bend the rules for the safety of our people.

[Air Force Cane]

Ah, I see the DNC talking points have made their way to the board in a prompt fashion.

If these were Bush "secrets"- then why is it that Democratic lawmakers knew about them?

[Mr Platypus]

In all seriousness, I find this to be quite disturbing. It is a direct violation of the 4th Amendment.

Now, I understand that information gathering needed to be stepped up. However, instead of making wholesale eavesdropping ok, they should have made it easier to obtain warrants.

That way, in the case of abuse (which I'm sure there has been), at least there is a paper trail.

[wskin44]

If these were Bush "secrets"- then why is it that Democratic lawmakers knew about them?

Very good point. It isn't clear what happened, and I'm not familiar with the law that governs NSA activities other than what I heard on the news today. Moreover the law may allow exceptions as long as Congress can review those exceptions. Members of Congress seem to be aware of the Executive Order so it may all be legal.

My concern is that the President can't just change a law with an Executive Order, but that may not be what happened.

On the larger issue, it bothers me that foreigners seem to acquire the rights of American citizens just by being in our country. It seems to me that all communications between visiting foreigners and other foreigners, both in this country and outside this country, should be subject to surveilance if appropriate intelligence services deem it necessary.

If the suspect is American then turn it over to the FBI. I thought that the Patriot Act made surveilance more flexible.

[Prosperity]

The question is who leaked it to the liberal media?

Yes that guy needs a medal

[DCRunner]

In all seriousness, I find this to be quite disturbing. It is a direct violation of the 4th Amendment.

Now, I understand that information gathering needed to be stepped up. However, instead of making wholesale eavesdropping ok, they should have made it easier to obtain warrants.

That way, in the case of abuse (which I'm sure there has been), at least there is a paper trail.

I'm not sure when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was first enacted but since that time they approximate that 7 thousand warrant applications have been made by the govt to the FISA Court and NOT ONE has been appealed. Analysts feel pretty safe concludiing that it means that no application has been denied.

The Chief Justice appooints 5 to 7 (I'm not sure now) federal judges to sit on a committee of judges who meet in a vaulted security room at the Dept of Justice and decide the applications for the warrants. With judges like Royce Lamberth ( who recently left the committee) one can safely assume the governemnt gets what it wants in terms of these warrants.

So the administration doesn't need any more "freedom" to surveille or snoop around. It's pretty easy for them to do it within the legal framework. That they still went outside the law (in everyday terms, broke the law) to do it is pretty appalling and pathetic. They really have no respect whatsoever for the Constitution. To them it is just a piece of paper. They are as unAmerican as you can get and still fool millions of people with their false claims of patriotism and love of country. I'm not sure what it is they love about this country but it sure doesn't seem to be its basic tenets and principles.

[Mr Platypus]

I'm not sure when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was first enacted but since that time they approximate that 7 thousand warrant applications have been made by the govt to the FISA Court and NOT ONE has been appealed. Analysts feel pretty safe concludiing that it means that no application has been denied.

The Chief Justice appooints 5 to 7 (I'm not sure now) federal judges to sit on a committee of judges who meet in a vaulted security room at the Dept of Justice and decide the applications for the warrants. With judges like Royce Lamberth ( who recently left the committee) one can safely assume the governemnt gets what it wants in terms of these warrants.

So the administration doesn't need any more "freedom" to surveille or snoop around. It's pretty easy for them to do it within the legal framework. That they still went outside the law (in everyday terms, broke the law) to do it is pretty appalling and pathetic. They really have no respect whatsoever for the Constitution. To them it is just a piece of paper. They are as unAmerican as you can get and still fool millions of people with their false claims of patriotism and love of country. I'm not sure what it is they love about this country but it sure doesn't seem to be its basic tenets and principles.

Good info. Thanks. So, according to what you said, there would be no need to snoop folks without a warrant. Interesting.

[Mr Platypus]

66 percent of people disapprove of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. The other 34 percent think Adam and Eve rode a dinosaur to church.

--Tina Fey.

[chomerics]

For the exact same reasons that Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus.

Sometimes we need to bend the rules for the safety of our people.

The reason Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus and America today are so far apart it isn't even funny. We were in the midst of a secession, and the beginning of a civil war. Now? Just more blatent disregard for the constitution :doh:

BTW, I don't think Lincoln should have suspended it either.

[PokerPacker]

Doesn't the fact that our constitution grants citizens certain rights, and these rights are being taken away bother anyone? Where are the libertarians hollering how this is too much power?

Would you still feel the same way if Clinton did this?

Navy Dave, if Clinton did this, would you still feel the same way?

sorry on the late entrence. i don't want the government listening in on my conversations, and i sure as hell don't want the government taking liberties on my liberties under a veil of secrecy.

[Burgold]

Apparently, lawmakers were not pre-informed. Even very Republican Senators like Spector are concerned about what this means.

Updated: 05:29 AM EST

President Authorized Secret Eavesdropping

Lawmakers Want to Investigate Whether NSA Violated Civil Liberties

By KATHERINE SHRADER, AP

WASHINGTON (Dec. 17) - 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.

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," declared Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He promised hearings early next year.

Bush on Friday refused to discuss whether he had authorized such domestic spying without obtaining warrants from a court, saying that to comment would tie his hands in fighting terrorists.

In a broad defense of the program put forward hours later, however, a senior intelligence official told The Associated Press that the eavesdropping was narrowly designed to go after possible terrorist threats in the United States.

The official said that, since October 2001, the program has been renewed more than three dozen times. Each time, the White House counsel and the attorney general certified the lawfulness of the program, the official said. Bush then signed the authorizations.

During the reviews, government officials have also provided a fresh assessment of the terrorist threat, showing that there is a catastrophic risk to the country or government, the official said.

"Only if those conditions apply do we even begin to think about this," he said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the intelligence operation.

"The president has authorized NSA to fully use its resources - let me underscore this now - consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution to defend the United States and its citizens," the official said, adding that congressional leaders have also been briefed more than a dozen times.

Senior administration officials asserted the president would do everything in his power to protect the American people while safeguarding civil liberties.

"I will make this point," Bush said in an interview with "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." "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."

The surveillance, disclosed in Friday's New York Times, is said to allow the agency to monitor international calls and e-mail messages of people inside the United States. But the paper said the agency would still seek warrants to snoop on purely domestic communications - for example, Americans' calls between New York and California.

"I want to know precisely what they did," Specter said. "How NSA utilized their technical equipment, whose conversations they overheard, how many conversations they overheard, what they did with the material, what purported justification there was."

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., a member of the Judiciary Committee, said, "This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every American."

Vice President Dick Cheney and Bush chief of staff Andrew Card went to the Capitol Friday to meet with congressional leaders and the top members of the intelligence committees, who are often briefed on spy agencies' most classified programs. Members and their aides would not discuss the subject of the closed sessions.

The intelligence official would not provide details on the operations or examples of success stories. He said senior national security officials are trying to fix problems raised by the Sept. 11 commission, which found that two of the suicide hijackers were communicating from San Diego with al-Qaida operatives overseas.

"We didn't know who they were until it was too late," the official said.

Some intelligence experts who believe in broad presidential power argued that Bush would have the authority to order these searches without warrants under the Constitution.

In a case unrelated to the NSA's domestic eavesdropping, the administration has argued that the president has vast authority to order intelligence surveillance without warrants "of foreign powers or their agents."

"Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority," the Justice Department said in a 2002 legal filing with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.

Other intelligence veterans found difficulty with the program in light of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed after the intelligence community came under fire for spying on Americans. That law gives government - with approval from a secretive U.S. court - the authority to conduct covert wiretaps and surveillance of suspected terrorists and spies.

In a written statement, NSA spokesman Don Weber said the agency would not provide any information on the reported surveillance program. "We do not discuss actual or alleged operational issues," he said.

Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, former NSA general counsel, said it was troubling that such a change would have been made by executive order, even if it turns out to be within the law.

Parker, who has no direct knowledge of the program, said the effect could be corrosive. "There are programs that do push the edge, and would be appropriate, but will be thrown out," she said.

Prior to 9/11, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance activities to foreign embassies and missions _ and obtained court orders for such investigations. Much of its work was overseas, where thousands of people with suspected terrorist ties or other valuable intelligence may be monitored.

The report surfaced as the administration and its GOP allies on Capitol Hill were fighting to save provisions of the expiring USA Patriot Act that they believe are key tools in the fight against terrorism. An attempt to rescue the approach favored by the White House and Republicans failed on a procedural vote.

12-17-05 05:57 EST

[Prosperity]

For the exact same reasons that Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus.

Sometimes we need to bend the rules for the safety of our people.

You think this is any where near on the level of a civil war, which happened to be the biggest and bloodiest conflict in all of our nations history? When drawing analogies the least you can do is use comparable ones. Even if they were comparable you assume Lincoln was correct.

[Prosperity]

66 percent of people disapprove of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. The other 34 percent think Adam and Eve rode a dinosaur to church.

--Tina Fey.

:rotflmao: that post and your sig made me spit out my breakfast

[dreamingwolf]

I dont blame the left for raising ire over this, it is crucial for them to have the US to suffer a terrorist attack here on US soil. Right now Republicans gloat all the time how there hasnt been an attack state side since 9/11, the left dug to find out why they got it and now they gotta stop it.

[chomerics]

I dont blame the left for raising ire over this, it is crucial for them to have the US to suffer a terrorist attack here on US soil.

What a truly disgusting, false and downright blatent hackish post :hammer:

If the rest of the US were truly as misguided as you, there would be another civil war not in Iraq, but here in the US :doh:

[Sarge]

Now I wonder what big mouthed Dem leaked this to the world? Thanks for the help with national security *******. And Bush should have called out to the world the names of the congressmen that have been breifed on this, especially if they are the some of the same ones that have been whining on TV about it

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/17/D8EI32N00.html

By JENNIFER LOVEN

Associated Press Writer

Dec 17 10:40 AM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and he lashed out at those involved in publicly revealing the program. "This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security," he said in a radio address delivered live from the White House's Roosevelt Room.

ADVERTISEMENT

"This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States," Bush said.

Angry members of Congress have demanded an explanation of the program, first revealed in Friday's New York Times and whether the monitoring by the National Security Agency violates civil liberties.

Defending the program, Bush said in his address that it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al- Qaida or related terrorist organizations.

He said the program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program.

Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program's activities.

The president also said the intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training to make sure civil liberties are not violated.

Appearing angry at times during his eight-minute address, Bush left no doubt that he will continue authorizing the program.

"I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups," he said.