For years, Bush said court orders required for spying

[Baculus]

For years, Bush said court orders required for spying

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/051220/afp/051220194444top.html

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush, caught up in a domestic spying controversy, for the past two years has assured Americans worried about expanded government anti-terrorism powers that court orders were needed to tap telephones.

Bush has drawn fire over a 2002 order enabling the National Security Agency to monitor, without a judge's go-ahead, the telephone and electronic mail of US citizens suspected of Al-Qaeda ties when they are in touch with someone abroad.

Critics have charged that the unprecedented move is an abuse of power and a violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires court approval of wiretaps and electronic surveillance.

The White House has fired back that Bush's move is legal under the US Constitution and a congressional resolution, after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, that authorized the use of force in Afghanistan.

In 2004 and 2005, Bush repeatedly argued that the controversial Patriot Act package of anti-terrorism laws safeguards civil liberties because US authorities still need a warrant to tap telephones in the United States.

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order," he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.

ADVERTISEMENT

"Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so," he added.

On April 19, 2004, Bush said the Patriot Act enabled law-enforcement officials to use "roving wiretaps," which are not fixed to a particular telephone, against terrorism, as they had been against organized crime.

"You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order -- and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example," he said in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

But under Bush's super-secret order, first revealed Friday by the New York Times and details of which have been confirmed by Bush and other top US officials, the National Security Agency does not need that court's approval.

"A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order," he said July 14, 2004 in Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin.

"In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order," he said. "What the Patriot Act said is let's give our law enforcement the tools necessary, without abridging the Constitution of the United States, the tools necessary to defend America."

The president has also repeatedly said that the need to seek such warrants means "the judicial branch has a strong oversight role."

"Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property," he said in June.

"Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States," he added in remarks at the Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy.

He made similar comments in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 20 2005.

Vice President Dick Cheney offered similar reassurances at a Patriot Act event in June 2004, saying that "all of the investigative tools" under the law "require the approval of a judge before they can be carried out."

"And similar statutes have been on the book for years, and tested in the courts, and found to be constitutional," he said in Kansas City, Missouri.

Asked whether Bush had misled the US public, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday that Bush "was talking about (the issue) in the context of the Patriot Act."

[altair4]

Kind of reminds me of the days when Rome went from Republic to dictatorship.

Caligula used to roam the halls at night, unable to sleep. He was ultimately murdered by his palace guard during one of those nocturnal perambulations.....

Richard Nixon was notorius for his late night wanderings around the White House.

And now we have 3 generations of the Bush clan, with a potential fourth in the wing....

Will the barbarians come from the North or the South?

[Art Monk Fan]

For Bush to have said anything different would have been a treasonous leak of highly classified information -- just saying.

[Beaudry]

Nobody gives a damn about this except for the liberals who are just looking for something to stir up. We already have about a dozen threads on this in the tailgate.

[Art Monk Fan]

Kind of reminds me of the days when Rome went from Republic to dictatorship...

You were there?

[altair4]

Which is a shame. You seem to be happy to watch your civil liberties be taken from you. But it doesn't matter. It wasn't your blood that paid for them.

[Thiebear]

Which is a shame. You seem to be happy to watch your civil liberties be taken from you. But it doesn't matter. It wasn't your blood that paid for them.

Actually it was... and it is and it will be.. My Civil liberties are just fine.

I don't use an International Cell phone to call anyone linked to Alqaeda in the country. But thats just me... And I support any wiretaps directly after the 9/11 catastrophe on international calls...

Do i support getting Fbi files on your opponents? No

Do i support wiretaps on all phones in the U.S.? No

Do i support an fbi device in all ISP's.? no

There were approx. 700 wiretaps in 2003 compared to the 2000+ this year... or it may be backwards.. Review them behind closed doors and ensure they are correct Congress/Judicial.. Do your jobs without telling the people that were being monitored unless you find they were monitored illegally: Then tell them.

[twa]

Which is a shame. You seem to be happy to watch your civil liberties be taken from you. But it doesn't matter. It wasn't your blood that paid for them.

You seem to be a little late in developing a concern,since this has been going on for decades. Welcome to the 20th century

[Brown 43]

You know what, who really cares if someone is listening to your phone convo's? If some FBI guy wants to listen to my wife nag at me so be it! I have nothing to hide! So please stop crying and deal with it!

I agree with Bush, this has probably saved more lives than anything! What would you rather have, a dirty bomb explode over a city and killing millions? Or have a couple thousand people being listen to?

[Prosperity]

wr

You know what, who really cares if someone is listening to your phone convo's? If some FBI guy wants to listen to my wife nag at me so be it! I have nothing to hide! So please stop crying and deal with it!

I agree with Bush, this has probably saved more lives than anything! What would you rather have, a dirty bomb explode over a city and killing millions? Or have a couple thousand people being listen to?

:laugh:

Give up your own rights then, not others'

For Bush to have said anything different would have been a treasonous leak of highly classified information -- just saying.

So our President is either a liar or a traitor? If this is so common place like TWA says, then why has Bush apparantly lied about it?

TWA- are you saying American Citizens have been wire tapped before secretely and without warrants?

If you can find that 1972 case and figure out how they defined Domestic vs. Foreign then we can see whether it has legal precedence, whether it is just a loop hole going against the spirit of the law, or if it is completely unlawful.

[Baculus]

It most certainly isn't "liberals" that care about this issue. But that seems to be the label that used whenever someone shows a bit of questioning or dissent about a particular subject. And just because you don't mind if your own privacy can be invaded doesn't mean that other fellow citizens feel the same way, especially if it is questionable in its ethics or legal stance. Some folks even make such bizarre statements that even questioning about this subject places you into the "Al Qaida-defending" camp, or some such rubbish.

It is a strange day in America when questioning about this subject makes one...Un-American? Seems strangely ironic unto itself, which is the heart of this debate. If we didn't debate this subject, then indeed we would live in a dictatorship, but that is what some seemingly may prefer.

And, yes, this isn't a new subject. Unconstitutional powers by the President have been evident for years. Abuse of Executive power is a worrisome subject and an issue that cuts to the heart of our Republic. Executive decrees and Executive Orders first increased during President Reagan's term in office, then Bush I, then more so under Clinton, and have continued under Bush. And many of the presidential Executive Orders become de facto law without any proper oversight by Congress. I believe a lot of this uproar is due to a distrust of not just the Bush administration, but government in general. Why *should* we merely, and blindly, follow the federal government, no matter who is in charge? That is why legal review, oversight, questioning, and wariness of abuse of power are important for us all.

Previous presidents abused domestic surveillance. The concern is that, with the Patriot Act (II), the reports of the military keeping records on dissident groups, reports of Homeland Security mission creep, and the NSA issue, indeed a creeping police state is occurring. Why wouldn't any rational person start to wonder, "Hey, what is happening here in my country?"

[twa]

Liberty , here is the Kieth descision

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=407&invol=297

The significance imo is the courts refusal to limit the presidents power related to protecting the country.

You might want to read a case from 2002,if you have time

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/fisa111802opn.pdf

[Westbrook36]

Which is a shame. You seem to be happy to watch your civil liberties be taken from you. But it doesn't matter. It wasn't your blood that paid for them.

Eh, I'm doing ok. I'm not a suspected terrorist so I don't worry about anyong listening to my phone conversations.

BTW, I'm a Marine. Ask me or most in the military what they think about this issue before you throw out the "It wasn't your blood that paid for them" line.

Thanks.

[Prosperity]

Liberty , here is the Kieth descision

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=407&invol=297

The significance imo is the courts refusal to limit the presidents power related to protecting the country.

You might want to read a case from 2002,if you have time

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/fisa111802opn.pdf

The court mentions foreign powers that definitely means foreign nations and the such, domestic would be stuff like Tim Mcveigh or other criminals. Terrorists would fall somewhere in between. I do think that this President does have a legal leg to stand on though, the case could definitely be interpretted to allow the President that power. (legal, not ethical)

Still, it appears he lied about it.

[DeanCollins]

I read yesterday, that in the name of 'preventing terrorist attacks' wiretaps were placed on Greenpeace?

[twa]

I read yesterday, that in the name of 'preventing terrorist attacks' wiretaps were placed on Greenpeace?

The only times I have read Greenpeace was tapped was by the domestic law branches,a totaly different matter.

They could certainly qualify for a authorization to tap,

Do you have a source saying there was no court order in this instance?

[Art Monk Fan]

I do think that this President does have a legal leg to stand on though, the case could definitely be interpretted to allow the President that power. (legal, not ethical)

I think we may have reached a point of agreement — pretty rare these days between the left and the right — but very welcome.

Still, it appears he lied about it.

If any government official is asked point-blank about a highly-classified matter, I flat out expect them to lie if needed to protect national security — Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. I consider it fulfillment of their oath to protect this country. In general, it is not acceptable for an elected official to lie to the public, but, when it comes to protecting this country, we cannot afford the luxury of simplistic black and white thinking. To me, this is definitely an area where shades of grey prevail.

[Prosperity]

If any government official is asked point-blank about a highly-classified matter, I flat out expect them to lie if needed to protect national security — Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. I consider it fulfillment of their oath to protect this country. In general, it is not acceptable for an elected official to lie to the public, but, when it comes to protecting this country, we cannot afford the luxury of simplistic black and white thinking. To me, this is definitely an area where shades of grey prevail.

Look if it was a matter of national security and thousands of lives depended on it, I would not lose sleep over a lie, IF it was cleared up as soon as it was safe to do so AND he could prove it was necessary. BUT, I see no reason why the President kept his executive orders a secret, or kept secret the fact that he did issue executive orders that allowed wiretaps of suspected terrorists OTHER than the politcal fire storm it would bring. I believe he lied not because he NEEDED to but because he wanted to be popular.

[twa]

I will point out once again the president was addressing the Patriot Act and it's affect on existing law.

The statement is TRUE if taken in context.

This is not to say Bush has never lied,but at least make a accusation with better proof.

The Left as well as the right seem to grab the first talking point and run with it,Why are there 3-4 threads started on a lie?

The whole presidential powers argument comes down to the powers are loosely defined by the constitution and the courts to allow fexibility in responding to threats,especially once congress empowers use of force.

[Prosperity]

I will point out once again the president was addressing the Patriot Act and it's affect on existing law.

The statement is TRUE if taken in context.

This is not to say Bush has never lied,but at least make a accusation with better proof.

The Left as well as the right seem to grab the first talking point and run with it,Why are there 3-4 threads started on a lie?

The whole presidential powers argument comes down to the powers are loosely defined by the constitution and the courts to allow fexibility in responding to threats,especially once congress empowers use of force.

Put this in context

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order,"

And stop referring to me as The Left

[Art Monk Fan]

Look if it was a matter of national security and thousands of lives depended on it, I would not lose sleep over a lie, IF it was cleared up as soon as it was safe to do so AND he could prove it was necessary. BUT, I see no reason why the President kept his executive orders a secret, or kept secret the fact that he did issue executive orders that allowed wiretaps of suspected terrorists OTHER than the politcal fire storm it would bring. I believe he lied not because he NEEDED to but because he wanted to be popular.

These wiretaps needed to remain secret in order to be effective.

Those engaged in these phone conversations had an expectation of privacy because one of the parties involved is a U.S. citizen. Were it public that unwarranted wiretaps were in use, against U.S. citizens, these conversants would have relied on code or another communications medium.

One of the primary reasons for sleeper cells is that U.S. citizens are granted such wide latitude in their actions. The terrorists rely on our open society and our civil liberty protections to get close enough to us to strike directly at our heart.

I hope that you can see this.

[Art Monk Fan]

Put this in context

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order,"

And stop referring to me as The Left

If you want to parse his words carefully, he refers to "anytime you hear the U.S. government talking about wiretaps," but no one ever talked about the secret wiretaps in public.

Pretty lame, but such semantic gymnastics is one legacy of the Clinton years I'm afraid will remain with us for some time.

[Burgold]

Sure, who's being wiretapped needs to be secret. Does that mean that the fact that we do it does? I would suspect foreign spies, terrorists, and diplomats have suspected or known for years that the US uses wiretaps to gain intelligence. That's not a revelation of any sorts. Intelligence doesn't wait for the bad guys to drop their agendas in a mail and Fed Ex them to Washington. What's a little different here, is that the Bush Administration is choosing to conduct wiretaps without warrant and seemingly without oversight. They are in fact hiding behind national security. No one has ever seriously asked them who they were listening to because that actually would endanger national interests. The fact that they are conducting these operations at all isn't, except if it is being done in an unethical, immoral or illegal way and they are protecting themselves from court or legislative response.

[Prosperity]

If you want to parse his words carefully, he refers to "anytime you hear the U.S. government talking about wiretaps," but no one ever talked about the secret wiretaps in public.

Pretty lame, but such semantic gymnastics is one legacy of the Clinton years I'm afraid will remain with us for some time.

That is a lame excuse, but I won't hold it against you , because I can parse the words even farther and say that he said "anytime you hear" as anytime in present past and future, not just the present and the past in respect to when he said it but also right now which is the future of when he did say that back in 2004.

[Art Monk Fan]

That is a lame excuse, but I won't hold it against you , because I can parse the words even farther and say that he said "anytime you hear" as anytime in present past and future, not just the present and the past in respect to when he said it but also right now which is the future of when he did say that back in 2004.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I'm working on my PhD in English Lit. right now, so, if you want, we can go ahead and Deconstruct the sentence until it means anything you want, including: "clowns are scary." :laugh: :laugh:

I think we agree it's a lame excuse, but no more so than a lot of others that have come out in the last 10-12 years.