For years, Bush said court orders required for spying

[@DCGoldPants]

a few things.

#1. Could we get some merging going on here?

#2. Anybody who buys the excuses about what specifically he was talking about, has no right to question anybody who says "What I meant was........" ever again.

That's just weak.

[Art Monk Fan]

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.

Yes, foreign spies, terrorists and diplomats all have this expectation, but, until this was revealed, did you? And that is the whole point — sleeper cells take advantage of the protections American citizens are afforded to gain an advantage over us. A sleeper with U.S. citizenship could expect that the U.S. government would not wiretap their communications and could communicate with impunity. Now that this has been revealed they will take extra precautions. This secret may not have gained us a huge advantage, but you cannot argue that none has been lost.

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.

From what I understand, the administration believes it has legal justification for this executive power based on past administration's arguments and legal precedent. If not, I am sure that the courts and Congress will clarify the situation, one way or the other.

On the oversight issue, it may not be the full oversight that some would like, but both Congress and the FISA Court were notified, briefed and updated on this program over the past several years — this was not a secret held solely within the Executive Branch.

Finally, on the identity of the wiretap subjects, there are indeed those who are asking this question, even on this message board — search around.

[Prosperity]

: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.

Are you really working on your PhD? If so that is cool.

I didn't really pay much attention to politics until after the 2000 election so I can't really remember if Clinton did, but I am sure he did too, and was probably better at it than Bush. I know all politicians have done this, and it is lame.

[Thiebear]

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.

Having held a Top Secret SBI/SCI there are lots of things youd LIKE to talk about.. but can't..... It's not negotiable, there's not a lot of grey area...

If he doesnt lie he's discussing top secret material.

If he does lie he's not discussing top secret material.

If he says no comment he might as well have said YES!

Now if you want to say: Before 2001 he said he would never imagine wire taping an American Citizens phone and After he says he will and call him a hypocrit.... so be it.. that he would be..

[Art Monk Fan]

Are you really working on your PhD? If so that is cool.

Yup. I've finished my course work and took my comprehensive exams in October. I passed two of the three, but have to retake one of them in March before I can submit my dissertation proposal.

I didn't really pay much attention to politics until after the 2000 election so I can't really remember if Clinton did, but I am sure he did too, and was probably better at it than Bush. I know all politicians have done this, and it is lame.

Clinton was famous for choosing his words very, very carefully (usually anyway) so that he could seem to say one thing, while meaning another. His most egregious "parsing" came during his testimony in his sexual harrassment suit when he answered that his previous statement was true, depending on what the definition of "is" is. :doh:

[Prosperity]

Having held a Top Secret SBI/SCI there are lots of things youd LIKE to talk about.. but can't..... It's not negotiable, there's not a lot of grey area...

If he doesnt lie he's discussing top secret material.

If he does lie he's not discussing top secret material.

If he says no comment he might as well have said YES!

Now if you want to say: Before 2001 he said he would never imagine wire taping an American Citizens phone and After he says he will and call him a hypocrit.... so be it.. that he would be..

Why was it secret?

It is top secret material because he made it so. Why did he make this a secret? because he didn't want to face the political fire storm at the same time his approval ratings were in the toilet.

If he discussed specifics then it would be out of line, but this was in general. If we can't know how the government uses its powers in specific cases then we have to atleast know the limits of the power, right? Also, if every President has done this before and it is common knowledge then why is it a top secret all of a sudden?

Sorry Bear, you don't have a case here. He lied to protect himself as a politician, and that to me is inexcusable.

[twa]

Liberty ,It was not my intention to include you in the left,it was adressed to those starting the threads.

One point on the secrecy issue is the rumors out about the technology being used and methods. Which also has a bearing on the legality.

[Art Monk Fan]

I've posted already regarding the secrecy of this program, but here it goes again.

The terrorists know we monitor the communication of suspected foriegn nationals. Until this revelation, it was assumed the NSA did not spy on the communications of U.S. citizens.

So, one way around our surveilance is to turn a U.S. national, or get a terrorist naturalized. This "sleeper" could then communicate more freely becuase he would be protected by our laws.

Now that the terrorists have been tipped off that this channel is being monitored as well, we have lost one small advantage in the war.

[Sarge]

You fellas need to go Google the word "ECHELON". While you're at it, look up the powers FEMA has during emergencies. Tell me what you think after that

[chomerics]

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.

Bear, this quote reminds me of the man who stood by and said nothing. You know that story right?

First they came for the Communists,

and I didn’t speak up,

because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn’t speak up,

because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,

and I didn’t speak up,

because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,

and by that time there was no one

left to speak up for me.

Just because you say it doesn't effect you, does not make it right, it only means you will sit idly by and watch our freedoms disappear because you are not effected. I would much rather speak out against tyranny then sit idly by, but that is just me.

[Thiebear]

Yes Chomerics.. Nowhwere in my post did I say Congress/Judicial should review this..

re-read it please...

[chomerics]

Yes Chomerics.. Nowhwere in my post did I say Congress/Judicial should review this..

re-read it please...

In your post you stated your civil liberties were just fine, so I think the passage was quite fitting. Just because you think Congress should be involved in removing your civil liberties, although right in thinking in legal terms, is still wrong in terms of our country.

[twa]

If anyone is interested,here are some comments from a respected co-law prof.

http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/12/presidential_wi_1.html#more

Presidential Wiretapping: Disaggregating the Issues

The legal questions raised by President Bush's wiretapping seem to me complex, not simple. Here is a rough guide: (1) Did the AUMF authorize his action? (2) If not, does the Constitution give the President inherent authority to do what he did? (3) If the answer to (1) or (2) is yes, does his action violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)? (4) If the answer to (3) is yes, is FISA constitutional, or is it inconsistent with the President's inherent authority? (5) If the answer to (1) or (2) is yes, does the wiretapping nonetheless violate the Fourth Amendment?

I have already suggested that it is plausible to give a "yes" answer to (1), certainly if we do not consider the effect of FISA. It needn't be conclusive that Congress didn't "intend," with the AUMF, to authorize wiretapping. Once the AUMF is in place, the President can certainly engage in surveillance of some kinds, eg, surveillance of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It isn't a big stretch to say that he can engage in surveillance of people with known Al Qaeda affiliations who are calling to or from the United States. (If Osama Bin Laden is calling New York, it's clear, I think, that the AUMF allows the President to listen to the call.) If there were doubt about the President's power under the AUMF, a plausible claim of inherent power, under (2), would justify reading the AUMF to allow the President to engage in surveillance. (Of course nothing I have said suggests that under the AUMF, the President can engage in surveillance of people without a tie to organizations or nations associated with the attacks of 9/11.)

What about (2)? The Supreme Court has not decided this question, and some lower courts seem to have ruled in the President's favor on this one. Orin Kerr, at the Volokh Conspiracy, has an excellent post that covers this issue (and others I am discussing here). It is not clear that the President is right on (2), but it isn't clear that he is wrong.

On (3), the question is how to square the AUMF with FISI. It isn't unreasonable to say that the more specific statute, FISA, trumps the more general, so that the wiretapping issue is effectively governed by FISI. But if surveillance is taken to be an ordinary incident of war, and if the President has a plausible claim to inherent authority, this argument is substantially weakened. Note that the President isn't forbidden, by the precedents, from arguing that FISI is unconstitututional insofar as it forbids him from engaging in the relevant activity (item (4) in my catalogue). I am not sure how strong this argument is; if it is pretty strong, there is good reason to read the AUMF to allow the President to wiretap, and not to read FISI so as to forbid wiretapping, simply to avoid the hard constitutional question.

What about the Fourth Amendment? It turns out that the President has a plausible claim here as well (again see Orin Kerr's post for helpful discussion) -- not necessarily decisive, but plausible. The cases do not clearly support the view that when monitoring (a) an international call involving ( someone with an Al Qaeda connection © to or from the United States, the President must, (d) under post-9/11 conditions, obtain a warrant. (The AUMF is helpful to the President here.) But to the extent that the Fourth Amendment claim is strong, there is reason to interpret the AUMF narrowly, so as to avoid that question, and also to interpret FISI broadly, also to avoid the Fourth Amendment question. On the other hand, the President's claim of inherent authority, if plausible, raises doubts about this approach.

This is meant as an exceedingly tentative analysis, with the purposes of disaggregating the issues and of suggesting that there are several unresolved questions here.

Posted by sunstein at 10:18 AM in National