Bush defends domestic eavesdropping.

[Slowlane]

No, Mutt's right. Bush had Arthur Sulzberger of the NYT in the Oval Office begging him not to run the story because the program was supposedly still yielding results. Now it's not.

But it’s hurting Bush – and maybe increasing book sales.

 

[Gringao]

So the question is, why not get warrants? It's not the "terrorists are fast" excuse Bush gave. The warrants could have been signed 72 hours later.
Bush believes he is above the law. Always has. Look at his record.

From what I've read, the warrants take several days to several weeks to prepare and only apply to a particular phone line, not a particular person. When cell phone numbers can be acquired and discarded in a day or two, the cumbersome process of getting warrants becomes pointless.

 

[zipman]

Follow up post.

The presidents obligation is to the nation and the constitution. Nowhere in the oath of office is either one of our names mentioned. Like the CEO of a corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to the Corp., so has the president to the nation.

If Zip, or a thousand like him, or an Ishmael and a thousand like him have to be sacrificed to save the rest of the nation, sobeit. If Zip and Ishmael haven't made arrangements to cover their own ass when push comes to shove, well, we're going to die. And neither of us have the right, or the expectation, to demand that the government put our petty lives above the balance of the nation.

Ishmael

No Ish, no misguided thoughts here. Bush said to "protect Americans" not the nation, not America.

 

[cjh]

From what I've read, the warrants take several days to several weeks to prepare and only apply to a particular phone line, not a particular person. When cell phone numbers can be acquired and discarded in a day or two, the cumbersome process of getting warrants becomes pointless.

they can be secured retroactively. up to 14 days afterwards, if i recall. that allows flexibility and provides for accountability.

 

[Gringao]

they can be secured retroactively. up to 14 days afterwards, if i recall. that allows flexibility and provides for accountability.

But if you're not working under FISA authoriation, does it matter?

 

[cjh]

But if you're not working under FISA authoriation, does it matter?

apparently not.

 

[The Mutt]

Point is, if the tap has already been done and the info already aquired, why not follow the law?

Maybe because they are also tapping PETA and the DNC and Michael Moore?

But, no. Bushco would NEVER do that. Because they are soooo honest. Just ask Jeff Gannon.

 

[Gringao]

Point is, if the tap has already been done and the info already aquired, why not follow the law?

Maybe because they are also tapping PETA and the DNC and Michael Moore?

But, no. Bushco would NEVER do that. Because they are soooo honest. Just ask Jeff Gannon.

And the wheels come off the Mutt Express again, right on schedule.

 

[The Mutt]

And the wheels come off the Mutt Express again, right on schedule.

I ask again, why not follow the law?

And tell me where I'm wrong, please.

 

[cjh]

i really think the article i read earlier nailed it.

a fisa warrant require's probable cause, and bush's procedure requires a lesser showing of need.

 

[Gringao]

I ask again, why not follow the law?

And tell me where I'm wrong, please.

Apparently the law under which the Bush administration was operating was not FISA (which would require a warrant), but the 2001 Use of Force statute that authorized the Prez to use all necessary force against whomever he found to be credibly linked to the events of 9-11.

 

[Wrong Element]

i really think the article i read earlier nailed it.

a fisa warrant require's probable cause, and bush's procedure requires a lesser showing of need.

Apparently FISA warrants are very easy to get--I'm not sure a request for one has ever been turned down. Which is why people are wondering why Bush hasn't sought a warrant in these cases. You don't have to be Jim Garrison to assume they're hiding something.

I haven't read this whole thread (Meekail? Who would have guessed) and haven't posted much on this issue. It's an outrage of course, but it's been like this for 5 years and I'm getting tired. Suffice it to say that James Madison is looking mighty prescient these days: "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

 

[Gringao]

They're not invoking FISA, they're invoking the Use of Force resolution passed in the wake of 9-11.

 

[Pookie]

Read up on Echelon and what it's charter became in '93 and how many hundreds of thousands were 'spied' upon. Of course, Clinton authorized it, ...

As well as a FISA court ... for each and every one of those who were "spied" on ... at least that's according to what Tenet testified to Congress in 2000.

 

[Meekail]

The revelations of President Bush's 4-year-old order approving domestic surveillance without court warrants has spurred a fiery debate over the balance of power between the White House, Congress, and the judiciary.

On Capitol Hill, senators from both parties said the role of Congress cannot be sidelined -- even in wartime.

''I think the vice president ought to reread the Constitution," said Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts.

Domestic spying authorized by the White House ''doesn't uphold our Constitution," and President Bush's defense of the practice is ''lame," Senator John Kerry said yesterday.

Kerry also said the alleged White House leak of a CIA agent's identity was more serious than the media's disclosure of the spying program.

''The leak in the White House was an effort to destroy somebody and his family and attack them for telling the truth," the senator said. ''The leak that took place in this case is a leak that -- I'm not excusing it -- is to tell the truth about something that violates the rights of Americans and doesn't uphold our Constitution."

The Republican National Committee batted away the criticism.

''While President Bush remains focused on defending Americans against those intent on doing us harm, John Kerry remains focused on attacking President Bush," committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said.

Democrats said they were deeply troubled by the surveillance program, and contended the president had no authority to approve it.

''He has no legal basis for spying on Americans without court approval," said Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, the number two Democrat in the Senate.

Republicans said Congress must investigate whether Bush was within the law to allow the super-secret National Security Agency to eavesdrop -- without warrants -- on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to Al Qaeda.

''I believe the Congress -- as a coequal branch of government -- must immediately and expeditiously review the use of this practice," said Senator Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine.

Snowe joined three other members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel, in calling for a joint inquiry by the Senate judiciary and intelligence committees.

The administration defends the program, saying Congress gave Bush the authority to use ''signals intelligence" -- wiretaps, for example -- to eavesdrop on international calls between US citizens and foreigners when one of them is a suspected Al Qaeda member or supporter.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales cited the Authorization to Use Military Force law, which Congress passed and Bush signed a week after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The administration believes that law lets the government avoid provisions of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The surveillance act was passed after public outcry over abuses during the Nixon administration, which spied on antiwar and civil rights protesters.

Under the act, an 11-member court oversees government applications for secret surveillance or searches of foreigners and US citizens suspected of terrorism or espionage.

''I'm not a lawyer, but in my reading, it is pretty conclusive, very conclusive, that FISA prohibits all warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans in America," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California.

Senator Joe Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, asked: ''Why didn't the administration feel that it could go to the FISA court to get the warrant?"

Representative John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill calling on Congress to determine whether there are grounds for impeachment -- an event that is extremely unlikely in a Republican-controlled Congress.

Democrats called attention to a Bush statement in April 2004 that they said conflicts with what the president is saying now.

''Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order," Bush said during a speech on the Patriot Act in Buffalo, N.Y. ''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."

The White House said the president's comments -- two years after approving the domestic surveillance program -- applied to the kind of roving wiretaps the Patriot Act allows for law enforcement, not eavesdropping for foreign intelligence.

Bush and his top advisers have suggested senior congressional leaders vetted the program in more than a dozen highly classified briefings. Democrats said they were told of the program, but had concerns.

 

[The Mutt]

Apparently the law under which the Bush administration was operating was not FISA (which would require a warrant), but the 2001 Use of Force statute that authorized the Prez to use all necessary force against whomever he found to be credibly linked to the events of 9-11.

If he thought what he was doing was legal, why did he lie about it?

 

[busybody..]

Cracked Pot Herc

You forgot about the Nuns

Remeber?

 

[cjh]

Cracked Pot Herc

You forgot about the Nuns

Remeber?

The latest batch of documents, parts of which the A.C.L.U. plans to release publicly on Tuesday, totals more than 2,300 pages and centers on references in internal files to a handful of groups, including PETA, the environmental group Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers group, which promotes antipoverty efforts and social causes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html

 

[busybody..]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html

I'll read the link

But before I do

I dont for a minute believe that ANY group that is JUST anti poverty is looked into by the FBI

There has to be MUCH more then that

(assuming that the NYTimes is right and hasnt made shit up, as they usually do)

 

[busybody..]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html

I see NOTHING about Nuns

Gimme da passage

I see nuthing bout no anti poverty shit n stuff

Like my english?

 

[busybody..]

ok, I see what you mean

and you do realize that the context IS not there

Facts are NOT there

Once again

I dont for a minute believe that a simple anti poverty group is spied on

 

[The Mutt]

...I dont for a minute believe that ANY group that is JUST anti poverty is looked into by the FBI

There has to be MUCH more then that...

Because of the FBI's sterling track record?

http://news-info.wustl.edu/images/2003/mlk.jpg

 

[busybody..]

I guess NOW you are all happy

Top Stories...
•Qaeda Relocates to U.S. for Spy-Free Calling
•Dover Must Change Evolution Policy within 40M Years
•Bush Announces Do-Not-Wiretap List
•Bono Gets Time to Forgive Subscriber Debt
•Draft of Bush Speech Touted Baghdad Disney



December 21, 2005
Qaeda Relocates to U.S. for Spy-Free Calling
by Scott Ott

(2005-12-21) — Al Qaeda announced today it would relocate its international headquarters to an unnamed U.S. city in order to take advantage of espionage-free local, and state-to-state, phone calls.

“Al Qaeda will thrive in the land of liberty,” said an unnamed spokesman on a 30-minute pre-recorded DVD. “We’re still shopping for a primary location with great access to transportation and, Allah be praised, good public schools.”

The al Qaeda source said Democrats in Congress recommended the move after the The New York Times revealed that the National Security Administration listens in on communications between international terrorists and some U.S. residents.

The source said no matter where al Qaeda plants its U.S. headquarters, it will incorporate in tax-free Nevada

 

[busybody..]

Because of the FBI's sterling track record?

http://news-info.wustl.edu/images/2003/mlk.jpg

MLK was a dangerous subversive

Also, YOU cant compare era's

You know what I mean, Doggy!

 

[The Mutt]

MLK was a dangerous subversive

Also, YOU cant compare era's

You know what I mean, Doggy!

And yet you keep bringing up Carter.