Bush defends domestic eavesdropping.
- Thread starter Meekail
- Start date
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
POOKIESlowlane said:
wont answer
nor will she answer what Carter and ClitMan investigated
Cause she knows that I then will ask
What was MORE important to investigate
What Carter or clitMan or Bush investigated
She HATES America and The troops and FREEDOM
and LOVES TERRORISTS
But she does post good porn
dead.jihadist
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Posts
- 499
the clinton admisistration searching aldrich ames house without a warrant = good,the bushies wire tapping known terrorist sympathizers to protect american lives = bad. see bb, you can never win with the clinton supporters, in reality they all wish that they could have been monica.
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
Pookie is dishonest
she will post all sorts of C n P shit, yet doesnt have the decency of answering
Because she knows that the answers dont support her
Hey Pookie
change your name to the WeatherWooman
she will post all sorts of C n P shit, yet doesnt have the decency of answering
Because she knows that the answers dont support her
Hey Pookie
change your name to the WeatherWooman
zipman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 38,552
Ishmael said:
Here is what Bush said:
"I just want to assure the American people that, one, I've got the authority to do this; two, it is a necessary part of my job to protect you; and three, we're guarding your civil liberties," Bush said in a news conference Monday."
So I guess either you or Bush are the ones with the misguided thoughts.
Which is it Ish? Who is wrong, you or the President?
someplace
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2002
- Posts
- 21,219
Gringao said:
Thank you for answering my question. I'm sorry I'm on my way out the door for a trip and don't have time right now to read the 10-12 pages in between to catch up. I will when we get back.
I just wanted to interject that in the early 1980s I worked for a foreign government in Washington DC. It was very common knowledge then that the US maintained the right to listen in on ANY telephone call that originated outside the United States. At that time if the government wanted to listen to a call placed from within the US, it had to get a court order for a wiretap, and jump through the hoops showing cause and all that.
I know the Patriot Act changed all that, but I want some of the younger folk here to understand that the government has been listening to international calls for a lot longer than the current president's administration.
See you guys later!
The New York Times reported today that some of the calls that were intercepted were US to US calls.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa.html
Last edited:
The Mutt
Cunnilingus Ergo Sum
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Posts
- 22,265
zipman said:
"There are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. 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. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
~George W. Bush
Again, I have to ask: If he thought what he was doing was legal, why did he lie about it?
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
so POOKIE
Ypu still cant answer what ClitMan and Carter investigated
And you should know that J Gorelick, who worked for ClitMan said that it was done without warrants
I have her comment posted on this thread
Ypu still cant answer what ClitMan and Carter investigated
And you should know that J Gorelick, who worked for ClitMan said that it was done without warrants
I have her comment posted on this thread
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
President had legal authority to OK taps
By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005
President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.
In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.
But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.
The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.
But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."
FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.
Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.
But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.
----------
John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw
By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005
President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.
In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.
But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.
The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.
But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."
FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.
Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.
But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.
----------
John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw
someplace said:
That seems to be the consensus of just about every informed opinion I've seen, too. This is nothing new.
Ultimately, the legality of this will hinge on one thing: whom the administration wiretapped. If it was, as they say, all AQ and those reasonably believed to be associated with AQ, then they're in the clear. If they were bugging anyone else, they are in big trouble, and justly so.
Last edited:
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
I wonder if CNN or other LIB media will do a poll on this?
they know what they will find, so they may be afraid to do one
a good read
Max Boot:
'Plame Platoon' is AWOL on new leaks
Highly classified programs have been revealed, which could provide real aid to our enemies. So where's all that outrage now?
IT SEEMS like only yesterday that every high-minded politician, pundit and professional activist was in high dudgeon about the threat posed to national security by the revelation that Valerie Plame was a spook. For daring to reveal a CIA operative's name — in wartime, no less! — they wanted someone frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs, preferably headed for the gallows.
Since then there have been some considerably more serious security breaches. Major media organs have broken news about secret prisons run by the CIA, the interrogation techniques employed therein, and the use of "renditions" to capture suspects, right down to the tail numbers of covert CIA aircraft. They have also reported on a secret National Security Agency program to monitor calls and e-mails from people in the U.S. to suspected terrorists abroad, and about the Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity designed to protect military bases worldwide.
ADVERTISEMENT
Most of these are highly classified programs whose revelation could provide real aid to our enemies — far more aid than revealing the name of a CIA officer who worked more or less openly at Langley, Va. We don't know what damage the latest leaks may have done, but we do know that past leaks about U.S. successes in tracking cellphones led Al Qaeda leaders to shun those devices.
So I eagerly await the righteous indignation from the Plame Platoon about the spilling of secrets in wartime and its impassioned calls for an independent counsel to prosecute the leakers. And wait … And wait …
I suspect it'll be a long wait because the rule of thumb seems to be that although it's treasonous for pro-Bush partisans to spill secrets that might embarrass an administration critic, it's a public service for anti-Bush partisans to spill secrets that might embarrass the administration. The determination of which secrets are OK to reveal is, of course, to be made not by officials charged with protecting our nation but by journalists charged with selling newspapers.
The New York Times sought to quell such concerns by noting in its big article on the NSA that "some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted." Forgive me if I'm not reassured by the implication that other information that might be useful to terrorists had not been omitted.
Aside from the possible harm that these leaks could do to the war on terror, what galls me is the utter lack of context in breathless news accounts. The Washington Post ran a 1,910-word article Sunday titled "Pushing the Limits of Wartime Powers" that had only one brief mention, near the end, of the 9/11 attacks. There was no acknowledgment that this catastrophe revealed major vulnerabilities in our defenses created by post-Watergate reforms that eviscerated domestic intelligence gathering.
For instance, in August 2001, FBI agents in Minneapolis stumbled onto Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the Al Qaeda plotters. The 9/11 commission later concluded that a "maximum U.S. effort to investigate Moussaoui … might have brought investigators to the core of the 9/11 plot." But officials didn't seek a warrant to search his laptop because they lacked "probable cause" under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA is the law that Bush is now accused of circumventing.
If Bush really broke the law, that is, of course, wrong. But the president has a strong legal case. (Even liberal legal scholar Cass Sunstein says, "I think the [congressional] authorization of use of military force is probably adequate as an authorization for surveillance.")
The president has an even stronger moral case. Before condemning him, ask yourself why there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 2001. Not one. It's hard to know the exact reason we've been spared, but surely part of our good fortune should be attributed to the very measures — the Patriot Act, the NSA surveillance, the renditions, the enhanced interrogation techniques — that are now being pilloried by self-righteous journalists and lawmakers.
Bush has not always gotten the balance between "life" and "liberty" exactly right. He erred by not granting terrorist detainees any recourse to the courts — a mistake fixed by the Supreme Court. But the president has been a lot more right than his most perfervid critics, who seem to think that we can defeat a vicious foe without compromising any peacetime rights and without keeping any secrets.
The way things are going, with Congress refusing to reauthorize the Patriot Act and banning "degrading" interrogation methods, we may soon find out if the civil libertarians are right. Heaven help us if they're not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAX BOOT is a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations.
they know what they will find, so they may be afraid to do one
a good read
Max Boot:
'Plame Platoon' is AWOL on new leaks
Highly classified programs have been revealed, which could provide real aid to our enemies. So where's all that outrage now?
IT SEEMS like only yesterday that every high-minded politician, pundit and professional activist was in high dudgeon about the threat posed to national security by the revelation that Valerie Plame was a spook. For daring to reveal a CIA operative's name — in wartime, no less! — they wanted someone frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs, preferably headed for the gallows.
Since then there have been some considerably more serious security breaches. Major media organs have broken news about secret prisons run by the CIA, the interrogation techniques employed therein, and the use of "renditions" to capture suspects, right down to the tail numbers of covert CIA aircraft. They have also reported on a secret National Security Agency program to monitor calls and e-mails from people in the U.S. to suspected terrorists abroad, and about the Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity designed to protect military bases worldwide.
ADVERTISEMENT
Most of these are highly classified programs whose revelation could provide real aid to our enemies — far more aid than revealing the name of a CIA officer who worked more or less openly at Langley, Va. We don't know what damage the latest leaks may have done, but we do know that past leaks about U.S. successes in tracking cellphones led Al Qaeda leaders to shun those devices.
So I eagerly await the righteous indignation from the Plame Platoon about the spilling of secrets in wartime and its impassioned calls for an independent counsel to prosecute the leakers. And wait … And wait …
I suspect it'll be a long wait because the rule of thumb seems to be that although it's treasonous for pro-Bush partisans to spill secrets that might embarrass an administration critic, it's a public service for anti-Bush partisans to spill secrets that might embarrass the administration. The determination of which secrets are OK to reveal is, of course, to be made not by officials charged with protecting our nation but by journalists charged with selling newspapers.
The New York Times sought to quell such concerns by noting in its big article on the NSA that "some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted." Forgive me if I'm not reassured by the implication that other information that might be useful to terrorists had not been omitted.
Aside from the possible harm that these leaks could do to the war on terror, what galls me is the utter lack of context in breathless news accounts. The Washington Post ran a 1,910-word article Sunday titled "Pushing the Limits of Wartime Powers" that had only one brief mention, near the end, of the 9/11 attacks. There was no acknowledgment that this catastrophe revealed major vulnerabilities in our defenses created by post-Watergate reforms that eviscerated domestic intelligence gathering.
For instance, in August 2001, FBI agents in Minneapolis stumbled onto Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the Al Qaeda plotters. The 9/11 commission later concluded that a "maximum U.S. effort to investigate Moussaoui … might have brought investigators to the core of the 9/11 plot." But officials didn't seek a warrant to search his laptop because they lacked "probable cause" under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA is the law that Bush is now accused of circumventing.
If Bush really broke the law, that is, of course, wrong. But the president has a strong legal case. (Even liberal legal scholar Cass Sunstein says, "I think the [congressional] authorization of use of military force is probably adequate as an authorization for surveillance.")
The president has an even stronger moral case. Before condemning him, ask yourself why there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 2001. Not one. It's hard to know the exact reason we've been spared, but surely part of our good fortune should be attributed to the very measures — the Patriot Act, the NSA surveillance, the renditions, the enhanced interrogation techniques — that are now being pilloried by self-righteous journalists and lawmakers.
Bush has not always gotten the balance between "life" and "liberty" exactly right. He erred by not granting terrorist detainees any recourse to the courts — a mistake fixed by the Supreme Court. But the president has been a lot more right than his most perfervid critics, who seem to think that we can defeat a vicious foe without compromising any peacetime rights and without keeping any secrets.
The way things are going, with Congress refusing to reauthorize the Patriot Act and banning "degrading" interrogation methods, we may soon find out if the civil libertarians are right. Heaven help us if they're not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAX BOOT is a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations.
landslider2000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Posts
- 2,545
We would all like to keep all of our present "rights" and indeed get more.
But the sad reality is that the first duty of any society is self-protection.
But the sad reality is that the first duty of any society is self-protection.
The Mutt said:
I think you're reading more into that statement than it warrants, but ultimately it's not important. The Use of Force resolution from 2001 clearly gave the authorization to Bushn to do what he did. Assuming, of course, that the surveillance was narrow and applied only to those reasonably believed to be the enemy.
pinkstarfish
is from the sun
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2003
- Posts
- 26,056
Similar threads
