Bush defends domestic eavesdropping.

[zipman]

One question that a lot of people have raised is why would the Bush administration do this warrantless surveillance if they could just go to the FISA court and get a warrant since the FISA court seems to be very accomodating when the Executive branch asks for such warrants. Byron York explains why the administration didn't want to go through the FISA courts to get these warrants. Apparently, it is not the FISA courts themselves which are the hold up, but the delay comes in compiling all the paperwork in order to get that warrant.
People familiar with the process say the problem is not so much with the court itself as with the process required to bring a case before the court. "It takes days, sometimes weeks, to get the application for FISA together," says one source. "It's not so much that the court doesn't grant them quickly, it's that it takes a long time to get to the court. Even after the Patriot Act, it's still a very cumbersome process. It is not built for speed, it is not built to be efficient. It is built with an eye to keeping [investigators] in check." And even though the attorney general has the authority in some cases to undertake surveillance immediately, and then seek an emergency warrant, that process is just as cumbersome as the normal way of doing things.
Such delays continue to this day, despite the Patriot Act. Even the sainted 9/11 Commission was worried about such delays.
The Patriot Act included some provisions, supported by lawmakers of both parties, to make securing such warrants easier. But it did not fix the problem. In April 2004, when members of the September 11 Commission briefed the press on some of their preliminary findings, they reported that significant problems remained.

"Many agents in the field told us that although there is now less hesitancy in seeking approval for electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, the application process nonetheless continues to be long and slow," the commission said. "Requests for such approvals are overwhelming the ability of the system to process them and to conduct the surveillance. The Department of Justice and FBI are attempting to address bottlenecks in the process."

It was in the context of such bureaucratic bottlenecks that the president first authorized, and then renewed, the program to bypass the FISA court in cases of international communications of people with known al Qaeda links.
It seems that if Congress is so worried about their powers being infringed upon by the administration conducting such surveillance without warrants, that the answer is to pass a new law expessly forbidding it. So many of them seem on their high horse complaining about the President signing such orders. Apparently, Tom Daschle is now saying that he was briefed on this and that he raised objections. If he thought it was such an abrogation of power, why didn't he introduce a law to take that power away from Bush? In 2002, when it seems Bush first signed off on this, Daschle was still the Majority Leader in the Senate. Why didn't he protect all those people whose rights everyone is worried about?

I have no idea if what Bush did was Constitutional or not. It seems that well educated law professors can have differing opinions. And, probably, if the question were to come before the Supreme Court, the justices would disagree; it might be another 5:4 issue.

What does seem clear is that this is not going to be an issue that plays to the Democrats' strengths. John McIntyre has a political analysis of this and he points out that the Democrats lose when they get the whole focus on security and terrorism.
Not recognizing the political ground had shifted beneath their feet, Democrats continued to press forward with their offensive against the President. They’ve now foolishly climbed out on a limb that Rove and Bush have the real potential to chop off. One would think that after the political miscalculations the Democrats made during the 2002 and 2004 campaigns they would not make the same mistake a third time, but it is beginning to look a lot like Charlie Brown and the football again.

First, the Democrats still do not grasp that foreign affairs and national security issues are their vulnerabilities, not their strengths. All of the drumbeat about Iraq, spying, and torture that the left thinks is so damaging to the White House are actually positives for the President and Republicans. Apparently, Democrats still have not fully grasped that the public has profound and long-standing concerns about their ability to defend the nation. As long as national security related issues are front page news, the Democrats are operating at a structural political disadvantage. Perhaps the intensity of their left wing base and the overwhelmingly liberal press corps produces a disorientation among Democratic politicians and prevents a more realistic analysis of where the country’s true pulse lies on these issues.
I just don't think that going to the people and saying that they don't want NSA listening to people who are talking to Al Qaeda operatives overseas is going to be a big political plus. Sure, they'll dress it up as protecting people's rights and try to sell people that Bush's administration has gone from wanting to find out what books they're checking out to listening in on their phone calls. I just don't think that that is a political winner of a campaign platform. Sure, people get upset when politicians keep telling them that our rights have been abridged. However, most of the people who fear the Bush administration overreaching in the war on terror already don't like Bush. I just bet that the great numbers of people in the middle are more afraid of Al Qaeda than they are of NSA listening in on their phone calls.

Then revise or amend the process so that there is still oversight over the investigators, don't just circumvent it.

The checks and balances that we have built into our constitution and many of our laws are there for a reason.

 

[busybody..]

as usual the DemonCreeps are on the wrong side

and the nation know that the DemonCreeps cannot be trusted with national security

A new CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll finds that only 34 percent of the public thinks that the Patriot Act goes too far. Sixty-two percent approve of it (44 percent) or think it doesn't go far enough (18 percent).

 

[busybody..]

Then revise or amend the process so that there is still oversight over the investigators, don't just circumvent it.

The checks and balances that we have built into our constitution and many of our laws are there for a reason.

You didnt read this, did you?

People familiar with the process say the problem is not so much with the court itself as with the process required to bring a case before the court. "It takes days, sometimes weeks, to get the application for FISA together," says one source. "It's not so much that the court doesn't grant them quickly, it's that it takes a long time to get to the court. Even after the Patriot Act, it's still a very cumbersome process. It is not built for speed, it is not built to be efficient. It is built with an eye to keeping [investigators] in check." And even though the attorney general has the authority in some cases to undertake surveillance immediately, and then seek an emergency warrant, that process is just as cumbersome as the normal way of doing things.
Such delays continue to this day, despite the Patriot Act. Even the sainted 9/11 Commission was worried about such delays.
The Patriot Act included some provisions, supported by lawmakers of both parties, to make securing such warrants easier. But it did not fix the problem. In April 2004, when members of the September 11 Commission briefed the press on some of their preliminary findings, they reported that significant problems remained.

"Many agents in the field told us that although there is now less hesitancy in seeking approval for electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, the application process nonetheless continues to be long and slow," the commission said. "Requests for such approvals are overwhelming the ability of the system to process them and to conduct the surveillance. The Department of Justice and FBI are attempting to address bottlenecks in the process."

 

[busybody..]

You didnt read this, did you?

People familiar with the process say the problem is not so much with the court itself as with the process required to bring a case before the court. "It takes days, sometimes weeks, to get the application for FISA together," says one source. "It's not so much that the court doesn't grant them quickly, it's that it takes a long time to get to the court. Even after the Patriot Act, it's still a very cumbersome process. It is not built for speed, it is not built to be efficient. It is built with an eye to keeping [investigators] in check." And even though the attorney general has the authority in some cases to undertake surveillance immediately, and then seek an emergency warrant, that process is just as cumbersome as the normal way of doing things.
Such delays continue to this day, despite the Patriot Act. Even the sainted 9/11 Commission was worried about such delays.
The Patriot Act included some provisions, supported by lawmakers of both parties, to make securing such warrants easier. But it did not fix the problem. In April 2004, when members of the September 11 Commission briefed the press on some of their preliminary findings, they reported that significant problems remained.

"Many agents in the field told us that although there is now less hesitancy in seeking approval for electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, the application process nonetheless continues to be long and slow," the commission said. "Requests for such approvals are overwhelming the ability of the system to process them and to conduct the surveillance. The Department of Justice and FBI are attempting to address bottlenecks in the process."

when time is of the essence

warrants are tough to get in time

and what happens if we have to wait for a warrant and then BOOM before the warrant?

As happened with the 20th hijacker?

 

[Ishmael]

The below article frames the discussion that should be taking place.

Constitutional Powers?

People can fantasize about impeachment all they want, isn't going to happen. Neither is censure.

The president has legitimate legal standing for his actions. Congress and the people have a legitimate reason to be concerned.

A few facts and observations.

1. Bush is doing nothing more than what Clinton did. The only difference is Bush has a blanket mandate inacted by congress. In effect, a declaration of war to act under.

2. One can understand the administrations reluctance to provied details to congress given their record of keeping their mouths shut. What were they to provide? Names, numbers, times? All of which points out Rockefellers disengenious remarks. He knows no more now than he did when he was briefed all those times by the administration but now that it's in the press he rises in righteous indignation. Give me a break.

3. Had the laws we are yapping about now been in effect during the revolution, Maj. Andre would have had to have been released and the letters he was carrying would have gone unread. And Benedict Arnold would have successfully turned West Point over to Gen. Shipton. And if the letters had of been read, and had Washington acted on that information to foil the plot, the courts would have ruled that the information was gained illegally and ordered Washington to turn the fort over to Shipton anyway.

Ishmael

 

[busybody..]

Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
Does anyone remember that?



In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.




"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," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

Reporting the day after Gorelick's testimony, the Washington Post's headline — on page A-19 — read, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches." The story began, "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers."

In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."

The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.

 

[busybody..]

In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."

 

[cjh]

as usual the DemonCreeps are on the wrong side

and the nation know that the DemonCreeps cannot be trusted with national security

A new CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll finds that only 34 percent of the public thinks that the Patriot Act goes too far. Sixty-two percent approve of it (44 percent) or think it doesn't go far enough (18 percent).

heh. is that the same poll that says this?

By contrast, the CNN/USA Today Gallup poll found his approval rating stood at 41 percent, while more than half (56 percent), disapprove of how the president is handling his job. A majority -- 52 percent -- say it was a mistake to send troops to Iraq, and 61 percent say they disapprove of how he is handling Iraq specifically.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20051220-07294500-bc-us-bushpoll.xml

 

[busybody..]

heh. is that the same poll that says this?




http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20051220-07294500-bc-us-bushpoll.xml

the trend in the ;latter poll is UP

The trend is YOUR friend

 

[busybody..]

fucking HYPO-CREEP

like you all


“The issue here is this: If you’re John McCain and you just got Congress to agree to limits on interrogation techniques, why would you think that limits anything if the executive branch can ignore can ignore it by asserting its inherent authority?”- Jamie Gorelick, former deputy attorney general under President Clinton, in today’s Washington Post, p. A10.

"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 and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.

"It is important to understand, that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities." - Jamie Gorelick testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, as quoted by Byron today elsewhere on NRO.

Gorelick is making a simple point: The rules are different when there is a Democrat in the White House. What about that don’t you understand?

 

[busybody..]

you do know I posted this on this thread over an hour ago?

are you slow or just a thief?

Ginger Bread

I expect an apology

There is NO NEED for anyone to post anything

I cover everthing!

 

[cjh]

the trend in the ;latter poll is UP

The trend is YOUR friend

i suppose you can call standing at 41% trending up.

not exactly a steep trend.

but it is a trend. no doubt.

 

[busybody..]

20% increase, Bub

I'll take that anyday!

 

[cjh]

20% increase, Bub

I'll take that anyday!

gallup says he's a flat liner.

Gallup Poll: No Rise in Public Support for Bush
By Anadolu News Agency (aa)
Published: Tuesday, December 20, 2005
zaman.com

Despite US President George W. Bush delivering public speeches lately in an attempt to rally public support, polls indicate that he has failed to increase support from the American people.
The CNN-USA Today-Gallup Poll results reflect the ratio of Bush supporters’ remains at 41 percent; while anti-Bush supporters, who do not agree with his policies, remain at 56 percent

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&trh=20051220&hn=27746

 

[huskie]

google "sovereignty commission" and mississippi.

people lost livelihoods for doing nothing more than urging desegregation. which, of course, was not only not wrong, but was right.

their government spied on them.

and deliberately hurt them.

it's happened before. it can happen again.

with todays media??? Not likely....

 

[cjh]

with todays media??? Not likely....

you missed mutt's post about the fbi's recent spying on peta and some catholic groups as suspected terrorists then.

it certainly can happen now.

 

[busybody..]

you missed mutt's post about the fbi's recent spying on peta and some catholic groups as suspected terrorists then.

it certainly can happen now.

they are, in certain ways

The ACLU is aghast that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has monitored some of the activities of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). among other groups, according to this report. Not until Later in the story the report notes that the FBI has 150 pending investigations into potential terrorist activities by animal rights and environmental militants. The sort of activities investigated range from destroying research labs and experiments, sabotaging industrial equipment, and vandalism. At the very end of the story, it is noted that PETA has a long suspected association with the Animal Liberation Front, the ragtag group believed responsible for much animal rights terrorist activity. Given such ties, why wouldn't we expect the FBI to monitor PETA events? And is such an investigation truly, as the ACLU claims, a threat to freedom of association? Despite my libertarian leanings, I'm quite skeptical.

 

[Ishmael]

with todays media??? Not likely....

Actually it can happen again and it's something that has to be closely watched. But CJ is comparing apples to oranges here. All of that was strictly domestic spying. There were no foriegn connections.

When a state of war exists, as it does now by three different joint acts of congress, the president does have the authority to monitor citizens communications with foriegn citizens.

We, collectively, drew the line between acts of protest and civil disobediance vs. acts of war/espionage against the nation as a whole.

Ishmael

 

[cjh]

they are, in certain ways

The ACLU is aghast that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has monitored some of the activities of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). among other groups, according to this report. Not until Later in the story the report notes that the FBI has 150 pending investigations into potential terrorist activities by animal rights and environmental militants. The sort of activities investigated range from destroying research labs and experiments, sabotaging industrial equipment, and vandalism. At the very end of the story, it is noted that PETA has a long suspected association with the Animal Liberation Front, the ragtag group believed responsible for much animal rights terrorist activity. Given such ties, why wouldn't we expect the FBI to monitor PETA events? And is such an investigation truly, as the ACLU claims, a threat to freedom of association? Despite my libertarian leanings, I'm quite skeptical.

and the nuns?

 

[busybody..]

A habit!

 

[busybody..]

gimme da context, CrakerPot!

 

[cjh]

A habit!

*rimshot

i've gotta scoot.

i'll find the context for you later.

 

[busybody..]

*rimshot

i've gotta scoot.

i'll find the context for you later.

SWISH, A THREE POINTER

at least

Do, Im interested

Bye, enjoy

 

[Gringao]

and the nuns?

I'm guessing militant anti-abortion groups.

 

[busybody..]

HEY YOU^^^^

Im still lookin fer that apology