Sealed July ‘03 Letter: Rockefeller Warned of ‘Profound Oversight Issues’ With Warrantless Spying Program
Sealed July ‘03 Letter: Rockefeller Warned of ‘Profound Oversight Issues’ With Warrantless Spying Program
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, first learned of the Bush administration’s warrantless domestic spying program on July 17, 2003.
That day, he wrote a letter to the White House (it was handwritten, since he couldn’t share details about the program with his staff). Rockefeller warned of “profound oversight issues,” and said he was “unable to evaluate, much less endorse these activities.”
Today, Rockefeller released that sealed letter, and criticized the administration for claiming that its briefings with members of Congress on the spying program constituted anything resembling “oversight”:
For the last few days, I have witnessed the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General repeatedly misrepresent the facts.
The record needs to be set clear that the Administration never afforded members briefed on the program an opportunity to either approve or disapprove the NSA program. The limited members who were told of the program were prohibited by the Administration from sharing any information about it with our colleagues, including other members of the Intelligence Committees.
Below, an excerpt of the original letter he wrote in 2003:
You can read the full letter here.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
154 Responses to “Sealed July ‘03 Letter: Rockefeller Warned of ‘Profound Oversight Issues’ With Warrantless Spying Program”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bush a criminal for spying? Hmmm. Many Americans are very upset with the revelation that our President has sanctioned wiretaps on our own citizens. I hear countless arguments that Bush has broken the law and should go to jail.
December 19th, 2005 at 6:21 pmWhat President Bush is actually guilty of is most likely using bad judgment to make a decision on a snap issue. If this was a crime he may be a repeat offender. However, as of right now President Bush is only guilty of not following proper procedures in regards to having an individual spied upon, he is not legally breaking any regulations or laws established denying his privilege to authorize spying, he basically is just not following the proper rules.
President Bush does have the ability to authorize the use of surveillance on individuals inside the domestic United States when it is shown that this person may be a threat to American citizens.
The problem Bush is currently dealing with is that he has been neglecting the FISA court and ordering the wiretaps directly, citing National Security concerns.
Civil Rights advocates are afraid this power could be manipulated as a way to stop free speech, or opposing viewpoints.
Bush said the program, which allows him flexibility to protect America, was narrowly constructed and has been used with strict adherence to U.S. law and the United States Constitution.
The President may be wrong, he may have really underestimated the reaction to his perceived cavalier attitude, but going to jail, I just don’t think that will happen in this case no matter how much his detractors desire it.
Raymond B
http://www.voteswagon.com
Kos has a good point: (a) Gonzales says Congress authorized this in its AUMF shortly after 9/11; but (b) when asked why they didn't go to Congress and get FISA changed, he said Congress wouldn't do it.
And Raymond B, I believe FISA has penalties for violating its provisions, including jail time.
December 19th, 2005 at 6:25 pmRead this
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/19/161258/48
December 19th, 2005 at 6:26 pmHang on bushie, finally it has started http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senator_says_shes_asked_for_opinions_1219.html
December 19th, 2005 at 6:28 pmTruth. To power.
I love it.
There are a few decent people left in the Washington. Sen Rockefeller just got added to that list.
How anyone could ever condone, support, or weasel word and spin their support for the Boy King shows the depth to which some people will go to deny the obvious.
Impeach Bush NOW! And send him on one of those CIA "rendering" missions straight to the Hague!!!
December 19th, 2005 at 6:28 pm#1
I have some trouble with your logic. How can Bush not be guilty of breaking the laws, rules, and regulations (choose two, any two) when all he did was break the laws, rules, and regulations (choose one, any one). You left out another synonym, probably on purpose, it is called an Act an in FISA. He is guilty of treason on several counts whether or not he broke any of YOUR laws, rules, regulations, or acts. He sure as hell broke all four, and any number of other similar terms you may choose to use, as they apply to reality.
December 19th, 2005 at 6:31 pmWhen will someone take this criminal, fascist Administration to task. He sends our military over to Iraq to kill women and children for oil and participate in heinous crimes against humanity on a daily basis. Now, we know he is spying on us and he defiantly tells us he will continue.
I don't know about you people - but I am out of here. America is a police state lead by the imperial Bush and our immoral military. The bloodlust for power in the US is troubling and scary.
December 19th, 2005 at 6:32 pmCan someone tell me: is this also part of the story that came out last week where the Defense Department has a watch list of possible terrorist activities, which included a small anti-war group that met in a Quaker meeting house in Florida? Is this just one big happy spy-on-any-Americans-who-don't-agree-with-Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld conspiracy? Or was the Defense Department (if I got that part right) acting on its own initiative?
December 19th, 2005 at 6:38 pm#8 - Bushie is going to kill us all - mark my words. HE will burn those that dissent.
December 19th, 2005 at 6:41 pmAnother example of an activist Democrat Senator looking out for everyone's rights.
Shame, I say, shame!
December 19th, 2005 at 6:45 pmThe Bush wiretap revelations mean its probably time to raise Conservative Threat Level.
The Consertative Threat Level (CTL) is currently Orange/Elevated: Church and State to Merge.
December 19th, 2005 at 6:46 pmThis memo won't help commander codpiece much, will it?
December 19th, 2005 at 6:47 pm#11 - Your table misses a level for “inquisition to be reinstatedâ€. Somewhere near the top. I think blood red would be the proper color.
December 19th, 2005 at 6:50 pmDonald Rumsfeld is concerned about a new domestic terror group called Al Quaker. They may take over the nation with hunger strikes and prayer vigils.
Indeed a major threat and I recommend water-boarding and naked pyramids to get these radical Quakers to confess to crimes against insanity.
-GSD
December 19th, 2005 at 6:54 pm#14 - there are much worse crimes committed by our troops than just waterboarding.
December 19th, 2005 at 6:58 pmISN'T THIS WHERE WE CAME IN?
"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:"
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
December 19th, 2005 at 7:13 pmCondi is on msnbc right now. Amongst her misleading statements are: in defense of bush authorizing domestic eavesdropping without court approval: (and I paraphrase) on 9-11 remember we were blind, we were deaf. I believe at that time you could eavesdrop domestically with fisa (court) approval. sheesh! Commercials over bye
December 19th, 2005 at 7:14 pm#1
If it was a rush to judgement he would have rescinded the order. It expires if not renewed every 45 days.
=>not a rush to judgement issue, but he just doesn't care about checks. He doesn't care about laws. He has the constitutional authority to do whatever he pleases at a time of war.
That would be his interpretation.
He violated FISA, knows it, and chooses to use the Constitution of some sort of cover.
That's great because now you can hit Scalito on his views of presidential deference. It has a bit more cachet than abortion.
December 19th, 2005 at 7:17 pmThe patriot act, the declaration of war, or FISA cannot trump the constitution - no law can. The constitution (the 4th amendment in particular) makes it illegal to implement the wiretapping without a warrant. This means bush pulled a Nixon, and elected himself king. He broke the law, and this IS an impeachable offense.
December 19th, 2005 at 7:22 pm#1 I can appreciate your thought process and comfort level with the President and the law. However,there has to be some over riding respect for the law. At what point do you feel the President has at will, really, at will, to by pass a gesture to apply for a warrant, POST- wire tapping. Not even a judge could be trusted with that decision after the fact? The problem is the slippery slope of slack. If we are constantly at war, does he have to notify congress if he authorizesthe use of a nuclear weapon on a potential target? What if he decides to skip judicial review because it would save American lives. The right is upset because they don't think it is the right time to be discussing the details, but they have left the people no choice by acting first, convincing reluctant opposition of their emminent defeat politically for any dissension and proceeding rightously to wreck a chunk of the globe so OUR company can come in and take over.
December 19th, 2005 at 7:24 pmDamn I wish I took notes. Doubtlessly Think Progress will have a transcript though. I was tring to remember something else notworthy, when I did> condi said every one of the non-court approved domestic taps were of people that were CONNECTED TO AL QIDA. If the congress is able to investigate this and see who was tapped, they could debunk this statement if it is false.
December 19th, 2005 at 7:26 pmNO PROBLEM WITH ME
SINCERELY,
HENRY KISSINGER.
“A leaks-obsessed Kissinger, when he served as Nixon’s national security adviser, wiretapped his own staff. (One of his targets, Morton Halperin, sued and eventually won an apology.) â€
http://www.alternet.org/story/14659/
Rumsfeld caught dining with Kissinger Raw Story | December 12 2005
“Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and erstwhile Nixon Secretary of State and Vietnam War architect Henry Kissinger were caught dining together last Thursday at Washington’s Bistro Bis, ROLL CALL reports Monday.â€
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ articles/ december2005/ 121205rumsfeldcaught.htm
December 19th, 2005 at 7:29 pmOnto topic: Clearly they did not need to circumvent the court. FISA could even approve tap after the fact. So any argument about speediness is false. So then what could be the reason? My guess a grab for power. This administration has long believed in an impirial (king, emporer) presidency. Does anyone remember how many times bush has cited defending the constitutional rights of the president? Which as far as I can tell is the only consitutional rights he is concerend with. They are trying to expand the presidents right above the law.
December 19th, 2005 at 7:39 pmI note with interest that John Warner, Olympia Snowe, and Chuck Hagel are all Republican members of this committee. Might they be counted on to force the Robert's hand on this as well as the evidence on Phase II of this administration's evidence for war with Iraq? We can only hope....
December 19th, 2005 at 7:39 pm#23 Because they were spying on the Democrats. Who else would they secretly need to spy upon? Even the idea of them secretly spying on citizens doesn't make sense, because they don't respect citizens enough to be secretive about it. It had to be something that egocentric megalomaniacs would fear - the opposing political party.
December 19th, 2005 at 7:42 pmThe plot to circumvent judicial fillibusters is another example of the administrations grab for power. The diminition of the senates power to the benefit of the president has no other outcome.
December 19th, 2005 at 7:48 pmBoxer floats impeachment after former White Housel counsel John Dean -- made famous by his role in revealing the Watergate tapes -- asserted that President Bush had 'admitted' to an 'impeachable offense.'.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senator_says_shes_asked_for_opinions_1219.html
December 19th, 2005 at 7:49 pmThere has not been a formal declaration of war so the President is not free to ignore the Constitution. When Bush refers to war, which illegal war is he referring to? Is it the "war on terror" or is it the "war in Iraq" or both? Neither have a formal declaration, therefore, these wars are illegal.
December 19th, 2005 at 7:50 pmbush admitted to an impeachable offense, thats the way it looks to me. As Homer would say Doh! Simpson that is.
December 19th, 2005 at 7:57 pmABOUT BUSH'S ENEMIES LIST...
Capitol Hill Blue has spoken with a number of current and former administration officials who acknowledge existence of the enemies list only under a guarantee of confidentiality. Those who have seen the list say it is far more extensive than Richard Nixon’s famous “enemies list†of Watergate fame or Bill Clinton’s dossiers on political enemies.
“How is that you think Karl (Rove) and Scooter (Libby) were able to disseminate so much information on Joe Wilson and his wife,†says one White House aide. “They didn’t have that information by accident. They had it because they have files on those who might hurt them.â€
White House insiders tell disturbing tales of invasion of privacy, abuse of government power and use of expanded authority under the USA Patriot Act to dig into the personal lives of anyone the administration deems an enemy of the state.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7625.shtml
December 19th, 2005 at 8:12 pmwhat difference would it make how many others (republican or democrat) were apprized of the bushcriminal's criminal acts? 1) only the bushcriminal was giving authorization to commit illegal acts, 2) not only were they not under any obligation to save the bushcriminal from himself by blowing the whistle, but were ordered specifically by the POTUS not to discuss it.
so once again the bushcriminal is out there on his own, the victim of his own advisors' bad advice and his incurious knowledge and neanderthal cognitive thought capabilities. Any chance of him taking responsibility...? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
December 19th, 2005 at 8:13 pm#28 CaFF, here is a link to your question. encarta.msn.com/guide_whocandeclarewar/Who_Can_Declare_War_Backgrounder_and_Research_Guide.html
December 19th, 2005 at 8:24 pmBush changing the actual context of the meetings and lying about it is no shock at all. Hopefully he will get a chance to lie under oath also when answering to Congress about these actions. Imagine the irony of Bush going down for the same thing they nailed clinton on :D
Jamie
December 19th, 2005 at 8:25 pmhttp://intoxination.blogspot.com/
Bush states that it was shameful to disclose his spying. No - it was an act of patriotism disclosing Bush's spying. Outing a CIA agent is shameful.
December 19th, 2005 at 8:26 pm31 Hilarious sad but true: the victim of his own advisors’ bad advice and his incurious knowledge and neanderthal cognitive thought capabilities. Just dumb enough to dictarize democracy to save it.
December 19th, 2005 at 8:38 pmWant accountability? I mean REAL ACCOUNTABILITY? We know that Bush has verbally taken responsibility for the war's mismanagement, and the false intelligence that got us there, trampled all over our privacy rights.... but where's the REAL RESPONSE to this lack of RESPONSIBILITY?
We need people in congress that are willing to fight to really work for accountability in Washington. Tony Trupiano comes to mind. A former radio host turned congressional candidate. He's the real deal... a unapologetic, pasionate progressive with a real passion at bringing REAL RESPONSIBILITY back to our government! He's running for Congress in MY district; the 11th District of Michigan where he is up against a fierce Republican that has bad mouthed those against the war. It just so happened that this Republican was a former Senator that just so happen to draw the lines of his current district as a Congressman.
Support Tony Trupiano, and support bringing Washington back to the ethical standards that us tax payers deserve!
http://tony4congress2006.com
December 19th, 2005 at 8:44 pmWhats the one word the neo-cons and bush banter about ceaslessly: tyrant. You could say to a neo-con that bush by placing himself above the law aspires to be a tyrant. I bet nothing will make them madder quicker.
December 19th, 2005 at 8:44 pmIn his December 19th press conference regarding his secret and likely illegal program of domestic surveillance, an angry President George W. Bush took umbrage at suggestions that he believes in unprecedented, expansive and unchecked presidential power. A fuming Bush responded:
Unfortunately, Bush's past statements show that far from rejecting dictatorial power for the President, he's actually quite enamored of it.
For the full story, see:
"Bush on Dictatorship"
December 19th, 2005 at 8:50 pmPLEASE Please do not impeach Bush.
December 19th, 2005 at 8:54 pmI do not want Dicky or Condi to be the next President!!!
Here I am again with Ryan's sloppy 2nds, but the sure sign that something is, once again, amiss is they're all coming out and there are multiple excuses for the surveillance.
We have to identify why they want to use the technology advancement theory as the basis for bypassing FISA. And Raymond B, I don't consider this a "snap issue". Noone does.
December 19th, 2005 at 8:58 pmDick would need to be impeached as well, he was clearly involved in the crime...
December 19th, 2005 at 8:58 pmunbelievable #25... The Democrats are the political opposition? Are you sure about that?
December 19th, 2005 at 9:00 pm"We have to identify why they want to use the technology advancement theory as the basis for bypassing FISA." CLFP
Because it's classified, and they won't have to discuss it in public. It's the 'just trust us' argument...
Most other arguments would allow for easy congressional oversight.
But what they forget, is that a 'wiretap' is a 'wiretap', irrespective of the technology. They don't have to enter a person's home to install a wiretap, it's already a technological innovation that permits this. So any argument of 'technology' is silly, deceptive and 'hysterical' in the irrational sense. Clearly they're just making crap up to avoid public review - as usual.
December 19th, 2005 at 9:01 pmJPV,
Yes, the democrats are the opposition, but the DLC is not. You can be assured that Lieberman isn't on the list :()
December 19th, 2005 at 9:02 pmJane E. Schneider-
I think you are right to be concerned. Bush claims to have the interests of America at heart when he authorized these spying and wiretapping procedures but yet neither he nor anyone in his administration will say who they are spying on. Anyone who has been at an anti-war protest, or in your example with the Quakers, runs the risk of being accused of being a traitor. Was it Thomas Paine who said that "These are the times that try men's [and women's] souls"? This is Nixon redux but Nixon and his henchmen tried to cover up their misdeeds while this administration is quite overt in how they flout the law, brazenly thinking [or knowing] that they will get away with it. They have got to be stopped. Republicans like Lindsey Graham, Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter, even John Warner may have realized that Bush has finally gone too far. The question becomes, can they persuade their fellow Republicans that Bush and his administration have to be held accountable for their transgressions?
December 19th, 2005 at 9:04 pm#42 Well, I keep hoping that if we tell them that they are, eventually they might start to believe it themselves... :)
December 19th, 2005 at 9:13 pmWell Ryan, I've said it before, but I assume that stuff on this site is reviewed by the NSA or someone. And on any given day I assume I'm being surveilled because of some of the things I write to congress. That's the level of distrust I have. And I'm not a terrorist. I find it very hard to believe terrorists would be so naive as to think their technology wasn't being surveilled. The technology issue is a total sham. Their backup is Executive @ time of war priveledge. And if that's all they got, it will forever shape the way americans want to approach this so-called war on terror.
December 19th, 2005 at 9:13 pmrummy is on cnn right now. I say we play a rapid fire game of point out that lie. That is if he lies. I expect a rapid fire round. OK
December 19th, 2005 at 9:14 pmHey unbelievable, hope you're doing OK. I took the day off (I think I got bird flu). Gave the crews the day off, too (with pay). Going to bed.
December 19th, 2005 at 9:15 pmWho here DOESN"T think that they are being added to some data base for being here, or any other number of progressive sites?
December 19th, 2005 at 9:16 pmwe respect peoples right to privacy. Where people are abused we will investigate it.
December 19th, 2005 at 9:17 pmBowdler, are we supposed to take a drink of something alcoholic every time he does lie?
December 19th, 2005 at 9:19 pmNow hes talking about the National Guard kids, saying they voulonteered for this. Which may be true on one level...
December 19th, 2005 at 9:19 pmAt your own risk I wouldn't recomend operating heavy machinery. Wasn't it bolton who joined the National Guard to avoid vietnam?
December 19th, 2005 at 9:22 pmI should rephrase...
Who here that is of sound mind DOESNâ€T think that they are being added to some data base for being here, or any other number of progressive sites?
December 19th, 2005 at 9:27 pmA handwritten letter? That's priceless. Now Newsweek is reporting that Bush tried to kill this story only two weeks ago by inviting the New York Times to the Oval Office.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/
December 19th, 2005 at 9:29 pmI almost forgot didn't bush join the national guard to avoid vietnam. Oh and hot tip, I think bush is being monitered quite closely now, by the appropriate congressional committees and one special prosecuter. Good thing that our constitution put these mechanisms in place. See they had a problem with kings.
December 19th, 2005 at 9:31 pmWhat so we wont be invited to a special meet and great with Mr. Faultless and Darth Vader's brother Insideous, or In Vader. Off to the courts the Admin. will go, got them the White House didn't it? Start of with the President's commitment to the Constitution by saving American lives thru expeditious Executive directives. As long as we are in Commander In Chief directed authorization of declaration of war M.O.
December 19th, 2005 at 9:46 pmhe can ask for anything really.
I wish the New York Times would have done the right thing and released this story when they got wind of it.
Oh, thats right, the Times worked for Bubble boy in November of 04 when we the citizens went to the polls.
Not that it would have done any good to have this info in Nov. 04 since we all know the election was rigged.
Still the Times should have done the proper thing.
For those who haven't written or called. Do it now. Contact your reps and Senators and demand impeachment hearings. Let them know that if they do not begin hearings immediately, they will not have your vote.
http://www.millionphonemarch.com/impeach.htm
Do it now.
December 19th, 2005 at 9:52 pmHere if Biggest of Big Brother is documenting for Operation Blowing Smoke, I'd like to ask the Justice Dept. what happened in the Sami Al-Arian case in Fla? 21 counts and how many aquitals? How many hung on? We would heard about this like it was Al-Qualudes 16th #2 guy had been captured or ole UBL himself, if they HAD WON. The right has a score for prosecutions and special prosecutors investigations I hope they are minig what went wrong on that one. Sami Al-Arian 21counts ZERO Stuck.
December 19th, 2005 at 9:54 pmGood to see the rational debate ThinkProgress is famous for continues. LOL:
December 19th, 2005 at 10:14 pm
Nice of this guy to cover his own arse but otherwise not do anything for 3 years. Likewise for Pelosi and Graham.
It's also notable that their criticisms of the meetings that took place - that nobody specifically said they intended to break the law - is going to be pretty much the defense of Bush if he needs it. This should tell you something.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:14 pmBarbara Boxer is asking for an opinion on impeachment from John Dean.
Here's some of Dean's opinions on legal matters. Note the open letter to Patrick Fitzgerald, it's a goody.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:21 pmhttp://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/
No one cares about Dean's opinions - or Boxer's. LOL
December 19th, 2005 at 10:24 pm#66
December 19th, 2005 at 10:34 pmwe will see who cares what about what. and none of your blowhard baloney can influence the events that is about ready to throw your rightwing cronies along with perhaps yourself down the toilet permenently. I guarantee once this is finished any person who has the balls to call themselves RIGHTWING will be doing it from a hut far away.
We've got our eye on you Bobbytoo.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:36 pmMonkey boy george sat on a wall
Monkey boy george had a great fall
All the monkey boy king's cronies and all the king's crooks
couldn't put monkey boy back together again.
....are your papers in order? (with trademark german accent)
December 19th, 2005 at 11:02 pmI'm still not over the ongoing torture.
1. It's just wrong.
2. We didn't need torture to stop 9/11. Right after taking office the Administration was warned by the CIA that al Qaeda was our biggest threat. Months before 9/11 the Administration received a memo about OBL about to strike. Before 9/11, FBI agents had all the evidence to stop it. We failed because we didn't share that information internally within and among agencies. Even now the Administration has failed to fix this problem and info isn't being shared. This info sharing problem should have been higher on the priority list than torturing people and spying on US citizens.
3. The torture is a global PR disaster. What's more, it doesn’t work. We don’t need to torture to stop terrorism, but rather to stop torture before we can stop terrorism. Torture hasn't caught OBL. In fact, it has fueled his recruiting efforts and lowered the world's respect for us. It also has hurt the US military's recruiting efforts.
4. Torture is causing us to lose the moral high ground in the battle of ideas and placing our soldiers at risk for reciprocal conduct.
Respected Republicans like McCain and others know all this and have had to pass laws to try to reign in the Administration even though they belong to the same party. The Administration, however, doesn't seem to want to follow the law and won't admit that it can no longer condone waterboarding and similar torture techniques.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:12 pmwwwallace is getting desperate. He knows we have a very strong case.
Give it up wwwwallace, we've won.
Bush and Cheney will be impeached.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:13 pmhttp://www.millionphonemarch.com/impeach.htm
#70, Respected Republicans like McCain
December 19th, 2005 at 11:15 pmDon't be fooled by McCain, a 3rd grader could have written and passed anti-torture legislation.
McCain is a Bushie lover and doesn't deserve anyones respect.
cleaner, there is no ongoing torture, stop lying.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:16 pm[Comment deleted by admin]
December 19th, 2005 at 11:18 pmI think the trolls here have totally lost their minds due to the fear that their so called dear leader dictator shrub is caught with his winkie in the wringer!
Merry Fitzmas to all, even the trolls and biggots!
December 19th, 2005 at 11:20 pmOf course impersonatin another commenter is against the site Terms of Use.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:22 pmMerry Fitzmas to you too REVOLTED REPUBLICAN.
Rove's indictments will make this Fitzmas the best ever!
December 19th, 2005 at 11:24 pmDemocrats are insane. Bush approval is rising and it will rise more when the left cries fascism to aid terrorists. It's just not plausible - Bush wouldn't have briefed Democrats if he was going to spy on them. And the NY Times wouldn't have sat on the story if a real crime was being committed.
This is poor politics. The GOP is dangling a carrot that will drive the left insane and further out of the American mainstream. ANWR, Alito and now this - I pity the left.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:25 pm"...that will drive the left insane..."
Too late, they're already insane. LOL
December 19th, 2005 at 11:31 pmRead this post at Digby's.....does anyone think that this cynical administration was really using this tool to monitor "terrorists"? I'd bet the farm that they were using it to get political intel on Kerry's campaign. From Digby's post:
Several senior government officials say that when the special operation first began, there were few controls on it and little formal oversight outside the N.S.A. The agency can choose its eavesdropping targets and does not have to seek approval from Justice Department or other Bush administration officials. Some agency officials wanted nothing to do with the program, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation, a former senior Bush administration official said. Before the 2004 election, the official said, some N.S.A. personnel worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected president.
More here:
December 19th, 2005 at 11:34 pmhttp://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_digbysblog_archive.html#113503496104807390
#79 - ISN'T IT SAD? When will they learn? Most Americans will view this as sacrificing national security for quick political points and demand an investigation. Hopefully liberls are wrong and Bush didn't tape his political enemies. because if he did, it's likely to destroy the Democratic Party for years to come.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:36 pmwwallace....LOL
December 19th, 2005 at 11:36 pmWhat courage on Rocky's part. I wonder what it would take for him to have announced the fact that all some Americans were being secretly put in camps awaiting a final solution but it's classified.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:56 pmIN RELATED NEWS:
i just found a sealed letter from Senator Pat Roberts; it says only, "I am a jackass."
spy on that.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:15 amSunset Bush
December 19, 2005
On Saturday (Dec. 17), President Bush admitted that he authorized those warrantless (remember that word) surveillances, spying on more than three dozen times since late 2001. That trashing the 4th Amendment, which forbids unreasonable searches and probable cause; therefore violating The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Bush could have the right to use FISA only by notifying Congress first by expanding it—which he didn’t. And there’s Cheney’s fat lie saying that if this surveillance program was in placed earlier 9/11 wouldn’t have happen, which is total bunk. From 1979 to 2002, the FISA court issued 15,264 surveillance warrants and not a single warrant was rejected. Another fib that’s making the rounds is that Bush needed to skirt the normal process of getting court-approved search warrants for the surveillance because it was too slow for the fast-paced counterterrorism investigations. More bunk since the government was able to get an emergency warrant from the secret court within an hours or just minutes. But more to the point: under Section 1805 of FISA Bush could have began wiretapping as soon as it determines a need and can wait up to 72 hours before obtaining a warrant and Bush didn’t bother with that under the existing special program. Our president’s boat is slowing sinking into the sunset with Bush in it.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:59 am#23
You're right; why do this at all? The only explicible reason appears to be Bush's reluctance to disclose to the FISA court that the information justifying the tapping was obtained by torture. Even proceeding afterwards to obtain a FISA hearing within 15 days still requires him to admit that the legal justification for the tap was obtained by torture.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:04 amThis is a DIFFERENT kind of war.
When did congress declared war? Oh wait they didn't...so we are not technically at war...we are just using force in Iraq hunting for phantom WMDs and Bush says he would have gone to war even if he knew they did not exist (is that because he really knew it was a Rumsfeld, Cheney, Hadley circle jerk all along?).
So the Bush administration is 1) on record bribing the Iraqi "free press", 2) holding US citizens without charges for years in Gitmo, 3) authorizing abrogation of "quaint" Geneva Conventions, 4) photographic abuse (and torture?) of Iraqi detainees, 5) fighting for months to prevent passage of the McCain amendment prohibiting torture etc., 6) outing its own covert agents in retribution for criticism, 7) illegal snatch and grabs in foreign countries, 8) maintaining secret "black site" prisions in foreign countries, 9) secretly spying on US citizens...
Phew...that goodness our president has sworn to uphold the law and is operating within the law (as he defines it).
December 20th, 2005 at 2:14 amI believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
James Madison
December 20th, 2005 at 2:30 amFor those considering impeaching Bush AND Cheney (which I think is a great idea) I just want to point out that the next in line of presidential succession is Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. Still no big improvement!
Stanley375
December 20th, 2005 at 4:20 amNow if anybody on the right claims Bush is not rolling back civil liberties (as all of my right-wing acquaintances do), here is one to stick in their eye.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:13 amMAKE IMPEACHEMENT REAL
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/19/17374/325
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/19/17374/325
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/19/17374/325
December 20th, 2005 at 7:42 amI don’t know about you people - but I am out of here. America is a police state lead by the imperial Bush and our immoral military. The bloodlust for power in the US is troubling and scary.
Comment by Ellie in Texas
Bushie is going to kill us all - mark my words. HE will burn those that dissent.
Comment by Ellie in Texas
Ellie #s 7 and 9,
Calm down Ellie, hopefully the Bushites may be "in their last throes" (to quote a famous authoritarian on the subject). Why would you want to leave and turn YOUR country over to facist dictatorial scumbags like Bushiva and L'il Dick Cheney and their inbred cult members. If anything, you should turn that fear to outrage and then join the rest of us in getting rid of these sombiches by any means necessary.
By going along with Bushiva on this domestic spying scandal (and the Bushites are out in force just listen to C-Span, and his approval rating has reportedly gone up to 47%) they have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they care more about this "demon" in the White House than they do their country, its laws and our American values of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Yep, the Bushites would make great citizens...in the Russian gulags.
So Ellie stay put, grab your 2nd amendment right and defend YOUR country against the right wing facist Bushites.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:07 amHey Ellie, don't scram--this is still a great place. All we need to do is take it back from the mammon-worshippers who want to suck it dry for their own personal gain. Yeah, that will take a monumental effort but jeez, history is all about the constant struggle between the haves and the have-nots.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:42 amWrite John Lewis a note and thank him for calling for impeachement.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:07 amCongressman Calls for Bush Impeachment
Bush, Gonzales, Rice and Rumsfeld broke all sorts of laws, and they know it.
They want Alito confirmed at all costs because these issues will be coming before the SCOTUS within about a year, and they want to be protected.
Defeat Alito and you defeat Bushlandia. Otherwise, forget it.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:07 amadvice to 'tank': when trying to talk 'tough', it's probably best not to write about making lampshades.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:17 amIs the argument here that Bush must have a court order in order to have phones tapped or that tapping phones is illegal...period? Does anyone know how long it takes to get this type of court order? Was the type of spying that was going on without a warrant...domestic or international monitoring? If someone in the U.S. is receiving a phone call or e-mail from outside the U.S. and if the NSA determines that there are potential terrorist involved, is a court order still necessary considering that time is of the essence and those involved undoubtedly know that they might be being spied on?
December 20th, 2005 at 11:50 amThe argument that court orders take too long dosen't wash. According to the law, he can go ahead and start surveillance and get a court order up to 72 hours later. He is just excercising a power he dosen't have and God only knows what or who he was spying on.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:55 amDown Trashy #102,
The argument is that the government of the United States operates under a series of laws outlined in the Constitution. Said laws/outline of the government unequivocally affords the three branches equal weight commonly referred to as a system of "checks and balances". The problem is that your gods Bushiva and L'il Dick- once again- politicized 9/11 and in the process broke the laws (Constitutional) they swore to uphold. stories are already out about lists of American citizens and organizations the Pentagon has compiled as possible threats, (the Quakers? c'mon!). I submit that the NSA under the Bushite junta's urging probably has monitored phone calls and bugged the homes of the opposition for political reasons that have NOTHING to do with terrorism/national security. With this junta's track record and modus operandi this is not a stretch, by any stretch.
Trashy, do you need directions to your gulag of origin? Surely you can't be American...
December 20th, 2005 at 12:13 pm"I submit that the NSA under the Bushite junta’s urging probably has monitored phone calls and bugged the homes of the opposition for political reasons that have NOTHING to do with terrorism/national security."
Under what BS logic and evidence?
"Trashy, do you need directions to your gulag of origin? Surely you can’t be American…"
More that you will ever be.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:13 pmTracy,
Actually the FBI has been doing this, or didn't you hear about this yet? There's no reason to believe bush wouldn't use the NSA for the same purposes. Since the court never reviewed the targets, you can not be sure that he hasn't done this as well, in light of the recent news that both the pentagon and fbi have been spying on 'political opponents' and 'peace activists' as terrorists.
republicans are nazis who don't respect the constitution or american values, pure and simple...
December 20th, 2005 at 1:20 pmFBI spies on peace activists, from NYTimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?ei=5065&en=0384c4fe8724565d&ex=1135746000&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&adxnnlx=1135091028-3n4ZOjc6hXMb
December 20th, 2005 at 1:20 pm#104
So if the NSA, FBI, ect... missed some vital information that could have prevented 9/11 because they had to wait for a court order you are OK with that? What is your solution to securing the U.S. from future terrorist attacks considering that this type spying is a necessary weapon against the terrorists? Don't hide behind you keyboard little man and throw around the insults. Present a solution.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:22 pm#103
Do you know how long 72 hours is? I can get my cell phone number changed in less than 24 hours! I am sure that the terrorists appreciate the fact that they have three days in order to make their calls or send their e-mails!
December 20th, 2005 at 1:26 pm#106
And of course Clinton never authorized an such activities during the 1990s! LOL!
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/aug2000/wire-a02.shtml
"republicans are nazis who don’t respect the constitution or american values, pure and simple"
If you put it that way democrats are in the same boat!
December 20th, 2005 at 1:32 pm#109
#103
Do you know how long 72 hours is? I can get my cell phone number changed in less than 24 hours! I am sure that the terrorists appreciate the fact that they have three days in order to make their calls or send their e-mails!
Comment by Tracy — December 20, 2005 @ 1:26 pm
You should read more of these posts. They don't have to wait 72 hours, they can get one retrocatively (that means, after the fact)
December 20th, 2005 at 1:40 pm#111
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013440.html
"In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest."
So when Bush gave these multiple orders (30+ supposedly) for electronic surveillance without obtaining court permission and since we don't know (yet) what Bush's orders said, we can't make the determination as to whether the law was broken. The hearings shall make that determination.
"More bunk since the government was able to get an emergency warrant from the secret court within an hours or just minutes."
How does he/she know that a FISA judge was avaliable at the time when Bush told Gonzales to order the surveillance operations that are in question? From what I hear in the news, there were over 30 instances where electronic surveilance operations were ordered without obtaining warrants, but I am sure that everyone here is well aware that undoubtedly, far more than 30 operations were applied for after 9/11 and that those subsequent operations were probably applied for thru a FISA judge as the law requires.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:33 pm#112
Don't be assinine, he admitted it. Confessions trump all other possible theories and conjecture...
December 20th, 2005 at 5:32 pmSo when Bush gave these multiple orders (30+ supposedly) for electronic surveillance without obtaining court permission and since we don’t know (yet) what Bush’s orders said, we can’t make the determination as to whether the law was broken. The hearings shall make that determination.
Comment by Tracy — December 20, 2005 @ 4:33 pm
We can make the determination the law was broken because, as you say, the eavesdropping was done without a warrant. That is illegal, no matter how you try to spin it. We don't need top know the content of Bush's orders.
(...)I am sure that everyone here is well aware that undoubtedly, far more than 30 operations were applied for after 9/11 and that those subsequent operations were probably applied for thru a FISA judge as the law requires.
Pres Bush has already admitted to wiretapping without a court order. Who are you trying to fool?
December 20th, 2005 at 6:46 pm"Don’t be assinine, he admitted it."
Yes he admitted to wiretapping without a warrant and if your would read the law it was LEGAL. Since you didn't read the law, but I will restate it for you, it says that the surveillance is legal WITHOUT a court order untill the information sought is obtained, the court denies the application, or the 72 hour limit expires.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:29 pm#114
"We can make the determination the law was broken because, as you say, the eavesdropping was done without a warrant. That is illegal, no matter how you try to spin it."
The law say that Bush can eavesdrop without a warrant. Read the damn link...both of you.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:32 pmSpacey Tracy - step away from the kool-aid.
If you break the law you go to jail.
If you commit treason you go to jail. You do not get to keep your job!
If you are too skeered to tell who you spied on, you have been spying on people other than the ones you are supposed to be looking for. Honest people are not seceretive people! Dishonest people (like your monkey boy king george) are seceretive.
If you are scared of the truth, get back to your favorite "news" - FAUX news and Bill O-Lie-ly
December 20th, 2005 at 8:37 pmOh, and they way honest people do it:
They to the wiretaps and at the same time seek the warrants. Those warrants are retroactive. Those same warrants have been granted almost without (repeat) without exception.
If you don't think a warrant will be granted, you try to hide your unlawful behavior. That among other vile actions is what has chimpy on the impeachment train.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:40 pmThe law say that Bush can eavesdrop without a warrant. Read the damn link…both of you.
Comment by Tracy — December 20, 2005 @ 8:32 pm
I read the link and have read other news too. Pres Bush can eavesdrop as long as he seeks a secret court order within 72 hours, as you already mentioned. However, he did not seek the warrant:
A defiant President Bush said Monday that he did not need explicit permission from Congress or the courts to establish a secret domestic surveillance program to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists.
Bush asserts right to eavesdrop in U.S
President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and he lashed out at those involved in publicly revealing the program.
Bush Acknowledges Approving Eavesdropping in U.S.
What are you going to say now? That he did have a warrant, in spite of Bush having acknowledged -and defended- he did not have one?
December 20th, 2005 at 8:57 pm#117
"If you break the law you go to jail."
Bush didn't break the law. Explain, with evidence backed up by the law, where he did. Stop disreguarding what the law says...for once.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:18 pm"If you don’t think a warrant will be granted, you try to hide your unlawful behavior."
Do you think that Bush should have PUBLICALLY announced that he was about to order these electronic surveillance missions?
December 20th, 2005 at 10:23 pmThe extreme irrationality in your premise makes it impossible to understand how you function in the world. We're not the ones having trouble reading. The law is clear. It's posted all over this blog. If you'd read the whole thread and not just jump in spouting off, you would have bumped into it numerous times. It's too late to bother with this juvenile idiocy... Maybe tomorrow
December 20th, 2005 at 10:32 pm#119
"I read the link and have read other news too. Pres Bush can eavesdrop as long as he seeks a secret court order within 72 hours, as you already mentioned. However, he did not seek the warrant:"
When did he say that he didn't seek the warrants? There was nothing that he stated in his defense, about not obtaining a warrant within 72 hours. Bush said he didn't have to obtain a warrant or obtain permission from Congress to order the eavesdropping and start the electronic surveillance, NOT that the application for the warrant was never issued.
"That he did have a warrant, in spite of Bush having acknowledged -and defended- he did not have one?"
Right! He said he didn't have to have warrant at the time it was ordered, which is right, but never said that within the 72 hour time limit that there wasn't one issued. The law specifically states that after the order is given the application for the warrant must be issued within 72 hours...so please cite where Bush said that in each instance, where time was critical, that a warrant was not applied for?
From you link:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/13447891.htm
"A defiant President Bush said Monday that he did not need explicit permission from Congress or the courts to establish a secret domestic surveillance program to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists."
Your news source is not reporting accurately. These were not secret DOMESTIC surveilance operations, but rather INTERNATIONAL ones involving tapping international phone calls and e-mails made between the U.S. and an unknown foreign country or countries.
BTW the ones who should be brought up on treason charges are the assholes who leaked the CLASSIFIED program in the first place.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:49 pmunbelievable,
remember that there vast swaths of americans that believe in 'creationism', folks like Tracy have a low bar of 'intelligence' within their community. they don't live in the rational or modern world, and generally reflect too many intersections in their 'family trees'.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:55 pmIt's OK, Tracy, we understand. In your reality, Bush will never, ever break a law...and Bill Clinton, he was just evil.
Just remember this....Republicans conducted 1057 investigations into Bill Clinton, none into Bush. Clinton lied about having sex....Bush lied about this country into an elective war. 1 soldier died on Clinton's watch...who knows what the number will be under Bush? And despite the efforts of Congressional Republicans and their media synophants to impeach Clinton, he left office with a 65% favorability rating. Bush has a majority Congress and the same syncophantic press propping him up up...and he'll be lucky to leave office with 35% rating.
Next time you Republicans steal an election, could you at least put a competent front man in?
December 20th, 2005 at 11:13 pm(...)so please cite where Bush said that in each instance, where time was critical, that a warrant was not applied for?
Comment by Tracy — December 20, 2005 @ 10:49 pm
I love it when people raise the bar without ever admitting they have retreated from a previous position because they have been proven wrong.
Let's take a look at your posts. You started off by suggesting we were crazy to even think a court order was needed:
(...)is a court order still necessary considering that time is of the essence and those involved undoubtedly know that they might be being spied on?
Comment by Tracy — December 20, 2005 @ 11:50 am
Then, when told there was a 72hr "grace" period, you misunderstood and thought the surveillance had to be put on hold until law enforcement actually got the order:
I am sure that the terrorists appreciate the fact that they have three days in order to make their calls or send their e-mails!
Comment by Tracy — December 20, 2005 @ 1:26 pm
And now, as a last resort, you demand absolute proof, in each instance, that Bush did not ask for a warrant. I could turn the tables on you, and ask you to provide evidence that Bush did, indeed, ask for a warrant everytime.
Instead, I will quote Pres Bush saying he did not need to seek permission from anyone but himself when he ordered the eavesdropping:
QUESTION: (...)Why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?
BUSH:(...)And having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely.
As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress.
Bush: U.S. must think, act differently
So, there you have it: Pres Bush's claims his authority is derived from the Constitution -not from a court order. If Pres Bush had a court order, he would simply have said so, and that would have been the end of the line of questioning.
Come to think of it, I will ask you to provide me the evidence that Pres Bush did ask for a court order everytime. Do you have it? Could you please share it?
These were not secret DOMESTIC surveilance operations, but rather INTERNATIONAL ones involving tapping international phone calls and e-mails made between the U.S. and an unknown foreign country or countries.
I see. Your defence is two-fold: The court order was issued, and even it it wasn't it doesn't matter because it is not domestic surveillance. Well, it is domestic inasmuch as it targeted Americans and residents on US soil.
Here is an article that explains the issue:
President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.
Bush Authorized Domestic Spying
Here is another one:
President George W. Bush asserted yesterday that it was lawful for him to secretly order wiretapping of telephone calls to and from the United States, despite a 1978 law banning such intercepts without explicit authorization from a special court.
Bush defends secret wiretaps
And another one:
(...)the administration bypassed a secret court system that for nearly 30 years has monitored the government's use of electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence on U.S. soil.
Bush Using 9/11 Law to Spy on Americans
Finally, also from the San Jose Mercury News:
"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. ... When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so," Bush said in a speech promoting the Patriot Act.
Senators call for probe of Bush's domestic-surveillance program
Well, why is now Pres Bush claiming his authority is derived from the Constitution and not a court order?
December 21st, 2005 at 12:24 amunbelievable,
remember that there vast swaths of americans that believe in ‘creationism’, folks like Tracy have a low bar of ‘intelligence’ within their community. they don’t live in the rational or modern world, and generally reflect too many intersections in their ‘family trees’.
Comment by Ryan Neat — December 20, 2005 @ 10:55 pm
Ryan,
Good point. My dad used to call Evolution 'Evil'. I used to have to hide the fact that I accepted Evolution in the fifth grade! So, yeah, unfortunately, I do know what you mean.
I also had Italian fascists as relatives myself. Guess it's why I try to explain things to Giacomo. I feel sorry for him to have grown up with that background as well. But I'm beginning to understand that, unlike us, knowledge scares these folks. Truly petrifies them...
Good point... If I could change my mind aboutthat nonse by simply reading
December 21st, 2005 at 9:40 am#125
"In your reality, Bush will never, ever break a law…and Bill Clinton, he was just evil."
Clinton wasn't evil, he was just pathetic when it came to dealing with terrorism.
"Bush lied about this country into an elective war"
You are one of many who assert the Bush lied about going into Iraq. For once please present some proof that Bush lied, considering no Congressional committee or panel has stated that.
"1 soldier died on Clinton’s watch…who knows what the number will be under Bush?"
1 soldier died on Clinton's watch?!! How many in Somolia, how many in Bosnia, how many in Iraq, how many during the USS Cole bombing, ect....any more asinine statements?
"Next time you Republicans steal an election, could you at least put a competent front man in?"
Like Kerry or Gore was competent to be president! LOL! BTW why are you still whinning about 2000?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:20 amYou are one of many who assert the Bush lied about going into Iraq. For once please present some proof that Bush lied, considering no Congressional committee or panel has stated that.
Okay, Bush has admitted it... Congress is working on the investigation into it, in addition to the numerous reports already out about it.
And why don't you get off your fat lazy ass and go look like we do. Turn off FAUX 'News" and think for yourself.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:26 amany more asinine statements?
Oh, I'm sure you'll post more. You neocons always do.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:27 amLike Kerry or Gore was competent to be president! LOL! BTW why are you still whinning about 2000?
Why are you still whining about Clinton?
At least Clinton was elected. And so was Gore...
December 21st, 2005 at 11:29 am#126
"You started off by suggesting we were crazy to even think a court order was needed:"
If you remember correctly now, but apparently you didn't before, I asked a question...I didn't suggest anything.
"And now, as a last resort, you demand absolute proof, in each instance, that Bush did not ask for a warrant."
As we ALL learned more about what the law said it actually became clearer to me that Bush was not breaking the law when he said that he didn't need warrants before ordering the eaves dropping missions. It wasn't a last resort because we DO NOT KNOW if Bush applied for the warrants after the fact...that is what the hearings will determine.
"I could turn the tables on you, and ask you to provide evidence that Bush did, indeed, ask for a warrant everytime."
Again, you and I both will have to wait till the hearings determine if any law was broken.
"I see. Your defence is two-fold: The court order was issued, and even it it wasn’t it doesn’t matter because it is not domestic surveillance"
This is not defense, it's just a correction in your source because the FACT that these instances in question DO fall under international surveillance, which is why the order can be given and executed before a judge approves it, is why Bush was right in saying that warrentless eavesdropping orders are legal under the law. Now, if it is found that Bush NEVER followed up with the applications to a FISA judge, then by all means hammer away on him and I will be right there with you.
"Well, why is now Pres Bush claiming his authority is derived from the Constitution and not a court order?"
Because the FISA court or ANY other court also derives it's power from the Constitution. All of the power that the executive branch or any other branch comes from the Constitution.
More false information from one of your quotes:
"(…)the administration bypassed a secret court system that for nearly 30 years has monitored the government’s use of electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence on U.S. soil."
The above is PURE speculation because it is suggesting, iggnorantly BTW, that the president has to obtain a court order before the surveillance order can be executed, which is NOT what the law says.
More on the FISA court...whether we like the FISA court or not is irrelevant.
http://www.slate.com/id/2070287/
December 21st, 2005 at 2:01 pm#131
"Why are you still whining about Clinton?"
Because, if Clinton would have done his job 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened!
"At least Clinton was elected. And so was Gore…"
Bush/Cheney was elected twice, just like Clinton and Gore were. Whats more, Bush at least received 1/2 of the vote in 2000 and 2004, which Clinton/Gore didn't BOTH times they were elected.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:17 pm#133
Because, if Clinton would have done his job 9/11 probably wouldn’t have happened!
You are delusion. 9/11 happened because Bush went on vacation instead of going to work after stealing the first election. It happened on his watch, not Clinton's.
Bush/Cheney was elected twice, just like Clinton and Gore were. Whats more, Bush at least received 1/2 of the vote in 2000 and 2004, which Clinton/Gore didn’t BOTH times they were elected.
Comment by Tracy — December 21, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
No they weren't. In 2000 Gore got the most popular AND electoral votes. In a recount, Gore won Florida. Read the real news and you'll find that fact located in several independent sources. FAUX "News" isn't really news. It's entertainment for the undereducated.
In 2004, the Diebold machines have been proven to be unreliable. Jeb Bush recently issued a statement that they are.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:24 pm#132
Again, you and I both will have to wait till the hearings determine if any law was broken.
no you won't. laws are clear. bush admitted his crime. he's guilty. but feel free to hold your breath while you wait for the hearings and verification of that fact.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:27 pm#127
So Ryan Neat and you are both bigots...sad.
bigot, n. - a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
It seems that the only thing little boy Neat can do in this blog is insult others, only from behind his key board BTW, that disagree with him. Do you fall into the same pathetic category?
December 21st, 2005 at 3:18 pm(...)Bush was not breaking the law when he said that he didn’t need warrants before ordering the eaves dropping missions. (...) we DO NOT KNOW if Bush applied for the warrants after the fact(...)
Comment by Tracy — December 21, 2005 @ 2:01 pm
Yes he was. He admitted to bypassing the courts. He also admitted to not applying for a warrant (before or after) because he claims to have the constitutional power to do it:
QUESTION: (…)Why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?
BUSH:(…)And having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely.
There you have it...
you and I both will have to wait till the hearings determine if any law was broken.
I love this -you ask me for evidence but when I do it your reply is that we will have to wait.
Bush was right in saying that warrentless eavesdropping orders are legal under the law.
This is not what he is saying. He claims he does not need to check with the other branches of the government to order eavesdropping operations, even though he had previously said that they required a court order.
Because the FISA court or ANY other court also derives it’s power from the Constitution. All of the power that the executive branch or any other branch comes from the Constitution.
Thanks for the civics lesson. With all that constitutional authority, the President still cannot do as he pleases -no matter what he claims.
Now, if it is found that Bush NEVER followed up with the applications to a FISA judge, then by all means hammer away on him and I will be right there with you.
You want to have a Congressional report -fair enough.
I just don't know what it will take for you to feel uncomfortable (just a little, a tad) when the president is practically saying he can do as he pleases.
You should also see what constitutional scholars are saying about this
December 21st, 2005 at 3:28 pm#134
"You are delusion. 9/11 happened because Bush went on vacation instead of going to work after stealing the first election. It happened on his watch, not Clinton’s."
Clinton was responsible for the fact the Al Qaeda was so strong right before 9/11. He vowed to shut them down MULTIPLE TIMES and didn't follow thru. The 1993 WTC bombing happened on Clinton's watch...he did nothing to hunt for Bin Laden...The 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya happened on Clinton's watch...he did nothing to hunt for Bin Laden and the USS Cole was bombed in 2000 on Clinton's watch...and once againg he did nothing to hunt for bin Laden. BTW the 9/11 plot was conceived on Clinton's watch and the fact that Al Qaeda was so strong and well connected before 9/11, lies squarely at the feet of bubba.
"In a recount, Gore won Florida."
Oh, you mean the INCOMPLETE recount in which thousands of military ballots were thrown out? Considering how good high Clinton's poll numbers were leaving office it should have been a landslide for Gore in 2000...why wasn't it?
"In 2004, the Diebold machines have been proven to be unreliable. Jeb Bush recently issued a statement that they are."
Unreliable for those who don't know how to opperate them. I used the same brand machines when I voted in 2000, didn't have any problem, and then we switched to electronic ones in 2004.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:44 pm#137
"He also admitted to not applying for a warrant (before or after) because he claims to have the constitutional power to do it:"
After? When did he say that? Under the law he has the authority to order the wire tapping before getting it approved by a judge after that he has 72 hours to get the application in or the surveilance must stop.
"Yes he was. He admitted to bypassing the courts."
It wasn't illegal to bypass the courts for the inital order to be executed! AGAIN the 72 hr. window is there to allow for the application to get to the judge and get it approved OR not approved.
"There you have it…"
There you have what?
"I love this -you ask me for evidence but when I do it your reply is that we will have to wait."
Your evidence, i.e. what Bush said, is not supported in context with the law.
"You want to have a Congressional report -fair enough."
You should be demanding one also and not stating today that Bush did break the law when you DO NOT know.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:06 pm#136
I an a recovering ex-conservative Republican. So clearly I do not fit your description, or I never would have changed sides.
Because this is the side I choose, I am loyal to it. Have lived on both sides of the fence and this one is actually far greener. As a result, I will defend it against the attacks of trolls who wish to criticize it.
And not that Ryan needs me to defend him, but his frustration with ignorance is understandable. Why you all focus on that is simply because you cannot win against him in a debate. And it's fully hypocritical because you all do it as well. Bottom line.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:16 pm#138
Clinton was responsible for the fact the Al Qaeda was so strong right before 9/11. He vowed to shut them down MULTIPLE TIMES and didn’t follow thru. The 1993 WTC bombing happened on Clinton’s watch…he did nothing to hunt for Bin Laden…The 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya happened on Clinton’s watch…he did nothing to hunt for Bin Laden and the USS Cole was bombed in 2000 on Clinton’s watch…and once againg he did nothing to hunt for bin Laden. BTW the 9/11 plot was conceived on Clinton’s watch and the fact that Al Qaeda was so strong and well connected before 9/11, lies squarely at the feet of bubba.
No. Clinton was in pursuit of bin Laden, which is why Bush got all the intelligence and warning about him when he took office. You seem to forget that Clinton's term was over. He had to stop looking. But Georgie never started. He's has 5 years and where is bin Laden now, hmmm? He's been on the hunt longer than Clinton was, and bin Laden has not been caught. So who are you to critizie when your own boy George can't catch the guy?
Oh, you mean the INCOMPLETE recount in which thousands of military ballots were thrown out? Considering how good high Clinton’s poll numbers were leaving office it should have been a landslide for Gore in 2000…why wasn’t it?
Nope, the complete recount that BBC did. You know, British Broadcasting Co.
Not necessarily. Wasn't a landslide for Bush's daddy and Reagan's exist numbers were also excellent. Gore was no Clinton any more than Bush was a Reagan. Plus, if you are owned by the same Corporations that own the media and spout your propaganda, it's bound to work on some people. You know - Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky... check it out.
Unreliable for those who don’t know how to opperate them. I used the same brand machines when I voted in 2000, didn’t have any problem, and then we switched to electronic ones in 2004.
Bull... Jeb Bush had a hacker break into one as a test, and the results showed that they could be hacked without any fingerprinting... Jeb Bush is a Republican - so you can't say this was liberal anything.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:27 pmIt wasn’t illegal to bypass the courts for the inital order to be executed! AGAIN the 72 hr. window is there to allow for the application to get to the judge and get it approved OR not approved.
Comment by Tracy — December 21, 2005 @ 5:06 pm
And what I have been trying to tell you all along is that he has admitted not applying for the warrant at all. 72hr window or not. My peeve is not about him not having the order for the initial approval -I thought I was clear about that. My problem is that he admitted not applying for any warrant at all.
I quoted Bush's statement twice because it is supported by the context -he was explicitly asked "why did you skip the courts" and he replied "because I have the authority". The question implied that the 72hr window had been bypassed. If Bush had a court order within that time frame he would have said so and you and I would not be having this discussion. Am I clear now?
You should be demanding one also and not stating today that Bush did break the law when you DO NOT know.
I want a Congressional inquiry into this. And I do know -Bush already admitted he bypassed the courts and is claiming to have the authority when it is not clear at all he has it. As a matter of fact, constitutional scholars are saying he does not have that authority.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:55 pmThere you have what?
Comment by Tracy — December 21, 2005 @ 5:06 pm
There you have Bush saying he does not need warrant at all, regardless of any time window.
Your evidence, i.e. what Bush said, is not supported in context with the law.
I was referring to the fact that you demand evidence but when asked for the same you deflect.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:57 pm#142
"My problem is that he admitted not applying for any warrant at all."
"The question implied that the 72hr window had been bypassed. If Bush had a court order within that time frame he would have said so and you and I would not be having this discussion. Am I clear now?"
Now that is YOUR interpretation, because Bush has already come back repeatedly and said the warrants were obtained. I think what he was referring to was this question:
Reporter:
"Why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?"
Bush: "...We use FISA still. You're referring to the FISA accord in your question. Of course we use FISAs.
But FISAs is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect."
Which says to me that the reporter assumed that Bush needed a court order BEFORE ordering the wiretaps. I don't think that the reporter was aware of the provision that allows for wiretapping before a FISA judge can say yea or nea. Again whether Bush followed up with those FISA court applications is yet to be determined.
"I want a Congressional inquiry into this. And I do know -Bush already admitted he bypassed the courts and is claiming to have the authority when it is not clear at all he has it. As a matter of fact, constitutional scholars are saying he does not have that authority."
Well I am glad you aren't one of those who has already convicted Bush before ALL of the facts are known. It seems to me that Bush wouldn't go on national television and admit to all of this (no president would BTW), if, along with his legal advisers, he did something illegal. It would be political suicide.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:29 pm#143
"I was referring to the fact that you demand evidence but when asked for the same you deflect."
I can't do anything but deflect when the congressional inquiry hasn't even started yet!
December 21st, 2005 at 8:31 pmIt seems to me that Bush wouldn’t go on national television and admit to all of this (no president would BTW), if, along with his legal advisers, he did something illegal. It would be political suicide.
Comment by Tracy — December 21, 2005 @ 8:29 pm
That's the most jaw-dropping part of this whole mess: Pres Bush did go on to a radio adress and press conference to defend the secret wiretaps that were revealed by the New York Times. I provided the link to CNN before -here is the link to the White House's own web site so you can read the transcript: Press Conference of the President
Which says to me that the reporter assumed that Bush needed a court order BEFORE ordering the wiretaps.
I will repeat: IF the reporter had his facts wrong, IF the president did indeed had obtained a court order within the 72hrs window, IF Pres Bush had followed all the procedures -how difficult was it for him to say "we did obtain the court order, here it is"? But he did not say that. He defended his decision -and has continued to defend it- on the basis that the Constitution allows him to do it; which is a tacit admission that there was no warrant.
That is what Pres Bush meant when he said "But FISA are for ...". He is juxtaposing FISA regulations that already allow for wiretaps before a court order is secured to his own, personal approval of secret surveillance.
In fact, Cheney has come to the defence of that decision along the exact same lines: Bush has right to authorize secret surveillance
Pres Bush also has defended himself by saying this operation was essential in the "war on terror" to protect Americans: Bush Addresses Uproar Over Spying
Bush says he signed NSA wiretap order
All the accounts, all the versions we have are consistent: Pres Bush has never said he ever secured a court order to make the eavesdropping legal.
So it's not as if Pres Bush mispoke. He knew exactly what he meant to say and that is his administration's line: He has the right to authorise secret wiretaps. No court order needed. 72hrs or beyond.
That is what has Congress and the Senate up in arms, and the reason why they want a probe into this matter. This is a very serious issue. Constitutional scholars question the legality of the operation and so do members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It is not just MY interpretation. There is simply no other reasonable way of reading what he said.
Aren't you flabbergasted by the gall displayed by this administration?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:30 pmTracy-
Best to just stick with insults and smears, like wwallace, IRI, et al. The facts don't support your opinions. I'd suggest reading the information TP provides or Media Matters...in a few months the Fox-Limbaugh-Hannity programming should wear off.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:53 am"I’d suggest reading the information TP provides or Media Matters"
Reading those two sites you might as well read the WSWS or The Nation. All four are biased liberal rags!
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:58 am#147
In Bush's response to the reporters question about not getting a follow up court order after a surveilence mission had been ordered: maybe the operations in question only lasted for less that 72 hours. In that case the law says the operation(s) must shut down if either the information wanted is collected, a FISA judge rejectes the request to continue the wiretap, or the 72 hour time frame expires, which ever is earlier. These three (I consider them huge loop holes in the law) provisions seem allow for wiretapping without any judicial review. Am I wrong or is there some other part of the law that has some other oversight provisions? In today's world of lightspeed e-mails and satellite phone calls it seems to me that 72 hours is plenty of time to spy and collect information and then shut down the operation. The more I look at this it seems to me the the Bush adminstration was taking advantage of these loop holes in order to protect the U.S. from further terrorist attack.
Also please read the following from the U.S. Code:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html
The wire tapping instances that are in question, i.e. those made between people in the U.S. and other countries: Do we know that the person(s) who were spied on were American citizens? In any event look at 1801 (a)(1)(2) or (3) regarding who the surveillance can be directed at.
President Carter apparently did the same thing that Bush is accused of, i.e. stating that he doesn't need a court order for certain types of electronic wire tapping. It depends on what it's used for.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:55 amIn Bush’s response to the reporters question about not getting a follow up court order after a surveilence mission had been ordered: maybe the operations in question only lasted for less that 72 hours.
Comment by Tracy — December 22, 2005 @ 10:55 am
You are grappling at straws here. Pres Bush has admitted he signed and renewed the order over 30 times since he ordered the start of the operation:
"I have re-authorized this program more than 30 times," he said. "I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."
Bush says he signed NSA wiretap order
And Pres Bush still has to say he got a court order for any of these -he and his administration keep defending the operation on the supposed grounds of Pres Bush's "constitutional authority"; which some constitutional scholars and the Senate's Intelligence Committe say he does not have.
In that case the law says the operation(s) must shut down if either the information wanted is collected, a FISA judge rejectes the request to continue the wiretap, or the 72 hour time frame expires, which ever is earlier. These three (I consider them huge loop holes in the law) provisions seem allow for wiretapping without any judicial review.
Which makes Pres Bush's operation the more egregious; if he could apply for a court order that would make the wiretapping legal retroactively, why bypass judicial oversight?
The 72hrs window is not a loophole. I will come back to this later.
As an aside -at this point you have conceded that the Bush administration has weasely used a "loophole" (which it is not, but let's say it is for the sake of the argument); aren't you mad? Don't you think something smells rotten here?
Am I wrong or is there some other part of the law that has some other oversight provisions? In today’s world of lightspeed e-mails and satellite phone calls it seems to me that 72 hours is plenty of time to spy and collect information and then shut down the operation.
You are not wrong. The law makes the eavesdropping legal retroactively -it is not a loophole. It was written with expediency in mind.
The more I look at this it seems to me the the Bush adminstration was taking advantage of these loop holes in order to protect the U.S. from further terrorist attack.
It is not a loophole. It was written that way so law enforcement and intelligence operations could begin tapping on electronic conversations and apply for a warrant later. With that in mind; why would Pres Bush need to bypass the court? To make matters worse, we know the FISA court has rejected none or just a handful (depending on your source) of the thousands of applications it has received:
A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 2
President Carter apparently did the same thing that Bush is accused of, i.e. stating that he doesn’t need a court order for certain types of electronic wire tapping. It depends on what it’s used for.
1) Past wrongs do not justify current ones.
2) This story has already been debunked: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
Reading those two sites you might as well read the WSWS or The Nation. All four are biased liberal rags!
Comment by Tracy — December 22, 2005 @ 8:58 am
Then why are you here reading a "liberal rag" debating this issue?
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:33 pmGregor - we read this liberal rag and other "non-partisan" progressive wonl sites for the same reason "Fox Fearnatics" visit conservative sites - it's always good to know what the other guy/gal is up to.
The following may be used without permission:
Aphrodite's tips for Proressives to TAKE back the Congress:
1.) Let the electorate know that progressives candidates BELIEVE that GWB is a GREATER threat than Al Quaeda.
December 22nd, 2005 at 5:43 pm2.) Let the voters know that Progressive candidates believe military spending is grossly out of proportion with what is needed.
3.) Learning from VietNam anti-war activists, DO NOT call returning troops "baby killers". ALWAYS begin the conversation with, "I support the troops, but...."
4.) Let voters know that an OPEN border poses no security threat.
5.) Let constituents know that progressives believe some wars are worth fighting - but add the caveat, "...but we have found one worth fighting in over two centuries."
(1) We would, but the electorate has finally figured it out....85% want him impeached based on 100,000 responses on MSNBC.
December 22nd, 2005 at 7:01 pm(2) We will, it is grossly out of line with the resyt of the world. A $400BB budget requires a war without end to justify. When we take back Congress, war profiteers and war mongers, like Dick Cheney, will be dealt with.
(3) We understand the difference between those under order and those that send out sons and daughters, brothers, and sisters, mothers and fathers off to fight an elective war based on lies.
(4) Poor MA....afraid of everybody. Best thing for you Beta-Monkeys is a nice secure cage...you won't be free, but you will be safe. We'll arrange for plenty of banana's.
(5) Progressives believe war is the last resort...Beta-Monkeys think war is the 1st resort.
Dear Innocent - Let me correct my quickly typed and poorly edited last line - should have read "...but we haven't for one worth fighting on over two centuries."
I love people who compare themselves to "the rest of the world" - weak-kneed leftist sycophants - too much fun!!
"We would, but the electorate has finally figured it out….85% want him impeached based on 100,000 responses on MSNBC." And you're thrilled with those numbers?? All this demonstrates is that every whiny prog - you know the types - "un"real jobs, mom's wallet or un-employment - allows them congregate at the protest d'jour during a workday. I can just picture Mr & Ms. Debtonator, RyANNe enlisting the assistance of his nanny and valet, Blessings, PP etc. feverishly hunkered down over their keyboards - send, send, send,send....
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:53 pm#150
"It was written that way so law enforcement and intelligence operations could begin tapping on electronic conversations and apply for a warrant later. With that in mind; why would Pres Bush need to bypass the court?"
So what happens if the information from a certain wire tap is already obtained before a FISA judge can say yea or nea? What is the point of judicail review after the fact then? I still think that it's a loophole.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:21 pm"Dear Innocent - Let me correct my quickly typed and poorly edited last line - should have read “…but we haven’t for one worth fighting on over two centuries.â€"
Want to try a 3rd time?
"I love people who compare themselves to “the rest of the world†- weak-kneed leftist sycophants - too much fun!!"
I have no idea what your point is...I never mentioned anything about "the rest of the world". But in my travels during in the 90s, Clinton (and, by extension, us) were the toast of the world. Now, we are pariahs. You really wouldn't want to conduct a world-wide popularity contest between the two.
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:52 am#152
"(1) We would, but the electorate has finally figured it out….85% want him impeached based on 100,000 responses on MSNBC."
Do you have the link to the poll?
December 23rd, 2005 at 11:21 amMighty Aphrodite,
Once more, and true to form, your post is inane and entirely besides the point.
I don't know what you are trying to do when you fail to address the topic of the thread -maybe you think the President's bypassing of the legal process is quite acceptable.
For what it's worth:
1.) Let the electorate know that progressives candidates BELIEVE that GWB is a GREATER threat than Al Quaeda.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — December 22, 2005 @ 5:43 pm
I don't know of anyone in this blog who has ever said anything resembling this. This type of statement is commonly known as a strawman. I would also call it a misplaced attempt at irony.
2.) Let the voters know that Progressive candidates believe military spending is grossly out of proportion with what is needed.
If you disagree with your statement, then you haven't been paying attention to the military budget in the last few years. Not only is the US military budget out of proportion, it will get even bigger with the new "enduring bases" in Iraq:
The Military's Bloated Budget
The Pentagon's Outdated Budget Priorities
If the U.S. is ultimately leaving Iraq, why is the military building 'permanent' bases?
US bases in Iraq: sticky politics, hard math
3.) Learning from VietNam anti-war activists, DO NOT call returning troops “baby killersâ€. ALWAYS begin the conversation with, “I support the troops, but….â€
See my response to your point #1
4.) Let voters know that an OPEN border poses no security threat.
See my response to your point #1
5.) Let constituents know that progressives believe some wars are worth fighting - but add the caveat, “…but we have found one worth fighting in over two centuries.â€
See my response to your point #1 - plus, if you think invading a country that had no WMD and that was no threat to the US is a just and moral war, then our disagreement is beyond you being a self-described "conservative".
December 24th, 2005 at 2:23 pm[...] 1. They should have complained when they were briefed. I suppose this would relate to the objections rasied by the few members of congress who were briefed about the illegal wiretap program. Sen Jay Rockefeller, the ranking democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, did in fact object to the program in a letter to the administration chief of skullduggery VP Dick Chenney. The reason they did not speak publically on the issue was that they were told that it was a highly classified program. The full text of the letter can be found here. [...]
January 24th, 2006 at 2:21 pmNaked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 11:23 amPay Day Loan
Payday loan faxless should be memorable concerning a financial predicaments. A possible interpretation to financial sponser surely is to move foward with a payday loans no fax in 1 minute.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:19 amNaked Girls Naked Young Girl Naked Teen Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 6:48 pm