A column in this morning’s Chicago Tribune by John Schmidt argues that Bush’s secret domestic surveillance program was legal. (Byron York posted a portion of the piece on the National Review website under the title “READ THIS IMPORTANT ARTICLE“) It features this selectively edited excerpt from a 2002 decision by the FISA appeals court:
“All the … courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence…We take for granted that the president does have that authority.”
Actually, the quote doesn’t begin with the word “all”; it begins “The Truong court, as did all the other courts…” The Truong case was decided in 1978 — the same year FISA was passed — and did not deal with the FISA law. As the court noted right before the excerpt, “Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance… it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute…” The Truong case dealt with the President’s power in the absence of a congressional statute.
This is critically important because FISA specifically prohibits the warrantless domestic searches that the President authorized. As Chief Justice Roberts explained in his recent confirmation hearings, referrencing the landmark Supreme Court case Youngstown Sheet, “where the president is acting contrary to congressional authority…the president’s authority is at its lowest ebb.”
The article also conveniently omits the two sentences after the excerpt:
It was incumbent upon the [Truong] court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse…
All the court is saying here is that whether FISA imposes limits on the President’s authority is not an issue in this case. It was an issue in the Troung case but, as the court explains, “[T]he question before us is the reverse.”
See other attempts to muddle the debate here, here and here.
Judd…I know you know that a war fought by lawyers is one the USA will lose. That’s the whole point isn’t it?
Thanks in advance for the dead Americans you’ll be a party to if we allow you to interfere. Or, thanks in advance for the 70 seats in the Senate and an insurmountable majority in the house should a large number of Democrats discover what Republicans already know.
This isn’t your daddy’s Vietnam. This time we’re ready for you.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:23 pmGee BIG SURPRISE that the tribune would defend bushy. Just another bush supporter trying to spin the “fuherer” out of ANOTHER IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. They all seem a bit desperate lately, don’t you think.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:30 pmI believe the large number of excuses they’re offering is testament to their already admitted guilt. What part of “I broke the law and I’ll do it again” don’t you understand IRI?
December 21st, 2005 at 12:31 pmI-Right-I
Your act is getting a little old. You need some new material. You see, it isn’t just “the filthy left” or “dirty liberals” that are questioning the misdeeds of this administration. What do you have to say about the many republicans that are coming forward with their questions and concerns?
Stop trying to scare people into believing that the only the almighty Bush Cheney regime can keep us safe. It makes no sense to me that you would say that illegal wire tapping is keeping us safe when this administration still hasn’t dealt with border issues, harbor safety or rail line security. Not to mention protection of chemical and biological agents. Are you aware that toms of explosives were stolen from a warehouse in New Mexico? Look it up. And guess what? BUSHCO HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED. If they would spend as much time on serious threats to our security as they do on petty political fights then maybe we would actually be safer.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:33 pmIt seems that I-Right-I wants a government of men, and not laws. It astounds me that so many Americans don’t understand the principles that this country was founded on. But let him paint his building-size murals to Dear Leader, while citizens who actually understand what this country’s about go about the work of defending democracy.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:34 pmKonservatives will be as brutal as they can in their defense of the defenseless.
At the end of all this, which Republican really wants to be associated with the death of the 4th Amendment? Are they really that stupid?
Their maniacal grabs for power will be their undoing.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:37 pmSpying on your fellow citizens legal?
Give me a brake, is it just me or they are completely insane? How can spying on citizens ever be legal??????????????????????????????
I tell you when, when Democracy becomes synonym of fascism!
These guys are sinister nutters, and they’re playing us all, with this jib jab of being legal to spy on your fellow citizens.
Do you know where they always did that? Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Franco’s Spain and I could go indefinitely.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:40 pmstr8upnochaser –
Also, don’t forget the failing grades the government recently received from the 9/11 Commission, or the abject failure of the admin to work to secure ACTUAL WMD whose existence is KNOWN (in the actual, non - Office of Special Plans sense of the word), namely, the nuclear material in former Soviet states. Turns out that one of the biggest roadblocks to progress on the latter issue was none other than the admin’s diplomatic hero, John Bolton. Now that he’s out of the State Dept., they’re finally making some progress on the issue. Way to keep America safe, John. To be fair to the admin, it’s much easier to defend us from imaginary WMD than actual WMD.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:41 pmI personally think that the Chicago Tribune did their job. There were three opinion pieces in todays Tribune. I did not agree with the one written by John Schmidt. They also had a middle of the road opinion by Jack Fuller. Finally the opinion of Geoffrey R. Stone, which I believe is the proper view.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/ news/ opinion/ chi-0512210143dec21,0,3946849.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
http://www.chicagotribune.com/ news/ opinion/ chi-0512210141dec21,0,3160415.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
December 21st, 2005 at 12:46 pmAh, yes…. cut and paste… selective reading… delete things that do not support our view… people won’t know…
December 21st, 2005 at 12:51 pmcreate our reality…. (the aforementioned are he thoughts of the neocon spin machine).
IRI,
Why do you and the other americans hate our troops and our military so much? Based on your ‘rant’, your leadership is nothing but a bunch of anti-american, anti-vietnam, anti-military traitors. Clearly your ‘hypocrisy’ helps you forget your psychosis…
“President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
“No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That’s why I’m against it.”
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99
“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush
“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning…I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
“You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo.”
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99
“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years”
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
“This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.”
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
December 21st, 2005 at 12:55 pmI-Right-I is a good german.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:57 pmWelcome to Rome…here are your chains….
December 21st, 2005 at 1:03 pmI-Right-I is off topic. Please ignore.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:05 pmI-RIGHT-I,
Why don’t you go shed some of your own blood for Bush’s great war of liberation in Iraq? Or perhaps a fascist like you would rather shed Democratic blood in the good ol’ USofA?
It seems that the more Bush failures and crimes become evident, the more people like you spout how heroic dear leader is. That must be from the desperation of seeing your party going down in flames.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:08 pmJudd is good!
I mean, GOOD!
December 21st, 2005 at 1:08 pmIs the Reichstag burning yet?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:09 pmbut….. if there are three different views supported by reasoned arguments on both sides, then Bush’s, and Schmidt’s, cannot be fascist, can it? Judd– who is Schmidt and why would he write such a thing? How did he get into Clinton’s dept. in that position?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:10 pmThe President has violated his oath of office and defied the rule of law. Impeach this lawbreaker!
If the FISA law does not protect us, the proper, American action is to go to Congress and request legislation to change it. Or pass a freakin’ Constitutional amendment. But to simply say it doesn’t apply to me is illegal.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:11 pmFocus on the Real Issue
John Schmidt argues in today’s Chicago Tribune that a 2002 court decision gave Bush legal authority to violate the FISA law by engaging in warrantless wiretapping. As Think Progress points out, the case relied on by Schmidt actually says that prior t…
December 21st, 2005 at 1:15 pmIf IRI’s masturbatory fantasy comes true and the Rethugs pick up seats in next year’s election even after all this, we’ll KNOW (rather than merely strongly suspect) they’re stealing the elections.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:16 pmI am a faggot.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:20 pmRepublicans are clearly pathological liars, and psychotic individuals. To try to ‘coverup’ such a blatant violation of the constitution shows they truly learned nothing from the Nixon experience. But based on their general lunacy, that could be said about every ’stance’ they have - that it’s unpolluted by the lessons of history or reason.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:22 pmon Paul’s suggestion I read Stone’s piece in the Tribune. No doubt Mr. Stone is brilliant, but his argument is unsupported by citation to any precedent and fails to even discuss the points made by Schmidt and others. It is, in other words, a “because I say so” argument, and as a lawyer myself, such are always more than a little unconvincing.I inquire again– who is Schmidt, how did he get to work for Clinton, and how can he be so wrong?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:24 pmdead americans-mushrom clouds-wmd-rape rooms-greeted as liberators-slam dunk-cake walk
December 21st, 2005 at 1:27 pmI-RIGHT-I wrote, Thanks in advance for the dead Americans you’ll be a party to if we allow you to interfere.
Hmm…similar words (replacing “Americans” with “Germans,” “Soviets,” “Khmers,” etc etc etc) have been spoken since time immemorial.
This isn’t your daddy’s Vietnam.
Well, at least some folks’ daddies fought in Vietnam. Mary Cheney’s daddy and the Bush twins’ daddy didn’t.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:28 pmHoly crap! That’s deceit and ‘out of context’ to the extreme…why didn’t they just take the text of that decision, pull single letters from the words and jumble them back together to read something like this:
“George W. Bush can do whatever the hell he damn well pleases, so stop questioning him, or you’re a terrorist.”
December 21st, 2005 at 1:31 pmI am seriously considering buying a ruger mini 33. Same caliber as the AK47, and just as lethal. It seems if this country is going down the slipery slope, when are we going to stop shopping, and start fighting? “We have met the enemy, and he is us”
December 21st, 2005 at 1:38 pmarguing the other side, Judd, you cannot simply blow off the court’s statement that FISA cannot encroach upon the president’s constitutional power. That may not have been dispositive of the issue in that single case, but it is a clear statement of the court’s position on that question. It is not deceitful, johnnyr, to point that out.It is the essence of the question.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:44 pmI just don’t get it. If Bush thinks it’s important to eavesdrop on American citizens, then why not just get a warrant from the FISA court? It’s not a security issue. He doesn’t need to wait for a judge. (He can get the warrant retroactively.) Why, why, why can’t he just get a FRIKKEN WARRANT?
4th Amendment to the Constitution
December 21st, 2005 at 1:58 pmThe president has no constitutional power to order warrantless wiretaps. We are not in a legal state of war. Congress may have abdicted is declarative role, but the Constitution is the law of the land and it hasn’t been changed in this regard. No legal state of war, no presidential constitutional power. PERIOD.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:58 pmarthurize, you clearly don’t read very closely. The words “FISA does not encroach on the President’s constitutional power” was referring to the situation faced by the Truong court “in the case before it.”
As Judd’s post made clear, FISA had not been enacted at the time the events and facts involved in that case took place, which is why the President’s constitutional power in the absence of congressional action was the matter at issue in Truong. That’s why in cases subsequent to the passage of FISA “the question before us is the reverse.”
Jeez, even CJ Roberts acknowledged that, in the quote Judd properly gave. Learn to read before you throw such uncomprehending remarks into the thread. Unless that’s your intent.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:59 pmI-RIGHT-I: you must be speaking of dead Americans like those Bush allowed to die because he ignored the overt warning “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.” I guess if he’d spied on Americans instead of having the warning handed to him he would’ve paid attention.
If we destroy the Constitution, what are we fighting for?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:59 pmThe conservatives have done such a good job of catching Osama bin Laden with their secret programs! We’re so lucky we had them in charge, because they know how to get things done! Like catching the man who was behind 9/11!
I feel so secure knowing I’ve sacrificed my liberty for…um…
December 21st, 2005 at 2:00 pmOf course, at the end of the day, we must finally admit to ourselves that the extremists of the Right will never be persuaded that anything they have ever done is illegal or morally bankrupt.
The only solution is to vote them out of control of the House of Representatives in 2006 so we have a chance to impeach Bush. Start budgeting now: your donations will be necessary for Democratic congressional candidates. We are now just over ten months away from the 2006 mid-terms. Most primaries will be over bu mid-June, if not sooner. As soon as the Democratic primaries are over, the checks need to start getting to Democratic candidates.
This is it. At the rate we are going, if we don’t beat Bush in 2006, there may never be another truly free election in the United States. Our constitution may be fatally compromised before we can rid ourselves of Bush in 2008. He may simply decide that his powers and commander in chief allow him to postpone elections indefinitely.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:12 pmThere was yet another mosque bombing today. Trouble is, this time it was in Cincinnati:
http://www.wcpo.com/ news/ 2005/ local/ 12/ 21/ mosque.html
Does this count as an act of ter’rism? Would more wiretaps have prevented this? Just wondering.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:12 pmThanks in advance for the dead Americans you’ll be a party to if we allow you to interfere.
That quote there is an example of a “conservative test pattern.” It means you’ve nailed their talking-point to the wall and they have to wait to download a new one.
In the meantime, they’re going to question your patriotism to try to disguise the fact that they’re just an empty vessel, waiting to receive a new shovel-full of shit.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:23 pm.
I see that I-RIGHT-I came by to take a dump and then leave the mess for us to clean up. What a rube.
I just hope to god that the Dem talking heads get informed on this issue and don’t allow the Rethugs to keep spinning lies about this.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:30 pmRedleg,
Republicans aren’t socially or politically pottie trained. These Pseudo-Conservatives always make messes in inappropriate places just like an unruly canine. Just look at katrina, the deficit, iraq, the INCREASE in terrorism worldwide, the curtailment of our civil liberties and the economy…
It’s like watching an elephant take a dump (GOP metaphor) to watch these guys in office…
December 21st, 2005 at 2:33 pmI see that I-RIGHT-I came by to take a dump and then leave the mess for us to clean up. What a rube.
I-RIGHT-I is George Bush’s handle?
And here I thought it was some Rastafarian football fan. Now it’s starting to make sense.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:01 pm.
Every Legal Scholar questioned agrees that Bushie broke the law and committed an impeachable offense.
What columnists and pundits believe is irrelevant. They have no knowledge of law and do not have a license to practice law.
When the neocons produce their law degree and license to practice, I’ll consider their opinions.
Until then, I will profile them as nothing other than lying,chickenhawk neocons.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:25 pmHere is an interesting discussion of the FISA Appeals Court’s decision: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20021126.html
This case can hardly be considered precedent for anything, given that it is virtually impossible for the Supreme Court to review the FISA Appeals Court - the only party to the case is DOJ, and they are not likely to take the case to the Supreme Court, given that they won in the appellate court. The FISA Appeals Court also plays fast and loose with the Keith decision.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:39 pmHow about this? Congress could pass a bill to require Bush to submit his warrantless target lists (retroactively) to the FISA court. Why would he refuse?
December 21st, 2005 at 3:41 pmSeems the operative question here is whether the FISA review court’s commentary about whether FISA bounds the president’s ability to surveil without warrants establishes any sort of precedent or caselaw. As DPvE notes, it’s not like the case was argued before the SCOTUS with opposing sides making their cases.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:56 pmWell done, Judd. But what about the obvious?…
“Federal court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.”
December 21st, 2005 at 4:15 pmThe New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11
David Ray Griffin, Michael Meacher MP
This is a must read BUSH knew of 911 theres hundreds of bit of proof in this book
December 21st, 2005 at 4:23 pmApparently Toensing just spouted this same BS on Blitzer’s show.
I seem to remember she whored herself out in similar fashion in October on the Plame affair.
Filth.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:58 pm.
Isn’t Think Progress missing Schmidt’s point? Isn’t Schmidt saying that the Clinton administration, just like the Bush administration, felt like it could tap certain people’s phones without court approval?
That’s kind of important to understanding why Bush thinks he hasn’t done anything wrong.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:42 pmNo, Lyle, Clinton never authorized taps without warrants on Americans, or “U.S. persons.” He complied with FISA. Bush circumvented it. And it wasn’t the FBI he used. He turned the awesome foreign surveillance power of the NSA on Americans.
Here’s what the FBI can do with a FISA warrant. Just imagine what the NSA can do without one:
“Despite the secrecy, some details of the sweeping scope of FISA eavesdropping emerged recently in an 1998 espionage case in which a Washington, D.C., couple was convicted on charges of passing four Defense Department documents to an FBI agent posing as a South African intelligence officer.
In a brief filed last year with the U.S. Supreme Court, it was revealed that the government conducted 550 consecutive days of surveillance, which included phone taps, an electronic bug in their bedroom, two clandestine searches of their home, downloads from their computer, and listening in on conversations that the woman, Theresa Squillacote, and her husband, Kurt Strand, had with her psychotherapists.”
http://www.sfgate.com/ cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/ c/ a/ 2001/ 10/ 06/ MN183971.DTL
A request to examine the secret affidavits to the FISA court that had prompted the eavesdropping was denied by the judge in their trial. The couple appealed, saying their constitutional rights had been violated because they were denied necessary information to challenge the legality of the surveillance.
The Supreme Court denied their petition for a hearing in April.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:59 pmI-RIGHT-I wrote, Thanks in advance for the dead Americans you’ll be a party to if we allow you to interfere.
Are all Republican and Neocons truly as cowardly as comments like these make them seem? The only argument Bush is really even trying to muster is the same old “But I’m just protecting you” crap we’ve heard over and over ad nauseum.
I am not afraid of the terrorists. And I am not afraid to be killed by a terrorist because my country refused to give up the very core of what makes her great. The truth is that I would rather be killed by a terrorist than give up even ONE single right or civil liberty that so many before us and many now have given their lives to provide me.
Republicans would rather quiver in fear under their security blankets while our liberties are stripped away so long as they won’t have to miss the next episode of Desparate Housewives.
Cowards. Un-American Cowards. The whole lot of you who would defend your boy king.
Mitch
December 21st, 2005 at 6:34 pm@ Lyle — December 21, 2005 @ 5:42 pm
Isn’t Think Progress missing Schmidt’s point? Isn’t Schmidt saying that the Clinton administration, just like the Bush administration, felt like it could tap certain people’s phones without court approval?
That’s kind of important to understanding why Bush thinks he hasn’t done anything wrong.
Quick stop him he’s thinking for himself!
I don’t think understanding why Bush did what he did comes into it. If it did then at some point ThinkProgress might have mentioned this was done in response to terrorist cells operating in the US which pretty much 100% of the population wanted found.
It is however important to understand that this is nothing new. The only thing Bush did differently than previous Presidents was not get the required piece of paper to do what they always do which they were guaranteed to get.
So impeach the guy for not getting the piece of paper he was guaranteed to get. It does make a better story to pretend you were all violated and this was some extraordinary thing by the rogue Bush administration but it’s actually not.
So Lyle if you have trouble playing dumb for the sake of politics you might want to go elsewhere.
December 21st, 2005 at 6:41 pmYeah Tank, the constitution is ‘just a piece of paper’ according to bush as well. You sure do think just like a dictator, it must be in your genes.
December 21st, 2005 at 6:43 pmRyan Neat #11,
I-Trite-I and his kin are choking on that blue dress, and your post!
Right ON!
IMPEACH (ALL HYPOCRITES)
December 21st, 2005 at 6:56 pmI-Trite-I
L’il Dick or L’il Kim?
You make a da*n good rug!
December 21st, 2005 at 6:58 pmIf it did then at some point ThinkProgress might have mentioned this was done in response to terrorist cells operating in the US which pretty much 100% of the population wanted found.
Comment by Tank
“S”Tank #51,
The Bushites may have found ‘em (so-called terrorist cells), but they haven’t been able to convict ‘em…of “terrorism” that is.
Why don’t we hear more about all of those DROPPED or REDUCED charges anyway?
hmmmmm!
December 21st, 2005 at 7:02 pmWhy don’t we hear more about all of those DROPPED or REDUCED charges anyway?
You could assume it’s for the same reason you don’t hear lots of things that reflect poorly on the government.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:11 pmThis doesn’t change the fact that 9/11 happened before the Iraq invasion, meaning that any competant administration should be acting on the basis that cells exist and need finding. Monitoring communications is one way to do that.
President George W. Bush had NO valid reasons to NOT get court approved warrants to wiretap suspicious persons!
The only logical reason he bypassed getting warrants, was so his NSA agents could spy on his political opponents!
President Nixon destroyed himself the same way, so time for Congressional hearings and his impeachment, if he refuses to resign!
Call your Representative in Congress to demand hearings!
December 21st, 2005 at 10:28 pmFor a similar argument about York’s questionable logic, check out this post from JABBS.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:13 pmsorry, Steady Eddie, you’re still off the mark.The point of the quote is that no act of congress can preempt the constitution in terms of the implicit powers it grants the president, no matter which party he belongs to.Basic con law.Again, I ask, who is Schmidt and why is he carrying Bush’s water?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:59 pm#56
Tank,
You said, “…any competant administration should be acting on the basis that cells exist and need finding. Monitoring communications is one way to do that.”
There are terrorist cells that need monitoring but no one here is arguing against that. The point is that there is a legal mechanism already in place (which was not in place at the time of President Clinton’s and Ms. Gorelick’s remarks) to initiate this type of surveillance (the surveillance of American citizens) called FISA. The President circumvented this law and in so doing violated his oath of office and, according to a slew of legal scholars and experts, the law. In its quarter century, FISA courts have denied only 4 requests for this type of surveillance. I ask you, why would the President not utilize the legal mechanism which was already in place when FISA is essentially a formality to begin with (if they have even a shred of potential evidence of a connection to terrorism)? There are only a few possible answers to this question:
1. They knew that the surveillance they were initiating was outside the bounds of the law and figured a FISA court would never approve their requests.
2. They feel that they are above the law (hubris).
or
3. A combination of the 2.
Regardless, as a veteran who spent 5 years of my life defending our freedoms, I am incredibly incensed that our President has sacrificed those same freedoms while at the same time espousing loudly and frequently that we are “spreading freedom” in the world. How can we advise the Iraqis on how to establish a democracy (which is a statistical impossibility to begin with in Iraq) when we are circumventing and degrading the very freedoms we are supposed to be counciling them on? The President has sullied this once-great nation and should be called to task for this egregious offense against the American people.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:00 amThis smells really fishy! I access Google from another country, but I have never seen this happen. The illegal wiretap didn’t even appear on the extended news coverage page when you hit the icon that says “show more news stories’. This is a scandal!
Google quote:
Google News is a highly unusual news service in that our results are compiled solely by computer algorithms, without human intervention. As a result, news sources are selected without regard to political viewpoint or ideology, enabling you to see how different organizations are reporting the same story. This variety of perspectives and approaches is unique among online news sites, and we consider it essential in helping you stay informed about the issues that matter most to you.
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:01 am@ green917 — December 22, 2005 @ 2:00 am
There are terrorist cells that need monitoring but no one here is arguing against that.
Nobody is even considering it let alone arguing against it. On the other hand there are no shortage of lunatic assumptions that in the month after 9/11 Bush decided to go out of his way to spy on random members of the public… church groups… reporters… seriously.
The point is … The President circumvented this law and in so doing violated his oath of office and, according to a slew of legal scholars and experts, the law.
Sure.
FISA courts have denied only 4 requests for this type of surveillance. I ask you, why would the President not utilize the legal mechanism which was already in place when FISA is essentially a formality to begin with (if they have even a shred of potential evidence of a connection to terrorism)? There are only a few possible answers to this question:
1. They knew that the surveillance they were initiating was outside the bounds of the law and figured a FISA court would never approve their requests.
2. They feel that they are above the law (hubris).or
3. A combination of the 2.
4. They didn’t want to disclose what surveilence was being undertaken at a time when all of you knew nothing of the threat you were facing and were panicing about everything.
5. They didn’t want to disclose what methods/technology were being employed - this being the first time the NSAs black boxes need to be brought to task in a very revealing way.
6. The systems being employed do not operate on the basis of identifying particular targets meaning that regardless of 1 hour or 72 hours of monitoring court orders for particular people would still be unable to be submitted.
Now if you do not understand what I mean by the last one consider what you know from the NYT article. They had the phone numbers of al Qaeda operatives. Those are nodes in a human network. To map that human network you are talking about monitoring connections to that network and in turn how other points those connecting to it interract with others. From what is known Echelon does primarily use keyword filtering to identify suspect comms for further investigation, however I would suggest where nodes are known the mapping of communications is far more important since it provides a starting point not succeptable to countering by use of codes etc.
Bomb goes off. X contacts Y, Y contacts Z, Z contacts A and B… etc. In the 21st century this is the FBI taking licence plate numbers of guests outside the Corleone wedding.
Now I don’t find it unreasonable to suggest 90 days of monitoring any one node is a required amount of time after significant events to know whether that node is operating as part of the network or is simply background noise.
Regardless, as a veteran who spent 5 years of my life defending our freedoms, I am incredibly incensed that our President has sacrificed those same freedoms while at the same time espousing loudly and frequently that we are “spreading freedom†in the world.
He’s done quite a bit of that elsewhere. However in the case of signals intercepts and monitoring you should understand that this is unlike any war previously fought and this type of thing is a massive asset in tackling global terrorist networks.
Take a look into the case of the CIA agents who snatched the suspect from Italy and see how exactly this type of thing was used to identify and track all of them. The Italian police know what these CIA guys ordered for room service. Without this it would just be a missing persons case.
How can we advise the Iraqis on how to establish a democracy (which is a statistical impossibility to begin with in Iraq) when we are circumventing and degrading the very freedoms we are supposed to be counciling them on?
Well as you say the whole democracy thing was a pipe dream built on ridiculous ideology to start with so it’s not like it’s worth any discussion.
The President has sullied this once-great nation and should be called to task for this egregious offense against the American people.
He should be called to task for many many things but this shouldn’t be one of them. And this offence was only against those American people who contacted suspect numbers. Frankly I’ll call them out. Your country got hit with 9/11 a month earlier and you called a number invovled in that investigation and YOU want to fkn bitch about having your phone monitored ???
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:05 amHow much less could you possibly sacrifice for your country if this is an outrageous thing ?
I-RIGHT-I — December 21, 2005 @ 12:23 pm:
>Thanks in advance for the dead Americans you’ll be a party to if we allow you to interfere.
It’s not up to you, son.
>This isn’t your daddy’s Vietnam. This time we’re ready for you.
You’ll need to use both hands, son, and well, right now one of them seems busy.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:46 amI believe the court opinion also contains the reasons why the administration is avoiding seeking FISA court approval for it’s NSA surveillance:
Under the definition of ‘agent of a foreign power’ FISA surveillance could not be authorized
against an American reporter merely because he gathers information for publication in a newspaper, even if the information was classified by the Government. Nor would it be authorized against a Government employee or former employee who reveals secrets to a reporter or in a book for the purpose of informing the American people. This definition would not authorize surveillance of ethnic Americans who lawfully gather political information and perhaps even lawfully share it with the foreign government of their national origin. It obviously would not apply to lawful activities to lobby, influence, or inform Members of Congress or the administration to take certain positions with respect to foreign or domestic concerns. Nor would it apply to lawful gathering of information preparatory to such lawful activities.
The certification must be made by a national security officer, typically the FBI Director, and must be approved by the Attorney General or the Attorney General’s Deputy. Congress recognized that this certification would ‘assure’ written accountability within the Executive Branch’ and provide ‘an internal check on Executive Branch arbitrariness.’ H. REP. at 80. In addition, the court may require the government to submit any further information it deems necessary to determine whether or not the certification is clearly erroneous. See 50 U.S.C. ‘ 1804(d).
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:50 amIt’s interesting that the bush apologists here are insisting that of course, Bush only authorized spying on suspected terrorists. Well, it turns out, and this story came out a year ago, that the NSA was spying on UN Security Council delegates in New York. Does anyone remember this story? No wonder the Bush Administration didn’t even get the retroactive warrants they should have. Like any FISA judges would have authorized that!
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:28 pmOh yeah. And Bush insisted of course that the wiretaps have all had one end of the conversation on foreign soil. According to the law, any transcipts that involve an exchange with a US citizen must be redacted to protect the privacy of that citizen. Well, turns out that when John Bolton was still with the State Department, he requested the UNREDACTED names of some of the people on those transcripts, and the NSA complied! It’s Nixon spying on his political opponents all over again.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:40 pmThis doesn’t change the fact that 9/11 happened before the Iraq invasion, meaning that any competant administration should be acting on the basis that cells exist and need finding. Monitoring communications is one way to do that.
Comment by Tank
“S”Tank #56,
Try to follow along; under FISA Bushiva can use es against suspected terrorists without a warrant for up to 72 hours, THEN must seek one. Bushiva circumvented FISA because he wasn’t only eavesdropping on suspected terrorists, they have something to hide.
Get it now?
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:01 pm#49 Was Aldrich Ames a American or US Person? Who exactly authorized the wiretaps, breakins, etc. in the Ames Case? Shhh, don’t tell anyone, it was Janet Reno, not FISA.
#45 Do you think that a US citizen communicating with a know AQ leader might contain foreign intelligence information?
#57 I will do that as soon as they release the report from the Barrett investigation, which details Clinton’s use of the NSA, FBI, DoJ, and the IRS to harrass political opponents.
#59 Right on. If it is an “inherent power” based on the Constitution, then how does congress believe they can change it? Perhaps the libs misunderstand what inherent means.
#65 And Clinton authorized the CIA to spy on Japanese auto manufacturers for trade secrets. What is your point?
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:50 pm@ big papa — December 22, 2005 @ 1:01 pm
Try to follow along; under FISA Bushiva can use es against suspected terrorists without a warrant for up to 72 hours, THEN must seek one. Bushiva circumvented FISA because he wasn’t only eavesdropping on suspected terrorists, they have something to hide. Get it now?
That suggestion was pretty clear the first 300 times it was made. You can assume you won’t have to repeat it.
Now do you think it in any way think it applies to what I just outlined in terms of how these systems operate ?
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:25 pmNow do you think it in any way think it applies to what I just outlined in terms of how these systems operate ?
Comment by Tank
“S”Tank #69,
The system (FISA) is one set up as a safeguard against abuse of power. We are a nation of laws, deviation from the law is a violation. When laws are violated the perpetrator(s) is/are prosecuted and sanctioned.
As for “how” the system is applied (in Bushiva’s case especially), one can reasonably assume that terrorists in post 9/11 America are NOT using their cell phones or any open communications precisely because they realize that NSA is listening.
Secondly, without an adequate/believable explanation as to “why” they circumvented FISA, one can again reasonably assume that some abuse of power has taken place; ie, US citizens (not linked to terrorism) have been electronically surveilled- a violation of their Constitutional rights.
December 23rd, 2005 at 4:01 pmTank,
Warrants can be obtained retroactively, up to 72 hours (three whole days) AFTER the monitoring began. That is not flexible enough for you? So, why the hell did Bush decide not to bother with the warrants? For no other reason than the Bush-Cheney Administration believes that it can do anything it wants when it wants.
December 29th, 2005 at 7:48 pmJust for wingers: Find the wiretap authority…
Sweet Jesus, now they’re citing irrelevant FBI surveillance cases (scroll down to Curt’s comment) to justify the president’s NSA spying.
December 30th, 2005 at 6:22 pm[…] Anyway, the rest of his post deals with issues I’ve already addressed and dealt with in either posts or subsequent comments on my posts. I have to admit, this has emerged as one of the biggest debate issues on the site in its short year-long existence. Anyway, he links to a Chrstian Conservative news site owned by Brent Bozell (HAH!) and a Chicago Tribune op-ed by John Schmidt, which I’ve already addressed here (in response to Buster from In Muscatine who tried making the same arugment) and so has Think Progress. If Mainstream stops by again, he should actually look at past arguments and links and do a little bit of research to know that both of the claims those articles make are falsehoods. […]
January 7th, 2006 at 12:09 pmNo court in this nation will uphold Congress’s attempt (FISA) to diminish the constitutional authority of the President. However emotional this subject is to some of you, let’s look at some facts about the Contitution, the courts, and the separation of powers:
Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution grants executive power to the President to collect foreign intelligence - especially in a time of war.
Congress does not have the authority to usurp constitutional powers from the President. Section 1811 of the FISA statute specifically recognizes that during a time of authorized war, the President must have the authority to engage in electronic surveillance “without a court order”. Although the law restricts the period of warrantless searches to fifteen calendar days, I don’t believe this restriction will survive a court challenge. See below.
The joint resolution passed by Congress in September of 2001 was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The SCOTUS has ruled in 1800 Bas v. Tingy and in 1801 Talbot v. Seamen that Congress can formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war.
Furthermore, in 2002, the U.S. Foreign Inteligence Surveillance Court of Review, created by FISA found that the statute (FISA) could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power to collect foreign intelligence and that the President does have the authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence searches.
The concept of warrantless searches has never reached the SCOTUS, but every court of appeals that has considered the issue has upheld an inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence searches. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1980 (United States v. Truong Dinh Hung) upheld the President’s constitutional authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of a foreign power, its agents or collaborators (including U.S. citizens) when the primary purpose of the surveillance was for foreign intelliegnce as opposed to domestic law enforcement.
Given this information, it’s hard to dispute that President Bush was well within his constitutional limits in conducting these warrantless searches.
My $.02
January 18th, 2006 at 12:39 pmJust before we have another go at each other, let’s take a break and indulge in some light reading from our future Caliphate constitution as prescribed by the Al-Queda bunch and our home-grown 5th column fellow Americans. ENJOY!!!
http://answering-islam.org.uk/NonMuslims/rights.htm
The premise of the right to privacy is the expectation of privacy. Anyone in contact with suspected terrorists overseas can’t seriously expect privacy while wishing his/her terrorist pal goodnite! Americans or not! Ironically, the Shariah Laws provides for very wide-ranging civil rights, unless if you’re non-muslim. SO instead of burning our flag, let’s practice tying it round our heads. We’d better get used to it, if the liberals takes over the helm!
January 22nd, 2006 at 2:04 amPay Day Loan
Hows atticize pay day loan for Physicians
March 23rd, 2008 at 3:17 pmavoiding taxes is a violation of the law
Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but still ok.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:11 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 4:08 pmTer Work From Home
Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much. ~ Oscar Wilde
April 15th, 2008 at 6:21 pmCock Mommy Loves Cock Cocks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 16th, 2008 at 2:25 amCell Phone Reverse Look Up
There are worse things in life than death. Have you ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman? Woody Allen.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:32 amEric
You weave a web of lies! Lies I say.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 amDanica Patrick
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:07 amMoran Atias Video
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:32 amMichael
This is great
April 26th, 2008 at 8:10 amRORHryixUoGTVDd
qfpUfhecggOEvW
May 15th, 2008 at 2:39 pmCar Loans
Consider auto loans to have an option to obtain a fabulous Jeep in little time by getting to know a remarkable corporation.
May 25th, 2008 at 10:27 amBest Buy Cheap Wedding Invitations Online Shopping
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
May 27th, 2008 at 9:34 pmDebi
community.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:21 amCock Dog Dick In Pussy Sucking Dick
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
May 28th, 2008 at 6:26 pmWorld Map Map Of Africa Australia
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
May 29th, 2008 at 10:32 amDistance Learning Colleges Deck Plans
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
May 30th, 2008 at 6:56 pmBasketball Play Basketball Games Soccer Moms
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
May 30th, 2008 at 8:05 pmGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
May 30th, 2008 at 8:24 pmwhat does a background check involve
I’m with the earlier poster, this seems like a good idea.
May 31st, 2008 at 4:15 amGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
June 1st, 2008 at 6:27 pmWedding Vows Popular Wedding Songs Rob Thomas Wedding
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:35 amWeather Forecast Air Supply Cloud
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:54 amJack
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:06 pmCock Very Young Boy Cock Small Cock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:27 amAnti Virus Antivirus Filing Bankruptcy
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 4th, 2008 at 10:26 amGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
June 5th, 2008 at 12:55 amJenni
I have become my own version of an optimist. If I can’t make it through one door, I’ll go through another door - or I’ll make a door. Something terrific will come no matter how dark the present.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:21 amsoftware
software
June 5th, 2008 at 4:21 pmHealth Insurance Florida Individual Health Insurance Patient Safety
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 5th, 2008 at 9:08 pmCell Phones Call Center Cellular Phones
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 6th, 2008 at 12:29 amovulation+calendar
ovulation+calendar
June 6th, 2008 at 4:47 pmsoftware
software
June 7th, 2008 at 2:07 amsoftware
software
June 8th, 2008 at 3:54 amsoftware
software
June 9th, 2008 at 5:07 amsoftware
software
June 10th, 2008 at 5:49 am45c48c
eccbc8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pma87ff6
a87ff6
June 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pma87ff6
c4ca42
June 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pmc9f0f8
e4da3b
June 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pma87ff6
c9f0f8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pmc4ca42
c4ca42
June 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pmc81e72
c9f0f8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pmeccbc8
e4da3b
June 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pmc9f0f8
eccbc8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pmc9f0f8
45c48c
June 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pmcfcd20
e4da3b
June 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pmc4ca42
167909
June 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pma87ff6
e4da3b
June 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pm167909
e4da3b
June 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pmeccbc8
c81e72
June 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pmc9f0f8
8f14e4
June 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pmc4ca42
eccbc8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pmc81e72
e4da3b
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmcfcd20
a87ff6
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmcfcd20
8f14e4
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmc81e72
167909
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmc4ca42
c4ca42
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pma87ff6
c9f0f8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pme4da3b
cfcd20
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pma87ff6
45c48c
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pma87ff6
c9f0f8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmeccbc8
a87ff6
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmc4ca42
a87ff6
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmc4ca42
45c48c
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmcfcd20
45c48c
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pm8f14e4
45c48c
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmcfcd20
167909
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pme4da3b
8f14e4
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pm167909
eccbc8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pm8f14e4
eccbc8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmc9f0f8
c4ca42
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmcfcd20
a87ff6
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pma87ff6
45c48c
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmc9f0f8
c81e72
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmc9f0f8
167909
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pma87ff6
167909
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pm45c48c
cfcd20
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmeccbc8
eccbc8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pma87ff6
c9f0f8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmeccbc8
eccbc8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmc81e72
c81e72
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pme4da3b
167909
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmc81e72
a87ff6
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmc4ca42
eccbc8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmeccbc8
c9f0f8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pmc4ca42
a87ff6
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pmeccbc8
c4ca42
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pma87ff6
c9f0f8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pmc4ca42
e4da3b
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pmc81e72
cfcd20
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pme4da3b
c9f0f8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pmc81e72
45c48c
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pmc9f0f8
a87ff6
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm45c48c
eccbc8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pma87ff6
45c48c
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pmc9f0f8
a87ff6
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pmcfcd20
167909
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm167909
167909
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pme4da3b
45c48c
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm45c48c
a87ff6
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm45c48c
167909
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pmcfcd20
e4da3b
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pma87ff6
cfcd20
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pma87ff6
c4ca42
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm8f14e4
c9f0f8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pme4da3b
167909
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm167909
a87ff6
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm45c48c
cfcd20
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm8f14e4
c81e72
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pmc9f0f8
c9f0f8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm45c48c
8f14e4
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pmc9f0f8
45c48c
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pmc9f0f8
c9f0f8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pma87ff6
8f14e4
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pmc81e72
c4ca42
June 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pmc4ca42
c4ca42
June 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pma87ff6
c9f0f8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pm8f14e4
45c48c
June 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pm167909
c81e72
June 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pmc4ca42
cfcd20
June 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pmc9f0f8
c81e72
June 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pmcfcd20
167909
June 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pm8f14e4
c4ca42
June 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pmeccbc8
a87ff6
June 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pmc81e72
e4da3b
June 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pma87ff6
e4da3b
June 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pm8f14e4
8f14e4
June 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pm8f14e4
c9f0f8
June 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pmc4ca42
cfcd20
Jun