Federalist Society Board Member Argues Bush’s Surveillance Program Is Illegal
Federalist Society Board Member Argues Bush’s Surveillance Program Is Illegal
The right-wing spin machine wants you to believe that critics of the Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program are all liberals. Here’s Bill Kristol in the most recent issue of the Weekly Standard:
[L]iberals recoil unthinkingly from the obvious fact that our national security requires policies that are a step (but only a careful step) removed from ACLU dogma.
Actually, there are many very conservative people who vigorously oppose the program. For example, constitutional scholar Robert Levy — who is a board member at the right-wing Federalist Society — is an outspoken critic. The Federalist Society recently posted a Q&A with Levy on their website. Here are some highlights:
– The text of FISA §1809 is unambiguous: “A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance … except as authorized by statute.â€
– I know of no court case that has denied there is a reasonable expectation of privacy by U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens in the types of wire communications that are reportedly monitored by the NSA’s electronic surveillance program.
– [I]n FISA §1811, Congress expressly contemplated warrantless wiretaps during wartime, and limited them to the first 15 days after war is declared.
Levy makes a powerful case and he’s not alone. Other prominent conservatives who have criticized the program include Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), conservative columnist George Will, former Reagan deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein and AEI scholar Norm Ornstein.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
72 Responses to “Federalist Society Board Member Argues Bush’s Surveillance Program Is Illegal”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I am watching John Harwood of the WSJ on Hardball defend the Bush administration’s having broken the law as if it were as casual an act as neglecting to take an umbrella to work on a cloudy day, therefore he got wet. No big deal.
December 27th, 2005 at 7:57 pmBush&Co have toadies everywhere eager and waiting to defend their fascist leader as he brazenly defiles the Constitution to suit his purposes. There is NO reason why he skirted the FISA court EXCEPT that he feared his requests would be denied and/or he would have to prove that the reasons he is asking for court approval were not based upon illegally gathered information. FISA required that counsel sign off on the request, under oath.
Regardless of how Bush and his minions try to defend and excuse his federal crime, they can’t make a silk purse from the sow’s ear — he was wrong and he was caught. He KNEW he was wrong because he directed the NYT to sit on the story for a year.
All of his behavior indicates he knew he was breaking the law, he knew he was doing an end run, he knew he would not be approved, and for those reasons,he knew he needed to keep it secret.
We impeached a president for a blowjob.
We forced a president to resign under threat of impeachment for his crimes.
Bush’s crimes are deserving of impeachment and trial by Senate; he should be forced to leave office.
Good post Marie, how about dropping a couple of words like toadies and sending it into the editor of your local paper. Maybe if enough of us raise a fuss and send letters to our editors the public will start to listen. Heard the whore Colter doing her usual crap peddling her book and talking about what FDR did and all the internment camps and the dummie interviewing her didn’t even question her on her spin of Bush being a good guy. It gets more devastating every day, but it will improve. There are more of us than them watching and listening to us. We can fill the jails if necessary and then they will have to support us literely….Blessings
December 27th, 2005 at 8:29 pmThere is NO reason why he skirted the FISA court EXCEPT that he feared his requests would be denied and/or he would have to prove that the reasons he is asking for court approval were not based upon illegally gathered information. FISA required that counsel sign off on the request, under oath.
Comment by Marie
There’s another reason. He found out the hard way that the traitors on the court would block his attempts to protect or country just like the traitors in congress block attempts to destroy our enemies. It just shows that Bush is not going to allow the 5th column in this country to impede our progress in rooting out terrorists. I just wish he’d start arresting traitors.
Bush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them
WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) — U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate.
A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by Hearst newspapers shows the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four previous presidential administrations combined.
The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications approved over the first 22 years of the court’s operation.
But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 173 of those court-ordered “substantive modifications” took place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years — the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court’s history.
http://www.upi.com/ NewsTrack/ view.php?StoryID=20051226-122526-7310r
http://www.upi.com/ NewsTrack/ view.php?StoryID=20051226-122526-7310r
December 27th, 2005 at 8:30 pmAnother Judd classic: misleading and incomplete.
Mr. Levy is of the opinion that warrantless surveillance cannot be justified under FISA - and this is true. However, Levy goes on to say, “Yes, I believe that the president has constitutional powers to order warrantless wartime surveillance.” He then states his opinion (not necessarily shared by the fderal courts, mind you) that those powers do not include “warrantless wiretapping of Americans inside the United States who may have nothing to do with al Qaeda . . .”
So the key issues here have nothing to do with FISA; they are the breadth of the President’s inherent constitutional powers in wartime, and the extent to which warrantless surveillance was conducted on people with al Qaeda connections. Even Levy would concede that, the stronger the connection, the more valid the surveillance. Of course Judd either doesn’t understand such distinctions or chooses to ignore them for the sake of scoring cheap political points. Careful, Judd - someone may be listening . . .
December 27th, 2005 at 8:30 pmthey are the breadth of the President’s inherent constitutional powers in wartime
Are we at war? Can I see the declaration of war, please?
December 27th, 2005 at 8:40 pmThe problem is these guys are TOO aware know how long a ‘news cycle’ runs. They also know that reporters are trained to cover both sides of a story. So all they have to do is LIE when the journalist covers their side and hope that nobody follows up with a second piece. If you can keep distracting the public by leading the news cycle.. you can successfully bury stories. This is what the whole ‘color coded’ terror warnings was all about. They need to come back with a new story when bad stories were breaking.
December 27th, 2005 at 8:41 pmI notice the press keeps associating those who are critical of the administration with the word liberal. It’s done on purpose with the intent to mislead. It’s time that the liberals start painting with very broad brush the word “conservative”. We need to associate all conservatives as being anti-first amendment and the right wing religious right
http://www.wnd.com/ news/ article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41148
Americans need to recoil to the word conservative as many recoil from the word liberal. Every time we use the word conservative we need to say: the right-wing religious conservative. It doesn’t matter if they are from the religious right or not.
December 27th, 2005 at 8:41 pmJudd-
December 27th, 2005 at 8:47 pmI think it is great that you keep the posts of the right wingnuts up on your post. I know all they really want to do is piss off liberals.. and a lot of us fall into the trap. But it is great to hear what the talking points are being spewed by Limbaugh and the like. Thanks for not deleting their rants.
Levy opposes the program. He thinks it violates federal criminal law (FISA) and the constitution. That was my point and there is nothing misleading about that.
December 27th, 2005 at 8:49 pmDon’t forget Barr.
December 27th, 2005 at 8:49 pm“Are we at war? Can I see the declaration of war, please?”
Certainly. Just go to Google Earth and type in “World Trade Center, New York, New York.” The satellite photos will allow you to look straight down into the hole in the ground that USED to be the Twin Towers. Nearly 3,000 people died there on September 11, 2001 (you may recall having your latte-and-muffin breakfast interrupted by the news of that morning). THAT is the declaration of war, my friend. Shame on you if you ever forget it.
December 27th, 2005 at 8:55 pm#11 by by Blue State Red,
December 27th, 2005 at 9:04 pmIt’s unfortunate that that hole would not exist if W had attended to the nation instead of recreation on August 6, 2001.
“Levy opposes the program. He thinks it violates federal criminal law (FISA) and the constitution. That was my point and there is nothing misleading about that.”
Then in all fairness, Judd, you shouldn’t mind including both the favorable and unfavorable quotes from the Rivkin-Levy interview. After all, it was only FIVE QUESTIONS long.
You also should be more honest about the nature of the scholarly debate. You could start by balancing Levy’s comments with those of Prof. Cass Sunstein, both in his blog post and in his interview by Hugh Hewitt. I have referenced them both in another post. Do you need me to dig them up again for you?
December 27th, 2005 at 9:05 pm“It’s unfortunate that that hole would not exist if W had attended to the nation instead of recreation on August 6, 2001.”
Right, and Pearl Harbor would never have happened if FDR had spent less time with Lucy Mercer.
Read the 9/11 Commission report, pal. Neither the PDB of August 6, 2001, nor any other single piece of intelligence, told us specifically where, when and how al Qaeda intended to strike. It was only after they struck us that we had the political and moral backbone to go on the offensive against them.
Now folks like you have lost your backbone, and all you can do is attack our Commander in Chief while we still have troops on the field of battle. Worse, you want to cut and run in the face of a militarily defeated enemy, and to leave our Iraqi allies to the not-so-tender mercies of Zarqawi and bin Laden. Shame on you all.
December 27th, 2005 at 9:20 pmThis is an excellent point at which to recall the words of Thomas Dewey during World War II: “I would rather lose the presidency and win the war than vice-versa.” Name me one national Democtrat who holds a similar view today . . . okay, other than maybe Joe Lieberman.
The character of the Democratic Party has been weighed in the balance - and Democrats have been found sorely wanting.
December 27th, 2005 at 9:23 pmjust checked RawStory, they have a tease headline on another NYTimes headline tomorrow regarding this story.
’tis a shame they blew credibility with a good deal of the public that whatever they promote now, even if true gets a jaundiced read.
rich
December 27th, 2005 at 9:24 pmThe reichwingnuts are at it again. The Non-Partisan FISA Court rejected 3% of Bush’s applications because they had it in for Bush — good grief! It had nothing to do with the fact that Bush might have based his applications on illegally obtained information. What does it take to convince them that Bush is a nogoodnik? They would have Bush arrest anyone who protests his government — but that isn’t fascism, or Nazism?! Do these people ever read history? Do they respect the Constitution? Do they care? As it is unwarranted surveillance IS allowed as long as FISA approval is obtained within 72 hours. Apparently still not enough slack for Bush&Co. Bush believes his perpetual war on terror will give him petpetual and unlimited powers outside of the law. Fools believe he is right.
December 27th, 2005 at 9:24 pmThey never consider that the fact that the Dems might have taken control of the House or Senate, or (heaven forbid!) the presidency in 2003-2004, and therefore Bush&Co decided they would try to cover their asses with applications to FISA for approval, only to find that they were asked too many questions, so they chose to skip the legalities and take their chances on Bush remaining in power. The desperation of their 2004 fight, the lies they spread, the enlistment of SwiftBoaters, the machines they tampered with, the machines that never showed up in precincts, the lowdown and dirty fight to keep the White House had nothing to do with the fact that were the Dems to gain power, their goose was cooked.
Blue State Red
In 2004, Manhattan County voted 82% in favor of John Kerry (17% for Chimp). If they aren’t buying into the Bush Regime’s occupation of Iraq, after what they endured, then why are you???
We liberal do have backbones. Evolved backbones that we use to stand up to thugs like you who are making us LESS safe with your fear and war mongering. Now go curl up in the corner on your blanket, it’s time for the adults to talk now.
December 27th, 2005 at 9:25 pm#3
Well, since we don’t know the reasoning behind the modifications of Bush’s wiretap requests, and may never know, I’d say you have no arguement at this point in time. What is it that the rightwingers are always blabbing about when it comes to accusations of wrongdoing by someone on their side? Oh yes…”let’s wait and find out all the facts.”
As for other possibly damaging revelations, there are also rumblings that Condi Rice authorized, at Bush’s requst, the NSA to spy on members of the UN Security Council before the Iraq invasion, to see how they would vote on the resolution leading to the invasion.
December 27th, 2005 at 9:26 pm#2, Sharon, I feel passionate about the liberties inherent in the Constitution. Thanks for your kind words of encouragement. Actually, I did compose a very sober, carefully edited letter for three newspapers and submitted them just before the holiday weekend. I did not use the word “toady” but it is a synonym for sycophant — a legitimate word, with a legitimate definition, but I like to use it because it sounds worse that the more literate sycophant.
December 27th, 2005 at 9:28 pm#20
Darn…can’t spell tonight. “…at Bush’s request…”
December 27th, 2005 at 9:29 pmNote that congressional Democrats have decided not to take a party position on the war in Iraq during the 2006 mid-term election. Instead, they want to push for an increase in the minimum wage. So instead of supporting the 19-year-old soldiers and marines who are risking their lives in Iraq, the Democrats want us to know they are 100% behind the 19-year-old burger flippers who are risking their complexions behind a fast food counter. How brave! How bold! How reassuring to the troops!
Better have those Dem lawyers ready to quash all the military ballots again!
December 27th, 2005 at 9:32 pm#15 by Blue State Red
December 27th, 2005 at 9:34 pmBut it was W’s lack of concern for our nation instead of his life of Riley existance. He has failed, failed, failed, failed in his own businesses - and he is drawing our proud nation into failure. If Osama bin Laden were a priority, I would imagine he would come in front of a tax cut for the wealthy or a benefit cut for the disadvantaged. Never mind.
the Democrats want us to know they are 100% behind the 19-year-old burger flippers who are risking their complexions behind a fast food counter.
Comment by Blue State Red — December 27, 2005 @ 9:32 pm
Your ignorance is astounding. Most people on minimum wage are not 19 year olds… But I guess it’s hard to see that from your cushy corner office in Daddy’s business…
December 27th, 2005 at 9:35 pmBlue State Red,
December 27th, 2005 at 9:43 pmGo to a nearby nursery or even your front yard and get a one foot fragment of hemlock. Shred same by any means possible and boil in water until reduced to a brown elixer. Drink same, it will improve the Earth.
“We liberal do have backbones.”
Methinkest thou doth protest too much. Also, you need to work on your spelling.
“Evolved backbones that we use to stand up to thugs like you who are making us LESS safe with your fear and war mongering.”
Oooh, “thugs” and “war mongering.” If I’m really that dangerous then you’re really testing your courage here, aren’t you? Now here’s a real test: did your backbone “evolve” according to Darwinian natural selection? Or was it the result of Intelligent Design?
“Now go curl up in the corner on your blanket, it’s time for the adults to talk now.”
Gee whiz, what a lame retort. I guess that rules out Intelligent Design!
December 27th, 2005 at 9:44 pmGood Night, Irene.
December 27th, 2005 at 9:47 pmIn each of the five questions, Levy makes clear his opposition to the program and his belief that it’s illegal. I didn’t reproduce the whole thing, but all people have to do is click on a link.
Sunstein obviously disagrees with him, but that’s irrelevant. The point of this post is that many conservatives oppose the program. The facts support that.
December 27th, 2005 at 9:49 pmMethinkest thou doth protest too much. Also, you need to work on your spelling.
Protesting would imply multiple and lengthy protests… usually with vi\igor and insistence. I just said that we have backbones in a straight forward and unemotional statement. Hardly qualifies as dramatic.
And one typo does not qualify me as a bad speller.
Oooh, “thugs†and “war mongering.†If I’m really that dangerous then you’re really testing your courage here, aren’t you? Now here’s a real test: did your backbone “evolve†according to Darwinian natural selection? Or was it the result of Intelligent Design?
Yeah, I’m afraid you’ll come through my computer hand harm me… Get serious. We liberals don’t live in fairytale land like you wingnuts do.
You mean UnIntelligent Design? The engineering of our bones is not intelligent.
Gee whiz, what a lame retort. I guess that rules out Intelligent Design!
Comment by Blue State Red — December 27, 2005 @ 9:44 pm
Clearly, as it went right over your head…
December 27th, 2005 at 9:50 pmThe more I listen to the defences offered for the President, the more ridiculous they sound. The NYT op ed by Reagan and Bush I lawyers dismissed the Fourth Amendment as, essentially, irrelevant in the modern age. After all, who doesn’t expect to be wiretapped all the time?
That’s a very extreme position. The whole line here is extreme (The president’s wartime powers are “plenary.” The war is indefinite.)
I suspect there is enormous dissention among the right over this. At least among those who notice reality. Apparently the trolls here remain impervious.
December 27th, 2005 at 9:52 pmsorry. should have been steel, noy stell, oops.
December 27th, 2005 at 10:03 pmFantastic! Another constitutional scholarstates that the conservative Bubble boy broke the law!
Yep, those legal scholars sure know their law.
December 27th, 2005 at 10:12 pmHey Ann Coulter, all you’re good for is giving good head, now move on and get a real job.
Judd,
I neglected to compliment you on another excellent post. As #8 noted, it’s great that you don’t bar the misleading fanatics who seem to obsessively cry for attention on every thread. Are they getting paid to troll here? They’re so redundant it’s hard to imagine they think they’re actually engaging in dialogue.
Then again maybe they know a really great site when they see it and desperate enough to kill the truth they’ll spend their time wallowing in here with the honest folk they so despise.
I hope they’re getting paid. Because otherwise they’re awfully pathetic.
(And please, see if I made any spelling errors. I have better things to do.)
December 27th, 2005 at 10:27 pmHEY, KARL, WHAT ARE THOSE DRUMS?
The tom-tom drums of native conservatism grow steadily louder as the Monarch Chimp and his handlers ponder the old jungle saying: Slowly, slowly, Democracy catchee King Monkey. Boom boom-boom Boom BOOM-BOOM !
December 27th, 2005 at 10:44 pmB.S. Red,
Great fear mongering you got there. Go hide under your bed now. You’ll be safe there from the big bad boogey man. Tired of rightwingnuts spreading fear and wanting to give up their civil liberties for GWB and his endless non-war on terror.
Cowardly traitors.
December 27th, 2005 at 10:45 pm#36
Also, I understand that many conservative blogs ban anyone from posting any info or discussion that contrasts with the rightwing view. So, I guess that the trolls have to come here to “discuss” things. Probably gets pretty boring over on the other blogs where there are no dissenting views.
December 27th, 2005 at 10:46 pm#15, you were arguing with some reasonable arguements until you brought in the 9/11 Commission Report. Do you realize that this report is the BIGGEST sham there is? The report, is only to say that there was a report. There is absolutely no investigation done on this report that meant anything. The commission was told from the start that they could not investigate anything but what went wrong. So if you call this an investigation, then perhaps we should fire all of our Homoside Detectives, Medical Examimers, and scientits because they investigate issues of fact not fiction.
Also, the plan for going to war was in play long before 9/11. Have you heard of PNAC? This group planned this attack long before 9/11 and the events of 9/11 were allowed to happen. Rice, indicated on Sept. 6th that there was an Imminent attack on the US. So you see they knew about this in advance but did nothing about it so they could take us to war. So your president is a killer, among other things, and deserves to be serving 50-100 years and not 8 years.
If you would like I have hours of evidence for your reading, and this all PROVES that your president is a killer of American citizens.
December 27th, 2005 at 10:55 pm“Hey Ann Coulter, all you’re good for is giving good head”
In order to make that statement with any accuracy, you must be in possession of a thingy. I would venture a guess that she is awful at this act — probably bites. Too self absorbed. Too angry. She’s probably awful at the sex.
December 27th, 2005 at 11:00 pmYou’re probably correct Vaughn.
I’ll change the wording a bit.
Hey Ann Coulter, you are good for nothing!
December 27th, 2005 at 11:05 pmSusan,
I hate to say it, but she’s good at hating Americans and blaming them for everything that goes wrong.
Screw that. She’s good for nothin.
December 27th, 2005 at 11:10 pm#39
It’s true. There is some occasional discussion from right. But damn little. It seems to be mostly bile and venom. There are quotes and links and a lot of projection (you Liberals like to molest children), but very little in the way of an honest question.
For instance, some honest questions:
“If Afghanistan and Iraq are succesfully democratized, would the War on Terror become in many ways a ‘cold war’?”
If the answer is no, because we face a “new kind of threat” then please answer: “In what way is Al Qaida (or Iraq) more dangerous than the Soviet Union?”
If subsequent answer is “these enemies are such religeous fanatics they cannot be deterred by reality” please see a mirror.
Another question:
“Is the ‘new threat’ not, in fact, a less dangerous threat than those posed by the British Monarchy, Facism or Communism?” All three posed a potential threat to the state itself. Does “Islamofacism” have any chance of destroying or overthrowing America?
I grew up actualy believing the human race was on the verge of being wiped out. What is so much more frightening than that?
These days, it is the most terrified who loudly denounce their enemies as cowards. It would be pathetic but it works so goddamn well.
December 27th, 2005 at 11:38 pm“Are we at war? Can I see the declaration of war, please?â€
Certainly. Just go to Google Earth and type in “World Trade Center, New York, New York.†The satellite photos will allow you to look straight down into the hole in the ground that USED to be the Twin Towers. Nearly 3,000 people died there on September 11, 2001 (you may recall having your latte-and-muffin breakfast interrupted by the news of that morning). THAT is the declaration of war, my friend. Shame on you if you ever forget it.
Comment by Blue State Red — December 27, 2005
Declaration of War–formal announcements of hostile intentions by nations against each other.
So… 19 Saudis directed by another Saudi in Afghanistan fly some planes into a building in NYC and we attack Iraq?
If I grant you that hole in the ground is a declaration of war, which I do not, it isn’t, I’d still like to see our declaration of war. There isn’t one. So stop saying we are at war. Congress declares war and until they have the balls to put their names to a nebulous declaration of war against an abstraction, you, and they, and chimpy, are all bluster and no substance. A bunch of little fear-mongering pussies and cowards.
December 28th, 2005 at 1:21 am“congressional Democrats have decided not to take a party position on the war in Iraq during the 2006 mid-term election….they want to push for an increase in the minimum wage. So instead of supporting the 19-year-old soldiers and marines who are risking their lives in Iraq, the Democrats want us to know they are 100% behind the 19-year-old burger flippers!”
Actually, many of the burger flippers are wives of servicemen who need the extra pay and benefits because Republicans keep voting down increases in pay and medical benefits for their husbands and families. Republicans are good at supporting wars, but if it was up to them the troops would have to buy their own armor and equiptment. Oh, that’s right…they already are.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:09 amtrebor,
Let us also not forget that unemployment for troops is double that of non-military people.
Why is that?
Because military skills do not translate to regular work life.
Take my experience for instance. I can tell you there ain’t much that I learned as a 13 Foxtrot Forward Observe, who called fire for 108mm Howitzers that translates over to being the Technical Media Manager at a large technology company. I was a computer nerd before I went into the military.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:14 amIRI is still playing with his anatomically correct G.I. Joe Dolls.
December 28th, 2005 at 7:01 amWow, there’s a piece of news that escaped my notice. All of the people working at minimum wage are 19 year old burger flippers.
Now, all you folks in other jobs who are older than 19 and/or who do not flip burgers write to B.S.R. and ask him, since by his declaration of inclusion you are not working for minimum wage, where the rest of your money is.
(Do you like the initials? B.S.R. The B.S. part works, don’t you think?)
December 28th, 2005 at 7:24 amMmmhhh…
Sorry, but as a foreigner, I don’t completely understand the love for military in the USA. After all, the only purpose for being in the military is killing people, specially in a country who has had a lot of wars (many of choice). You can’t sign on the military and expect seriously not being in some dangerous place someday. There is a strong culture of military and weapons as an useful tool to resolve too many things. Exists, too, a vicious circle around the need for foreing relations and diplomacy, the romantic view of a life in the military, a strong PR campaign of the GOP to keep up the signing up, selling it as the only exit upwards to the many poor people who can’t have a decent job else, or a cool career, and the military industry, making all of it a upward spiralling problem who feeds on itself, making the whole american society more and more militarist every day.
I don’t want to offend every person with a military career here, and I’m pretty sure that there a lot of decent people in the USA military, but, as I’ve said, I see your culture a bit too much twisted to the militaristic solutions and, as I see it, it’s not a good thing.
Even when the Katrina hit, there were strong voices to use the military on every natural disaster from then on, based on the fact that the civil response was slow. For God’s shake, the response was slow because the National Guard of Luisiana were in Iraq, the person in charge of the agency responsible of the coordination of the response was a useless crony of the GOP, and the agency itself was ungulfed in the megamonster supraagency responsible of the security for all the USA people and defanged! That sounds a lot as a military coup, or the preambles of one, and trust me, here we know what is a military coup.
And after all, facts show that the experience in the military is useful mainly in “security” (think soldier of fortune) companies or law forces, but there are a limit for tank drivers in the police and the FBI, as I think. In the other hand, veterans benefits are trashed in every round of expenses cuts by the republican GOPs.
As I said, I don’t see how there is so much people ending in a military life. There is a lack of civil exits, as I see it, as is done in purpose, to keep the military feed with young people.
December 28th, 2005 at 7:27 amIn fact, the whole problem remembers me of an episode of The Simpsons: Homer got a gun, don’t remember how, and he was using it for everything, even as a bottle opener.
December 28th, 2005 at 7:32 amIn fact, the whole problem remembers me of an episode of The Simpsons: Homer got a gun, don’t remember how, and he was using it for everything, even as a bottle opener.
Comment by Evil Spaniard
You are very perceptive and speak and write English better than the trolls… but…
That would be “reminds” me not “remembers” me. I remember you. You remember me, but I remind you of someone or someone reminds you of me. But you are correct. Another way of saying that in “American” is if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
December 28th, 2005 at 8:56 am#52 Well, sorry for my spelling, my only source of english is the web, I’ve no degree in the language, I’ll remember your lessons.
December 28th, 2005 at 9:21 am#53, ES, Your only source of English is the WEB? You speak better than many Americans born here!
December 28th, 2005 at 10:20 am#54 Thanks. In fact, to be honest, I must add to this assertion a lot of programming books, video games and a good dictionary. English language is a must in my job (computer programmer), but my foreing language in High School was french. By the time I started to learn foreing language, the one teached was attached to the specific High School attended. Being a pre-computer time by then, french, english and a bit less german were available in a very similar proportion for everybody. Nowadays that system has changed, and english is far more available for students.
December 28th, 2005 at 12:37 pmNSA Spied on Diplomats in Push for Iraq War
And the American media ignored it
by Norman Solomon
Despite all the news accounts and punditry since the New York Times published its Dec. 16 bombshell about the National Security Agency’s domestic spying, the media coverage has made virtually no mention of the fact that the Bush administration used the NSA to spy on UN diplomats in New York before the invasion of Iraq.
That spying had nothing to do with protecting the United States from a terrorist attack. The entire purpose of the NSA surveillance was to help the White House gain leverage, by whatever means possible, for a resolution in the UN Security Council to green light an invasion. When that surveillance was exposed nearly three years ago, the mainstream U.S. media winked at Bush’s illegal use of the NSA for his Iraq invasion agenda.
Back then, after news of the NSA’s targeted spying at the United Nations broke in the British press, major U.S. media outlets gave it only perfunctory coverage – or, in the case of the New York Times, no coverage at all. Now, while the NSA is in the news spotlight with plenty of retrospective facts, the NSA’s spying at the UN goes unmentioned: buried in an Orwellian memory hole.
A rare exception was a paragraph in a Dec. 20 piece by Patrick Radden Keefe in the online magazine Slate – which pointedly noted that “the eavesdropping took place in Manhattan and violated the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, the Headquarters Agreement for the United Nations, and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, all of which the United States has signed.”
But after dodging the story of the NSA’s spying at the UN when it mattered most – before the invasion of Iraq – the New York Times and other major news organizations are hardly apt to examine it now. That’s all the more reason for other media outlets to step into the breach.
In early March 2003, journalists at the London-based Observer reported that the NSA was secretly participating in the U.S. government’s high-pressure campaign for the UN Security Council to approve a pro-war resolution. A few days after the Observer revealed the text of an NSA memo about U.S. spying on Security Council delegations, I asked Daniel Ellsberg to assess the importance of the story. “This leak,” he replied, “is more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers.” The key word was “timely.”
Publication of the top-secret Pentagon Papers in 1971, made possible by Ellsberg’s heroic decision to leak those documents, came after the Vietnam War had been underway for many years. But with an invasion of Iraq still in the future, the leak about NSA spying on UN diplomats in New York could erode the Bush administration’s already slim chances of getting a war resolution through the Security Council. (Ultimately, no such resolution passed before the invasion.) And media scrutiny in the United States could have shed light on how Washington’s war push was based on subterfuge and manipulation.
“As part of its battle to win votes in favor of war against Iraq,” the Observer had reported on March 2, 2003, the U.S. government developed an “aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the e-mails of UN delegates.” The smoking gun was “a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency – the U.S. body which intercepts communications around the world – and circulated to both senior agents in his organization and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency.” The friendly agency was Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters.
The Observer explained: “The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea, and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York – the so-called ‘Middle Six’ delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the U.S. and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China, and Russia.”
The NSA memo, dated Jan. 31, 2003, outlined the wide scope of the surveillance activities, seeking any information useful to push a war resolution through the Security Council – “the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises.”
Noting that the Bush administration “finds itself isolated” in its zeal for war on Iraq, the Times of London called the leak of the memo an “embarrassing disclosure.” And, in early March 2003, the embarrassment was nearly worldwide. From Russia to France to Chile to Japan to Australia, the story was big mainstream news. But not in the United States.
Several days after the “embarrassing disclosure,” not a word about it had appeared in the New York Times, the USA’s supposed paper of record. “Well, it’s not that we haven’t been interested,” Times deputy foreign editor Alison Smale told me on the evening of March 5, nearly 96 hours after the Observer broke the story. But “we could get no confirmation or comment” on the memo from U.S. officials. Smale added: “We would normally expect to do our own intelligence reporting.” Whatever the rationale, the New York Times opted not to cover the story at all.
Except for a high-quality Baltimore Sun article that appeared on March 4, the coverage in major U.S. media outlets downplayed the significance of the Observer’s revelations. The Washington Post printed a 514-word article on a back page with the headline “Spying Report No Shock to UN.” Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times published a longer piece that didn’t only depict U.S. surveillance at the United Nations as old hat; the LA Times story also reported “some experts suspected that it [the NSA memo] could be a forgery” – and “several former top intelligence officials said they were skeptical of the memo’s authenticity.”
But within days, any doubt about the NSA memo’s “authenticity” was gone. The British press reported that the U.K. government had arrested an unnamed female employee at a British intelligence agency in connection with the leak. By then, however, the spotty coverage of the top-secret NSA memo in the mainstream U.S. press had disappeared.
As it turned out, the Observer’s expose – headlined “Revealed: U.S. Dirty Tricks to Win Vote on Iraq War” – came 18 days before the invasion of Iraq began.
From the day that the Observer first reported on NSA spying at the United Nations until the moment 51 weeks later when British prosecutors dropped charges against whistleblower Katharine Gun, major U.S. news outlets provided very little coverage of the story. The media avoidance continued well past the day in mid-November 2003 when Gun’s name became public as the British press reported that she had been formally charged with violating the draconian Official Secrets Act.
Facing the possibility of a prison sentence, Katharine Gun said that disclosure of the NSA memo was “necessary to prevent an illegal war in which thousands of Iraqi civilians and British soldiers would be killed or maimed.” She said: “I have only ever followed my conscience.”
In contrast to the courage of the lone woman who leaked the NSA memo – and in contrast to the journalistic vigor of the Observer team that exposed it – the most powerful U.S. news outlets gave the revelation the media equivalent of a yawn. Top officials of the Bush administration, no doubt relieved at the lack of U.S. media concern about the NSA’s illicit spying, must have been very encouraged.
December 28th, 2005 at 12:57 pmThe Federalist Society really isn’t ‘right-wing’. There are a lot of member of it who are, but it actually attracts a pretty intellectually diverse group.
I plan on being a member of both the ACLU and the Federalist Society.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:30 pmMemo to John Dean from Karl Rove:
John, now’s the time to initiate those impeachment proceedings we’ve discussed.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:09 pmBill Kristol is PNAC’s father, that should be an attribution that follows ANY debunking or criticism of him or his views.
December 28th, 2005 at 6:00 pmlook at the wording of the question, oh deluded I.
why do you suppose they chose to word the question that way… maybe because a question that was worded like this:
Should the NSA be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between American citizens without a warrant?
which is what happened would have generated a positive in the 10% range maybe.
December 28th, 2005 at 6:33 pmShould the NSA be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between American citizens without a warrant?
which is what happened.
That would have been a misleading question unless it mentioned these “citizens” were suspected of working with terrorists abroad. The question stands as it is the honest question. If you are a communist/terrorist/homosexual sympathizer I want the CIA,FBI,NSA and the Boy Scouts hounding your ass every minute. You don’t belong here and I don’t care where you were born or what color you are.
December 29th, 2005 at 9:37 am#61 You typed “ass” and “Boy Scouts” in the same phrase. I think you’re a closet pedophile homosexual, and therefore a sexual predator, scum who everybody knows have strong ties with terrorists, because them all hate freedom. I don’t care if you are a “citizen”, you don’t belong here and I don’t care where you were born or what color you are. So I beg the WH, the NSA, the FBI, the NRA, and the PNAC that wiretap all your communnications, search on your trash bin phisically kick the shit out of you until you confess your terrorist ties, you freedom hater.
December 29th, 2005 at 12:48 pmA few days ago I-RIGHT-I told me that the purpose of the FBI was, in part, to round up hippies. Apparently Hippies are a major danger. Who knew?
This is the kind of person you’re dealing with.
Arguing with I-Right-I about anything is like asking your cat to do your taxes. Good luck.
BTW, I defend I-Right-I’s right to voice his beliefs and not be called a traitor or some other vile epithet. He does not feel the same toward me. Pity. But the issue of character IS important here.
Let’s see what he has to say about this.
Here’s a wish for you all, your friends and loved ones, to have a joyous New Year. Let’s hope it’s a good one, without any tears.
Peace.
December 29th, 2005 at 1:25 pmSo I beg the WH, the NSA, the FBI, the NRA, and the PNAC that wiretap all your communnications, search on your trash bin phisically kick the shit out of you until you confess your terrorist ties, you freedom hater.
Comment by kharma
I’m one of the boys and therefore exempt. You on the other hand really should be careful what you type….some people don’t deserve freedom you know. That’s why we have those new detention camps set up in W. Texas.
December 29th, 2005 at 2:49 pmSo the camps are in continental USA. Yay! Let’s give the prisoners a civil judge, an attorney, a medical exam, the right to habeas corpus, the assistance of the Red Cross, the Geneva rights and all those “little things” that can’t be done in Guantanamo because isn’t USA.
Oh, and don’t forget to IMPEACH BUSH!
December 29th, 2005 at 3:11 pmShould the NSA be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between American citizens without a warrant?
which is what happened.
That would have been a misleading question unless it mentioned these “citizens†were suspected of working with terrorists abroad.
Not quite Oh Wrong I, if that were the case, why did they NOT get the required warrants? If they (the tappies) were suspected of having terrorist ties then there would have been evidence of some sort they (BushCo) could have presented to the FISA court - but they didn’t present ANYTHING either prior to the tapping or after. And in the history of the court - up until Bush in 2002 - the court granted ALL requests for warrants.
And it appears that there has been a mass harvesting and data mining operation ongoing that the telecoms have cooperated in… you can’t separate out the terrorists or wanna be’s from everyone else in that kind of operation.
December 29th, 2005 at 4:10 pmRead the 9/11 Commission report, pal. Neither the PDB of August 6, 2001, nor any other single piece of intelligence, told us specifically where, when and how al Qaeda intended to strike. It was only after they struck us that we had the political and moral backbone to go on the offensive against them.
That report states that the Bush regime was told by Tenet, Clarke and Berger that the #1 threat to America was Al-Queda. Bush decided to focus on Iraq instead.
December 30th, 2005 at 5:07 am“That [9/11 Commission] report states that the Bush regime was told by Tenet, Clarke and Berger that the #1 threat to America was Al-Queda. Bush decided to focus on Iraq instead.”
Oh, really? Is that why we invaded Afghanistan in Ocotober 2001, and defeated the Taliban and al Qaeda there, before turning our attention to Iraq?
December 30th, 2005 at 3:34 pmThe text of FISA §1809 is unambiguous: “A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance … except as authorized by statute.â€
Are we ever going to hear who this person who is guilty of an offence is? So who exactly do you think is guilty?
Comment by Wooberstank — December 30, 2005 @ 6:28 pm
Just because you’re too blinded by the right and clearly far too ignorant to understand the Fourth Amendment doesn’t mean Peeping George didn’t violate it. He even admitted it on national television. What a dolt! His arrogance is his own undoing. As will yours be your own. Stay tuned…
January 2nd, 2006 at 7:27 amHere’s a little help with that definition problem you’re having…
of·fense
n.
A violation or infraction of a moral or social code; a transgression or sin.
A transgression of law; a crime.
Something that outrages moral sensibilities: Genocide is an offense to all civilized humans.
(fns) The act of attacking or assaulting.
intentionally
adv : with intention; in an intentional manner; “he used that word intentionally”; “I did this by choice” [syn: deliberately, designedly, on purpose, purposely, advisedly, by choice, by design] [ant: by chance, unintentionally]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
Main Entry: stat·ute
Pronunciation: ’sta-chüt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin statutum law, regulation, from neuter of statutus, past participle of statuere to set up, station, from status position, state
1 : a law enacted by the legislative branch of a government —see also CODE, STATUTORY LAW
2 : an act of a corporation or its founder intended as a permanent rule
3 : an international instrument setting up an agency and regulating its scope or authority
Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Get it yet? The President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. Peeping George violated the Constitution when he ignored the equality of the legislative and judicial branches by circumventing them and spying on American citizens without the required warrants. And then, he admitted it on national television. If you don’t get it, you really shouldn’t live here. You’re a threat to our safety from tyranny as well as terrorism.
January 2nd, 2006 at 7:37 am[…] It looks like liberals hellbent on impeachment aren’t the only ones who think Bush’s NSA wiretaps were illegal. […]
January 7th, 2006 at 12:07 pm[…] This morning, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) added his name to the growing list of conservatives who have expressed disapproval of Bush’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program, further undermining the right-wing spin that the only critics of the program are liberals. On ABC’s This Week: STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you confident that the administration has acted lawfully in this case? […]
January 8th, 2006 at 12:37 pm[…] I am quite hoping that Georgie’s illegal wiretaps set the stage for his impeachment. It would serve his arrogance right. […]
January 18th, 2006 at 7:25 pmCC should know better than write about intelligenc…
Impeachment over Bush’s wiretapping is being discussed by Republicans!…
January 20th, 2006 at 2:37 pm[…] Blog Name: Think Progress Article Title: Federalist Society Board Member Argues Bush?s Surveillance Program Is Illegal The right-wing spin machine wants you to believe that critics of the Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program are all liberals. Here’s Bill Kristol in the most recent issue of the Weekly Standard: [L]iberals recoil unthinkingly from t… […]
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:23 am