EXCLUSIVE: CRS Report That Concludes The Administration Broke the Law
EXCLUSIVE: CRS Report That Concludes The Administration Broke the Law
Think Progress has obtained a copy of the Congressional Research Service [CRS] report that concludes “the Bush administration’s limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping without warrants are ‘inconsistent with the law.’” You can read it here.
Here’s the key point. Right-wing pundits point to a provision in the law that says disclosure should show “due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters.†The right thinks that means disclosure is optional.
But an analysis of the statute and its legislative history by CRS shows that, while that provision might allow the administration, in very rare circumstances, to exclude certain sensitive aspects of an intelligence program, it doesn’t allow them to hide the existence of an entire program from any member of the committee:
Congress has recognized such a necessity and stated its intent that the executive branch, in extremely rare circumstances, may need “…to preserve essential secrecy..†and thus may decide “…not to impart certain sensitive aspects of operations or collection programs to the oversight committees in order to protect extremely sensitive intelligence sources and methods…†In acknowledging this narrow need, however, Congress did not explicitly recognize, in statute or report language, the executive branch’s right to withhold from the intelligence committees information about the existence of the intelligence operations and collection programs, but rather only its authority to hold back information pertaining to certain sensitive aspects of such operations and programs.
Facts are stubborn things.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
I dont expect anything to happen. Congress is too incompetent to go after this administration.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:39 amJudd, sorry, what is CRS? Some of us need these abbreviations spelled out.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:43 amCRS= Congressional Research Service
January 19th, 2006 at 10:44 amCRS: Congressional Research Service. Part of the Library of Congress. We provide nonpartisan, unbiased research and background information to all Members of Congress (House and Senate, Dem and Repub), and all committees and staff.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:46 amMeaningless drivel or an opinion and you know what they say about opinions, right?
January 19th, 2006 at 10:48 amConservative Rebuttal Service
January 19th, 2006 at 10:48 amToday, Thursday, 011906 @ 1100 EST
Washington Post White House Reporter Michael Fletcher discusses on-line the latest in political news.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ discussion/ 2006/ 01/ 13/ DI2006011301042.html
Come on down.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:50 amI’m waiting for the bushie rebuttals.
I was just over at Wonkette and she (her assistant, she’s on a book tour) linked to a Washington Post article titled “Breaking Ranks” reguarding Gen. Powell’s Chief of Staff Col. Wilkerson’s estrangement from Powell and the Republican’s running the show in general. Great stuff there, go read it. If not, here are some choice nuggets from the good Col:
“My wife would probably shoot me if I headed to the ballot box with a Republican vote again,” he says. “This is not a Republican administration, not in my view. This is a radical administration.”
Wilkerson calls Bush an unsophisticated leader who has been easily swayed by “messianic” neoconservatives and power-hungry, secretive schemers in the administration. In a landmark speech in October, Wilkerson said: “What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.”
He is particularly appalled by U.S. treatment of enemy detainees, counting at least 100 deaths in custody during the course of the war on terrorism — 27 of them ruled homicides. “Murder is torture,” he says. “It’s not torture lite.”
As for the invasion of Iraq? A blunder of historic proportions, he believes.
“This is really a very inept administration,” says Wilkerson, who has credentials not only as an insider in the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II presidencies but also as a former professor at two of the nation’s war colleges.
Go ahead and call him a pinko liberal bushies….
January 19th, 2006 at 10:52 amIRI you also know the one about “Sometimes when you argue with a fool it’s hard to tell who is who.”
January 19th, 2006 at 10:52 amOkay, it’s been decided, they’ve been knowingly breaking the law for years. Now where in the hell is the Sherriff?
January 19th, 2006 at 10:54 amSorry about giving you shit yesterday california-reality-check.
But I do think those of you who use this blog for free advertizing should support the blog by giving them money or buying advertizing where it’s offered. PS - Thanks Judd for not having advertizing. You should give us a link for donations to your wonderful enterprise.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:56 amAny member of congress not calling for legal action should be considered accomplices.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:59 amImpeachment time…
January 19th, 2006 at 11:00 amComment by kindness - Sorry, I must have missed your comment. Could you repost here?
January 19th, 2006 at 11:03 amWashington Post on-line now. Here’s how it started.
Michael Fletcher: Hello,everyone. As always, there is a lot going on. So let’s get started.
_______________________
Ohio: All excuses about “inartful statement” aside, when will The Post print a correction for the Ombudsman’s factually innaccurate claim that Jack Abramoff -directly- gave money to Democrats? It’s one thing to claim that Abramoff’s clients gave money to Dems. It’s another thing entirely to say that the influence peddler bought Dems as well as GOP.
So print that retraction!
Michael Fletcher: Geez, I was hoping for an easier start. That’s something you have to take up with the ombudsman
January 19th, 2006 at 11:05 amWill the administration produce an Eddie Slovak over this wiretapping incident? Rush Limbaugh’s argument for flushing out the Traitors who leaked the NSA and Secret prison stories will definitely gain some momentum, if anything to slow the train down. So everybody get ready for the next round. How does it go, DENIAL, ACCEPATANCE and then ANGER.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:06 amIRI, if “the opinion” is not to your favor then predictably , right wing nuts like yourself consider it meaningless. We all know how you and your kind like to put “The Conservative Mind” to blind your left side and the Bible to blind the right. You are and will always be a follower, a lemming if you will, and soon the cliff will be upon you and those without blinders on will stand in disbelief and watch thousands of people like yourself follow each other into the ocean. Some will laugh and some will cry.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:16 amThis news item reminded me of the republican masses:
January 19th, 2006 at 11:28 amhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4665511.stm
A crime has been committed. Elizabeth de la Vega wrote about it (along with a growing list of others).
…At no time during this four-year debate about security and civil liberties, despite well-established congressional procedures for discussions that involve classified material, has the Bush administration advised Congress in any meaningful way that it was in ongoing violation of FISA; nor has it ever formally sought to amend the law to accommodate the sorts of technological advances that it now cites as the very reason for its secret program. In other words, the administration has conducted a prolonged charade during which it has pretended to participate in a democratic process of amending and enacting legislation, while secretly, but monumentally, violating the law that was under consideration…
[from: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0118-20.htm ]
It’s time to impeach the Boy King and to remove him and all his Henchmen from office. Seriously.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:35 amEveryone please contact your senators and representatives and to request that they compel Arlen Specter to call to testify the CRS officials responsible for this report…
At present the hearings (to be held on Feb. 6th) have only one witness, Alberto Gonzales…
January 19th, 2006 at 11:39 amFrom the report:
“The statute does not define, nor does accompanying congressional report language indicate, what would constitute “extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests.†The President appears to have the sole discretion in making such a determination.”
i.e. the President has the authority to determine if briefing other committee members outside the “Gang of Eight” would jeopardize the ongoing surveillance operations.
“Based upon publicly reported descriptions of the program, the NSA surveillance program would appear to fall more closely under the definition of an intelligence collection program, rather than qualify as a covert action program as defined by statute….”
Key word is “appears”. They didn’t make that dertermination in their report.
“If the NSA surveillance program were to considered an intelligence collection program, limiting congressional notification of the NSA program to the Gang of Eight, which some Members who were briefed about the program contend, would appear to be inconsistent with the law, which requires that the “congressional intelligence committees be kept fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities,†other than those involving covert actions.”
“By contrast, the President is legally authorized to limit congressional access to a covert action finding if he determines that it is essential to do so in order “to meet extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States…†If he makes such a determination, the President is authorized to limit reporting of such a covert action finding to the chairmen and ranking members of the congressional intelligence committees, the House and Senate majority and minority leaders, and any other member or members of the congressional leadership that the President may designate.”
i.e. that Gang of Eight.
Again the argument and debate here: Is the NSA program a covert operation or a run of the mill surveillance collection operation?
The CRS DOES NOT say yes or no on this matter, so Thinkprogress’s assertion that the law was broken is incorrect.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:40 amThe only opinion that counts is the one that is expressed in the voting booth right IRI… well that is what is making the repugligans shake in their boots right now and the reason they’re running around like lemmings to embrace “reform” when they have fought it for the oh .. say last 6-8 years
January 19th, 2006 at 11:40 am[…] Read more CRS Report […]
January 19th, 2006 at 11:45 am#22 unfortunately, thanks to Diebold and others, it’s not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes…
January 19th, 2006 at 11:57 amWhat good does it do if you are told something , can’t ask questions about it, can’t tell anybody anything about it, and basically have become an unwitting accomplice to actions which have been produced by the operational scope of the implementaion of the information. Now how does that benifit a Democracy, excuse me a Republic.The gang of 8 idea is bogus.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:58 amI know that, but even with that advantage they’re still shaking, and the scandals in DC aren’t the only reason. With the medicare fiasco they have pissed off many of the seniors, and the repuglicans know if they lose the seniors no computor inspired majic will save them come november
January 19th, 2006 at 12:02 pm#22 unfortunately, thanks to Diebold and others, it’s not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes…
Comment by TerrytheTurtle
Unless it’s Florida where they count hanging chads.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:21 pmCongressional Research Service (Research Arm of Congress) said Bush Broke the Law…
Congressional Research Service says in short, BUSH BROKE THE LAW. The title of the report is clear,“the Bush administration’s limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping without warrants are…
January 19th, 2006 at 12:23 pm#21 any prudent impartial person knows the difference between covert action and intelligence gathering. This program is strictly intelligence gathering. It is passive collection of signal intelligence. There is no threat to national security in having the existence of the program known, because the bad guys know and have known for years that we monitor the airwaves, so in this case there are no sources to protect either. The problem lies in who they are now monitoring, or who they could possibly be monitoring. Seems to me that the way the report is written, congress needs to be notified and kept abrest of things.
You did a nice job of cherry picking the stuff about covert actions and try to turn the whole argument around based on that section however you did not quote the wholre report or any of the stuff regarding intelligence gathering. In the case of this report, you need to know that the word appears should actually read as:IS.
You also know that this is bad for the President and if allowed to stand worse for the country.
Maybe next time add the following paragraphs to your discussion, they are the ones relevant to the topic at hand, the other stuff is simply following a line of reasoning that might be used, but is not really applicable.
Reporting Requirements For Intelligence Activities, Including Significant Anticipated Intelligence Activities
For all intelligence activities, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity other than covert action, the statute requires that “the congressional intelligence committees†are to be kept “fully and currently informed†of such activities; with an exception possibly being because limiting such notification would be necessary to protect intelligence sources and methods.
Another statutory provision specifically requires that the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the intelligence agency heads “keep the intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities…†and “…furnish the congressional intelligence committees any information or material concerning intelligence activities, other than covert actions…†which is within their control. The statute further requires that any report to the intelligence committees regarding a significant anticipated intelligence activity be submitted to the intelligence committees in writing, and that any such report contain a concise statement of any pertinent facts as well as an explanation of the significance of the intelligence activity in question.
Other than there being a possible exception that would authorize a more limited notification in order to protect intelligence sources and methods, the law would appear to contain no other language authorizing the President, the DNI or the intelligence agency heads to determine the number of intelligence committee members that are informed of “all intelligence activities….â€, other than covert action. Rather, the law requires that the “congressional intelligence committees†be kept fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities
January 19th, 2006 at 12:34 pmHi,
Check out the latest Political Comic from H.L.
Michelle Malkin Gets Manipulated
The Hollywood Liberal
If you like it there is lots more at There’s lots more at H.L. Comics Links
January 19th, 2006 at 12:54 pmThank You
“Facts are stubborn things.”
Facts ARE stubborn things. Judd’s problem, which he shares with the entire fever swamp, is the FACT that Congress cannot define, limit or curtail the President’s inherent powers under Article II. Those powers include his authority, as Commander in Chief, to order monitoring and interception of international terrorist communications, wherever in the world they take place - even if one end of the conversation happens to be in the U.S.
After all, if Osama bin Laden is talking with someone in America, we need to know what he is saying and to whom.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:00 pmBTW, how about an “attaboy” for President Bush, for forcing Osama to call for a truce!
January 19th, 2006 at 1:01 pmSo, BSD, Article II is a stand alone perogative, just like say, the Second amendment? So clearly articulated without any room for intrepretation?
January 19th, 2006 at 1:05 pmIsn’t this what got Nixon kicked out of office?
Repugs never learn…
January 19th, 2006 at 1:05 pm“…any prudent impartial person knows the difference between covert action and intelligence gathering. This program is strictly intelligence gathering. It is passive collection of signal intelligence.”
Considering you are not a NSA operations expert YOU don’t know if the operations were covert or not, i.e. you don’t know that details about the operations. Nice try to pass yourself off as someone who does.
“In the case of this report, you need to know that the word appears should actually read as:IS.”
Ah, but it DOES NOT. Nice try again though…in your dreams.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:06 pm#32
I thought Al Qaeda was winning?…according to the left.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:09 pmHave any of our beloved “anti-war” contributors heard from that dusty barbarian bin Laden if the “truce” he’s proposing is with the US and our allies or just the innocent Muslims population who have been subjected to Al Queda’s slaughter-fest lately??
January 19th, 2006 at 1:12 pmTracy, thanks for the insight into this thread and your attention to the precision of the argument. So now we can move on to the limit of the SCOPE of the President’s powers.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:16 pmI have made the analogy that the President reminds me of Toonces the cat from SNL. Just because he has the wheel doesn’t mean he knows how to drive. I would like to stay away from the cliffs. Time will tell and once it goes before the Supremes maybe we’ll get an answer. I don’t care whether the President believes he is right or not but to side step the law he should have to prove it was leaglly justified.He should welcome the challenge not cast anyone aside who disagrees with him as a traitor.
Tracy…. programs that are classified secret compartmentalized are by definition covert, but unless you have either militaryexpierence or worked in the intelligence community you might not know that
January 19th, 2006 at 1:18 pmIf these NSA operations were not covert, i.e. highly secretive and not intended to be publically known, then why didn’t ANY of the “Gang of Eight”, including congress woman Jane Harman, a democrat, reveal the existance of these operations to the public?…untill NOW? Answer: she is trying to score political points.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:18 pmjesus - 4 trolls in a row. You bois sharing the portable while you circle jerk?
Thankfully even conservatives are pulling their heads out of their asses (except our trolls) and seeing their elections in jeopardy this fall. That’s right, THIS FALL.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:21 pm#38
Right! I don’t know and neither does Mark, which is why I say the Thinkprogress’s assertion that the law was violated, by only informing the “Gang of Eight”, was wrong.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:21 pm#41
And just why would anyone vote for the Democrats in 2006?
January 19th, 2006 at 1:22 pmOh and Traci - as other reichtwingnutz have pointed out, till it’s existance was exposed by the NY Times, it was illegal for those 8 to tell ANYONE else about what they were told. Christ, your one of the fools who says that what the NY Times did was treasonous, and whomever did release the details should be tried for treason.
why are our trolls all hitler youth? Can’t we get a nice, sane Bill Buckley once in a while?
January 19th, 2006 at 1:24 pm#38
“He should welcome the challenge not cast anyone aside who disagrees with him as a traitor.”
Bush has publically defended his NSA wiretapping activity and challenged those who say it was illegal.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:26 pm“…it was illegal for those 8 to tell ANYONE else about what they were told.”
Why was it illegal if the operations were not COVERT?
January 19th, 2006 at 1:28 pm“So, BSD, Article II is a stand alone perogative, just like say, the Second amendment? So clearly articulated without any room for intrepretation?”
I think you meant BSR.
In any event, the inherent powers granted to the President under Article II trump any statute that may conflict with them. Because of the Separation of Powers doctrine neither the CRS nor Congress has the power to decide this issue in connection with the NSA program. It can only be decided, if at all, by the Supreme Court. And even if the issue comes before the Supreme Court, the Court may decline the case if it decides this is a political question.
That would put the issue right back where it belongs: at the ballot box. Unfortunately for the Left, most Americans support the President’s decision to authorize the NSA program. They will never vote with the Left on this issue, because they know the Left would get a lot more of us killed.
Sorry, Lefties, you lose again!
January 19th, 2006 at 1:29 pmTracy, your slipping away from substantiated comments to speculation. Was V. Plame covert or not? Your rhetoric falls apart to simple logic. Also way too many questions surrounding ANY of the GO8’s involvemnt. Like: How long was the program in place and at what point did people become concerned?To take at face value the President’s word and to dismiss any criticism, especially someone in Rep. Harman’s position as partisan and for political reasons is sad and partisan in itself.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:30 pm#43, maybe because they want to see humans in elected office? Maybe because average Americans can only stand so much greed, waste and hypocrisy?
While I will readily admit that the current crop of Democrats, with few exceptions, aren’t much to write home about, with an infusion of new blood (especially the pissed-off Iraq veterans running) Democrats will do just fine in the upcoming elections.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:33 pmfly-boy - I think Plame was covert according to her neighbours - but I don’t think she had been doing any super secret spying for more than five years. But being the CIA policy analyst extraordinaire that she was, she was in a great position to recommend hubby for the Niger trip.
To take everyone with a partisan ax to grind against Geo. W. and the US is sad and partisan in and of itself.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:44 pm#35 and you have no clue that they are an operation either. Fact of the matter is that passive activity is not covert action period. Monitoring airwaves = passive not action or activity. No amount of spin will confuse an NSA guy monitoring signal intelligence with a field guy actively working out a situation. The only thing covert about this is the fact that the White House knows it is wrong and tried to keep it a secret. Remember Gonzales immortal words about not approaching congress about this because congress would have never granted them the authority. Seems to me that they knew all along this whole program was not on the up and up. Spin will never put it there either.
Add to the Gonzales quote the fact that the story has changed over time. We were only monitoring a few people who are known alqueda operatives…why not arrest them? We were waiting for the big fish…ok if waiting why not get that warrant? If they are known al queda types this should be no problem. Umm the paperwork was too difficult…has never seemed to be such a problem in the past, perhaps some competent attorneys need to be hired. Oh those judges wouldn’t grant these. 4 not granted out of 19,000+ means statistically they grant 100%. We need to act fast to break up plots…72 hours retroactive granting. And the guys going for the warrants are not the same guys who do the sigint. Ummmm the president has the power under the 9/11 resolution…Congress: we did not grant that power. Oh wait the president has the power under the constitution. Nixon tried that one and he got impeached for it… Damn it Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter did it too…nope already proven wrong, but whay not add similar orders signed by Reagan and Bush I to the list? These do exist. You hate America and want top undermine the war effort…please don’t be so foolishly stupid. Next argument please…
#31 Osama calling into the states is not a problem, Osama calling from within the states is not a problem. He is not a US Citizen. Of course if we know when he is calling and whom he is calling then we should be able to get those pesky warrants which are available 24/7 with near 100% permissibility and retroactively. The 72 hour window eliminates the fictitious ticking time bombe scenario and the near 100% grant rate for warrants eliminates the argument about paperwork being too onerous to complete. Fact of the matter is we have no clue as to who they are monitoring. Are they monitoring political opponents? Who knows we only have their word for that. Are they monitoring the press? Who knows we only have their word for that? Are they fishing for anything possible to use? This is what the 4th is supposed to protect us from.
#36 Alqueda and the Iraqii insurgents lose nearly every head to head confrontation with the US. But winnign battles is in no way the prerequisite for winning a war. Washington and his army had a horrendous losing record and yet won. Napoleon won every major battle when he invaded Russia, yet he lost that war and it most likely caused him to lose his power in France too. The US won evry major confrontation in Vietnam yet lost the war. You can not win a war on foreign soil without the people on your side. According to my frined who recently returned from Iraq, big time war supporter by the way, the people over there hate us and our presence. I have nto even tried to reconcile with him his thought that we should be there coupled with his comments about the people hating our presence.
#38 I loved Toonces, good analogy.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:44 pmIn case anyone is interested, here is a political analysis of this issue by a former Clinton advisor:
[BEGIN EXCERPT]
Democrats who criticize President Bush for using warrantless wiretaps to elicit information about potential terrorist activity should be aware that the American people strongly support his decision to do so.
The Fox News poll of Jan. 11 asked voters whether the president “should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States?” By 58 percent to 36 percent, the answer was “yes.” Indeed, 42 percent of the nation’s Democrats agreed that the president should have this power. *** Respondents support renewal of the Patriot Act by 57 percent to 31 percent. (Even Democrats only oppose renewal by 40-47.)
And those who called attention to the NSA policy of warrant-less wiretaps are called “traitors” by 50 percent of the voters and “whistleblowers” by only 27 percent. Democrats opted for “traitors” by 42 percent to 34 percent.
In other words, Ann Coulter represents the Democratic mainstream better than Al Gore on this one!
Once again, liberals are misreading the public’s heavy doubts about the wisdom of the war in Iraq and our ability to win. These are pragmatic concerns, not an embrace of the left’s take on national security. In fact, there is a broad and deep consensus when it comes to homeland security, which any politician defies at the risk of losing support.
Nor did the NSA wiretaps break the law. The president’s inherent power as commander in chief allows them.
[END EXCERPT]
I love the reference to Ann Coulter. It shows just how far off the deep end the fever swamp has gone. BTW, the author of this analysis is former Clinton advisor Dick Morris, the architect of the Democrats’ last presidential election victory. Democrats who want to win future elections will disregard him at their peril.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:45 pm#49 - Jane,you might be right about upcoming elections. But I just don’t think p*$$ed off veterans in the Wesley Clark mold are going to swing moderate to conservative Dems. Too many people do not trust Dems to defend the US - their track record is too fluid and the rhetoric too mealy-mouthed.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:49 pm#45 If it is nto illegal then Bush and co should welcome an investigation to prove their case. heck he should initiate a bipartisan 50/50 panel to delve into it. But…it’s nto going to happen by his actions. An investigation is going to be forced upon him eventually.
#46 how do we know what they were told? How do we know that what they were told matches up with what the admin is doing? We do know that some of them had doubts immediately.
On top of all this, it is the pundits and the White House who claim that these actions are on the up and up. The legal experts, the guys in congress, the guys who wrote the laws etc… are all nearly unanimous in saying that it was illegal. Where are the republicans from the gand standing up and saying yes. it’s 100% legal?
January 19th, 2006 at 1:50 pmBSR, sorry , my spelling is so bad I screwed up that one. THANKS! Full contact civics is the best way to learn it. I don’t think the Lefties will lose again, the Line of reason has just moved away from the center, how long it stays that way we will have to wait and see.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:50 pmI also forgot the NSA guys actually running the operation say it’s illegal. Hmm very interesting.
BTW the report covers congress being notified not the legality or illegality of the program. What the report covers, to my reading, is that it was illegal to keep congress int he dark on the program.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:51 pmAphrodite, I meant recent Iraq War veterans. I have great respect for Wesley Clark, but, unfortunately, he’s just a bit too bland for most Americans.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:58 pm“I also forgot the NSA guys actually running the operation say it’s illegal. Hmm very interesting.
BTW the report covers congress being notified not the legality or illegality of the program. What the report covers, to my reading, is that it was illegal to keep congress int he dark on the program.”
You have forgotten more than that. None of “the NSA guys actually running the operation” have said that the NSA program was “illegal.” That’s just an opinion expressed by one disgruntled former NSA employee.
Moreover, if the President has the inherent constitutional power to conduct this program, that power is not subject to any statutory reporting requirements enacted by Congress. Voluntary reports to selected congressional leaders would be purely a matter of comity between the Executive and Legislative branches. In other words, the President very well may have done [and I believe has done] more than was constitutionally required of him in this situation.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:07 pmAfter Bushes mess in Iraq, medicare, the lobbying scandal, this scandal, Brownie, Slighty Mediochre I think the voters of this country will trust the dems or anybody else that has a clue that it more than talking points to solve this countries problems. Just because you say that your doing great doesn’t make it so.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:10 pm#50 Record of defending America? Have you been watching the same terrorist attacks over the past five years that the rest of us have?
January 19th, 2006 at 2:20 pmBSR, do you see a possible partner to the 78 FISA ruling coming down the legislative tube? Actually draw some lines, that of course can be ignored by the Commander In Chief, with distinct criteria having to have been met. Or is that just going to be redundant? The whole crossing his fingers behind his back thing The President pulled on Sen. McCain clearly signaled The President is redlining his authority and willing to prove he has it. Can we at least see what it costs? Was there any value to this adventure,? On the surface it seems to have gone outside the lines of the public’s comfort zone.i think of all the things the Congress has held hearings on I think this is radio active enough to tell us what we can know. Does anybody remember the Glomar Explorer.Tax dollars at work against the current boogeyman.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:22 pmI’m sorry what I meant to say was, using the GOP’s mantra, We don’t need any more laws, we need to enforce the ones we have.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:27 pm#56 are you sure it’s only one disgruntled employee? I think its a whole lot more. And where on earth in the constitution does it say that the president has the power to override acts of congress and other areas of the constitution. That fallicious line of reasoning is dangerous, but probably welcome to Bushites.
But please first quote me the section of the constitution you are referring to. I missed that one during my highschool and college civics classes. I missed it on my first read through the federalist, perhaps I need to re-read those essays on executive power.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:34 pmToo many people do not trust Dems to defend the US - their track record is too fluid and the rhetoric too mealy-mouthed.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
This is a ridiculous GOP talking point. Do you have some proof to back this assertion up? Something that is worthy of the term, “proof”.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:39 pm“Too many people do not trust Dems to defend the US - their track record is too fluid and the rhetoric too mealy-mouthed. mighty aphrodite”
I’ve heard that older people get fearful and irrational as their faculties go - I’d go in for a checkup there sweetie. You aren’t sounding particularly lucid today, even for a woman of your advanced years. Now would that be the same Democrats who won 2 World Wars and a number of small conflict, versus the Republican who pulled out of Vietnam, and has now apparently lost Afghanistan to lawlessness and Iraq to a civil war?
Sweetie, I know you hate democrats with every irrational bone of your body, and I know how that can make people say silly things - but this one’s pretty far off the deep end. Don’t worry, I forgive you for saying such hateful and untruthful things. It happens when people get older and silly with their beliefs. You obviously can’t help yourself anymore - poor thing. You have my sympathy.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:44 pmMark you meant #55 didn’t you?
January 19th, 2006 at 2:46 pmBlueStateRed,
I wasn’t aware that Congress had declared war on american citizens, because that’s who was being spied on without a warrant, and before 9/11. So while your fear certainly makes you willing to give up your civil rights, the constitution is there to protect you from yourself in moments like this. Don’t worry, we’ll protect you, and the rest of the republican cowards who would sell out american values over something as silly as a few rich crooks and criminals (Al Qaeda & Pat Robertson).
January 19th, 2006 at 2:47 pmRightPunch,
It has been said that in politics, perception is everything. That Democrats may be “perceived” as being weak on defense was true for some time. This perception has been “cultivated” by the GOP and the media. As you well know and point out, it has no basis in fact. It is also no longer the “perception”. That perception having peaked in the 2004 election. “Swiftboating” is having no effect on John Murtha. In fact, it’s making the GOP look weak. The fact is that they have no new tricks in their tool kit. The old tricks don’t work anymore.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:59 pm#48
Was V. Plame covert or not?
NO.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:04 pm#49
What is the Democrats agenda and vision other that to critize the current administration? When will we get to hear it?
January 19th, 2006 at 3:05 pm#66 I did.
#52 I wonder how that poll would come out if the question was phrased soemthing like this…Do you support the warrentless wire tapping of American citizens? I think those numbers shift dramatically.
Besides look at the source of your poll. The republican party news network has zero credibillity. They probably conducted their poll using a republican party donor list, or just made it up as they seem to relish making shit up all the time.
Favorite thing I heard them make up. During the rush to war there was a reuters news story saying that french intelligence anaylsts had noted new construction at a former nuclear weapons facility inside Iraq. The story also carried the caveat that the intelligence analysts are not making any judgements about what the new construction is and that the property woudl need to be inspected before any conclusions coudl be reached. BBC and NTY carried nearly identical stories. The fox story was Frecnh intelligence officials say Iraq has rebuilt a nuclear weapons facility. Of course int he long run the new construction turned out to be storage facilities for old Xrays. Go figure.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:08 pm#70 anything the dems propose is considered either out of touch or critiizing the admin, so why bother? Even when they are dead on right they are considered to be obstructionists by the likes of you, IRI and others of your ILK. Perhaps, maybe, just maybe the adminsitration gets criticized because they are fucking up my country? Ever think of that? Take the blinder off and realise what is going on. Yesterday was Ben Franklins Birthday. If he were alive today, he woudl be all over this administration for what they are doind.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:11 pmI’m glad that the CIA has given tracy the right to reclassify their agents, she just forgot to inform the CIA that she declassifed V. Plames status and therefore she was no longer covert. Somebody needs to tell Fitzgerald because when this gets out he’ll have nothing to investigate
January 19th, 2006 at 3:14 pm#70 come november when Jacks pals have to start finding other jobs.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:16 pm#51
“No amount of spin will confuse an NSA guy monitoring signal intelligence with a field guy actively working out a situation.”
Again considering you are not a NSA expert and you don’t know what was involved with these wiretap operations
“According to my frined who recently returned from Iraq, big time war supporter by the way, the people over there hate us and our presence.”
That’s funny I have friends over in Iraq right now in the 4th Infantry, from Ft. Hood and they say the exact opposite.
BTW why is bin Laden supposedly asking for a truce?
January 19th, 2006 at 3:17 pm#54
“heck he should initiate a bipartisan 50/50 panel to delve into it”
Bush doesn’t think that he’s in the wrong so why is it now his responsibility to investigate his administration under the new “guilty untill proven innocent” rule that you came up with?
Why was it illegal if the operations were not COVERT?
Because the WERE covert.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:27 pm#56
“What the report covers, to my reading, is that it was illegal to keep congress int he dark on the program.”
You need to read it again, because the report specifically is examining whether or not Bush briefing the “Gang of Eight” was sufficient, which comes back the whole crux of the debate….were the NSA operations covert or not?
January 19th, 2006 at 3:30 pm#64
“This is a ridiculous GOP talking point. Do you have some proof to back this assertion up? Something that is worthy of the term, “proofâ€.”
Eight years of inaction by Clinton…unfortunately.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:34 pmmaybe, but this just in… the JoD is going to declare the wiretaps legal… whatever the reason, I guarantee they won’t address why the president can do this when it’s just as easy to do it within the law…
January 19th, 2006 at 3:35 pm#65
“…versus the Republican who pulled out of Vietnam”
That wouldn’t be the war that the Democrats tried to run and got 50,000 U.S. soldiers killed…would it? BTW remember who was one of the main reasons the Soviets lost the Cold War?
“…and has now apparently lost Afghanistan to lawlessness and Iraq to a civil war?”
How long have those conflicts been going? BTW I don’t seem to remember Iraqis or Afghans getting to vote before 2003. How long did it take for the U.S. to win their war of independence and become free of British influence?
January 19th, 2006 at 3:41 pmTracy, what obligation, rule or otherwise commandment is required that the opposition party actually have to have an alternative presentation? Is this a new requirement I missed? That’s sorta like driving, you know, Dad has been elected to drive , and just because someone asks where are we going, Dad yells, hey sit down you don’t have the right to ask, but when we get pulled over by the cops Dad says “ask them there in the car too” Step up to the plate missy.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:46 pm#18 WTM
January 19th, 2006 at 3:47 pmThat’s a good example of the “sheeple” — trolls who post here.
#71
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
“During the press conference, Fitzgerald was asked if he knew whether Libby revealed Plame’s covert status knowingly; he responded:
Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I’ll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I’m not making that assertion”
Remember Fitzgerald didn’t even charge Libby with outing Plame because she wasn’t covert. End of story.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:50 pm#79
“Tracy, what obligation, rule or otherwise commandment is required that the opposition party actually have to have an alternative presentation?”
There isn’t any obligation, I just thought it might be useful for those considering voting for the Democrats that they have a vision or agenda for the country so that the voter will have a reason to vote for them. Just and novel idea for those thinking of voting Democrat.
“Step up to the plate missy.”
Missy? You do know that I am male 6′-2″ and 220 lbs. don’t you? Newcomer is see.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:58 pmNot end of story, Fitzgerald was going after the case he knew he could win because he wants to turn Libby to move up the food chain to a bigger target. The case of proving an outing is not easily made, The fact Fitzgerald didn’t charge Libby does not mean she was not covert, so the story continues
January 19th, 2006 at 4:00 pmTracy, pleaseclarify, ” Remember Fitzgerald didn’t even charge Libby with outing Plame because she wasn’t covert.” Do you mean she wasn’t covert at the time of the instance that Mr. Libby had been acused of her outing ? Do you really think we are that stupid? End of what story?
January 19th, 2006 at 4:00 pmTracy you are wrong and you know it. You keep touting the covert operations aspect of that report when you know in fact that it is nothing of the sort. You tout the covert action aspect as if it were fact and you ignore the obvious truth… this report is about keeping congress abrest of the situation it is NOT about the legality or illegality of the operation. You also ignore that the report says that it appears to be illegal. You aprse the word appears as if it were referring to some illusion and that they are not sure. If ou know anything about reading leagalese their statement pretty much says that the congress should have been informed and that not informeing them was a violation of the law. Your parsing of the word is akin to the wingnuts parsing the word Theory. They know damned well that scientific theroy is generally accepted as fact. However they choose to use the common street meaning of the word, and they do so incorrectly. Just as you choose to wilfully take the use of the words appears and twist the meaning in a way that any legal person would find appalling.
Bush should welcome an investigation, he should not initiate it. Congress should stand up and perform their oversight duties. What Bush should do, if nothing is illegal, is nto stonewall the congress and welcome an investigation cooperating fully. You and I both know that he will not cooperate.
But I waste my time and breath as you and your ilk are happy to go through life with your ideological blinders on.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:08 pmWill it be a big deal if the number of US casualties in Iraq, exceeds the number from 911? What party’s agenda could be more damaging then to double the number of lives lost in pursuit of the wrong suspect? Agenda, how about one that takes the same approach, resources are necessary to maintain security, but to be honest let’s take the hits at home and spend our monies at home. More people have died in automobile accidents then 911. Why waste our military as an instrument of foreign policy? Spend more at home and don’t waste our dollars on rearanging nefarious business partners for an endevour we don’t get a check for, just a pat on the back and the slimiest reasurances that we are better off than before. I don’t think there has to be a statement of intent for the Democrats, just anything except the GOP.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:33 pmUnfortunately for the Left, most Americans support the President’s decision to authorize the NSA program. They will never vote with the Left on this issue, because they know the Left would get a lot more of us killed.
Sorry, Lefties, you lose again!
Comment by Blue State Red #47
Fool’s State inb’Red,
Vote any way you wany…
You sick bastids and beeotches are gonna die anyway…
January 19th, 2006 at 4:55 pm#83
“The fact Fitzgerald didn’t charge Libby does not mean she was not covert, so the story continues”
It also doesn’t mean she was either.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:09 pm“Do you mean she wasn’t covert at the time of the instance that Mr. Libby had been acused of her outing ?”
I mean that I don’t think Plame was a covert agent when Novak first broke the whole story. Fitzgerald isn’t saying yes or no either…so the story continues.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:12 pm#85
“You tout the covert action aspect as if it were fact and you ignore the obvious truth… this report is about keeping congress abrest of the situation it is NOT about the legality or illegality of the operation.”
After reading the law, i.e. Title 50 of the U.S. Code and the CRS report the covert question DOES go to the very heart of the debate. Please read the CRS report and tell me how many times the “covert” aspect is mentioned because apparently you haven’t read it.
“You aprse the word appears as if it were referring to some illusion and that they are not sure.”
That is exactly what it means, because even the CRS isn’t aware of ALL of the aspects of the NSA’s wiretapping operations that are in question.
“Just as you choose to wilfully take the use of the words appears and twist the meaning in a way that any legal person would find appalling.”
Twist it’s meaning? Damn, you must be a trial lawyer! LOL!
“Your parsing of the word is akin to the wingnuts parsing the word Theory. They know damned well that scientific theroy is generally accepted as fact.”
We aren’t dealing with scientific Laws, hypotheses, and theories…in this case are we? No we are not. Nice try though in trying to connect the two.
“Bush should do, if nothing is illegal, is nto stonewall the congress and welcome an investigation cooperating fully. You and I both know that he will not cooperate.”
Considering he already welcomed the illegality challenge and debate, your assertion that he will not cooperate is baseless.
“But I waste my time and breath as you and your ilk are happy to go through life with your ideological blinders on.”
You on the left do the same thing! LOL! You are just too funny.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:40 pmShe was covert. Even though she was working at a desk at the time her covertness, and relaly that of any agent, shoudl be protected to the fullest. Why? Covert agents deal with people, frequently these people are known int heir own countries. When her cober was blown i’ll bet intelligence agencies all over the world immediately satrted scanning their data bases tryign to see if and when she was in their country and who she may have talked to. On top of that we do not know if people have been imprisoned and killed over this, adn…we do not know if she had information which is now useless because of the outing. Slamming this woman is strictly a matter of politics, or rather putting politic above the nation…par for the course for those people.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:44 pm#86
“Will it be a big deal if the number of US casualties in Iraq, exceeds the number from 911?”
I don’t see why it would. The number of American soldiers lost in WW2 astronomically exceeded the number of U.S. civilian deaths. It’s a mute point.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:45 pmThis excerpt from a NYT article is more evidence that unauthorized leaks must stop:
[BEGIN EXCERPT]
“American counterterrorism officials declined to say whether the four Qaeda members were in fact killed in the raid, or whether the men were among those who were the targets of it. But one American official said, “These are the kinds of people we would have expected to have been there.”
“If any or all were indeed killed, it would be a stinging blow to Al Qaeda’s operations, said the American officials, who were granted anonymity because they were not authorized by their agencies to speak for attribution.”
[END EXCERPT]
While it is heartening to know that these monsters have gone wherever terrorist thugs go after being blown to smithereens, this is yet another leak of unauthorized, and possibly classified, information. The news media, which raised holy heck about Valerie Plame, has a duty to stop using these kinds of sources until their information has been confirmed and authorized for release!
January 19th, 2006 at 5:51 pmIs it just me, but every troll on the site and others are all 6″2 and 220 pounds?
January 19th, 2006 at 5:54 pm#91
Read the law….please.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/ uscode/ html/ uscode50/ usc_sec_50_00000426—-000-.html
Plame’s friends knew she worked for the CIA before Novak broke the story, i.e. her identitiy as an an officer, employee, or member was known to those outside the CIA and she had not served outside the U.S. in the last five years.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/ national/ 20050715-121257-9887r.htm
She was an overt agent.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:57 pm#94
Who else has said this?
January 19th, 2006 at 6:02 pmI don’t normally feed the trolls but, this is begining to get ridiculous.
BSR, Article 2 of the Constitution does grant the President expanded powers in a time of war. What it does NOT do is grant the President the right to break the established law of the land. Not one person here (or anywhere else I’ve seen) is stating that the Government shouldn’t have the ability to monitor any communications of any individual should there be a legitimate need to do so. Where the problem for the President lies in this matter is that the Foreign Intelligence Securities Act allows for precisely what the President has done here and yet he chose not to use that legal mechanism (which, under a provision of the act itself, is a violation of the law). The President and his advisors (lackies, cronies, whatever you want to call them) directly circumvented the legal mechanism (FISA) that Congress (which, under the Constitution, has the SOLE ability to pass legislation) enacted. Let me repeat that in language you can understand. The President BROKE THE LAW! We are either a nation of laws or a nation of men.
Tracy, you asked, “Why is Bin Laden asking for a truce?”. To understand the answer to your question, it is necessary for you to have some amount of knowledge regarding radical Islam and the principles of jihad which they espouse. Per the Quran, it is required of a jihadist that they offer a truce to their enemies before attacking them. If you’ll do some research (I’m not going to hold my breath though), you will find that there have been similar offers from Bin Laden and/or his lieutenants preceeding every major attack that al Qaeda has been party to in the past. They are typically rather flowery, insane diatribes regarding “coming to the nation of Islam”, etc. but they are made none the less. This tape from Bin Laden is a BAD omen. I wont be at all surprised if there is another major attack in the near future.
Also, Patrick Fitzgerald has been VERY clear about why he has not charged Libby (or anyone else) with the actual outing of Valerie Plame’s identity and status as a covert CIA operative. He has not charged Libby with that offense because he can’t establish that Libby did in fact do so because Libby LIED to him and the grand jury (hence the perjury and obstruction of justice charges). Your ridiculous notion that she was not covert…well, that dog just wont hunt either. As a covert operator, you NEVER lose your covert status! Let me repeat that. A covert operator NEVER loses their covert status! There are literally hundreds of people who go to work at CIA headquarters in Langley every day who have other duties than just those their “official” job title would imply. They are considered non-official cover (NOC) agents just as Valerie Plame was. The simple fact is that had she not been a covert agent, the matter would not have been forwarded to justice by the CIA in the first place. I would think that the CIA would probably have a pretty decent understanding of what makes one a covert agent. You keep spinning though. It’s not going to do your corrupt heros any good but, it obviously makes you feel better.
January 19th, 2006 at 6:04 pmI think you know, should I call you CPT. Trolls come to our site to change the subject.
January 19th, 2006 at 6:05 pmConsidering you are not a NSA operations expert YOU don’t know if the operations were covert or not, i.e. you don’t know that details about the operations. Nice try to pass yourself off as someone who does.
Comment by Tracy — January 19, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
Tracy, just curious….where did you get your law degree?
January 19th, 2006 at 6:32 pmI wonder why Tracy isn’t screaming to the CIA for wasting all the federal tax dollars wasted because they asked the DOJ to investigate the non-outing of one of their agents, I mean she says Plame wasn’t covert so why all the fuss, and then John ASHCROFT went along wasting all that money , couldn’t he see tracy said she wasn’t covert so there was nothing to investigate
January 19th, 2006 at 6:40 pmThe emperor has no clothes.
Bush lied to the American public when he said there was no warrantless spying. Even if he now can claim that it was in his right to do so, HE STILL LIED. Can’t the Dems finally put their collective foot down and shut down the whole legislative process until the administration explains itself better. When you put together all the pieces of the last six years in the context that Bush is a liar, then there is reason for stopping the government before more mistakes are made.
January 19th, 2006 at 6:52 pm……..L holden
If Tracy is so certaian that outing Plame was not illegal, Plame was not covert, it doesn’t matter, etc. etc.
January 19th, 2006 at 6:58 pmperhaps she could explain why the CIA was outraged and went to the justice department to begin an investigation.
“Per the Quran, it is required of a jihadist that they offer a truce to their enemies before attacking them.”
“If you’ll do some research (I’m not going to hold my breath though), you will find that there have been similar offers from Bin Laden and/or his lieutenants preceeding every major attack that al Qaeda has been party to in the past.”
Did bin Laden offer up a truce to the U.S. before 9/11 was pulled off? How about the bombings in Kenya?
Everytime that there is a suicide bombing in Israel do the jihadists offer a truce to the IDF?
Europe has been offered a truce by bin Laden in the past but not the U.S. If you have a source let’s see it.
Has the CIA officially made it known that Plame was a covert agent?
“It’s not going to do your corrupt heros any good but, it obviously makes you feel better.”
Considering you or I DO NOT know who outed Plame my side cannot be blamed for her outing.
January 19th, 2006 at 7:25 pmThe justice department will annouce that the wire tapping is legal. boy, did we see that coming.
January 19th, 2006 at 7:26 pm“Considering you or I DO NOT know who outed Plame my side cannot be blamed for her outing. Tracy”
We know enough to know that it was a republican, all that we need to figure out is which one did it first. That’s very different from what you claim. I’m sorry you’re so afraid of democrats that you’d lie and misrepresent so readily. I forgive you for your lapse in morals.
January 19th, 2006 at 7:33 pmTracy where is the moral outrage at the federal government for wasting all those tax dollars on an investigation about nothing?
January 19th, 2006 at 7:43 pm“Not one person here (or anywhere else I’ve seen) is stating that the Government shouldn’t have the ability to monitor any communications of any individual should there be a legitimate need to do so.”
That is exactly what is being said by every person who claims that the President is limited to surveillance under FISA. More precisely, they are saying that Congress and the courts have the right to trump the President’s determination, during wartime, as to what constitutes a “legitimate need.”
It just doesn’t work that way. It never has. American Presidents have always had the inherent power to intercept and monitor enemy communication during wartime. Before World War II we cracked Japan’s diplomatic code. During World War II we cracked Japan’s military code, and the British cracked the German military code. This allowed us to intercept encrypted enemy comunications - regardless of who was receiving them or where.
There was no FISA then, but there was Article II. So clearly the President does have the inherent power to intercept and monitor enemy communications without getting prior approval from Congress or the courts. I’for one, would not have it any other way. Neither would most Americans, judging by the polls.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:04 pmTracy,
January 19th, 2006 at 8:18 pmRichard Ames outed Val. So did Who’s Who In America.
Nice piece of slight of hand or brain but ” any communications of any individual” includes american citizens and if you want to know where to look for the place where certain american citizens registered their request for limitations, look to the framers of the constitution, they produced a document called the bill of rights, which places the burden on the government to prove to the courts that the monitering of communications where citizens are concerned. there a warrent is required, but with technological progress the ability for americans to instantly communicate with people outside the country a vehicle was needed to allow the government to moniter the communications between americans and foriegners that might be suspect, well congress came up with FISA which limited still has a madacam of the protections in the constitution.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:41 pmThere was no FISA then, but there was Article II. So clearly the President does have the inherent power to intercept and monitor enemy communications without getting prior approval from Congress or the courts. I’for one, would not have it any other way. Neither would most Americans, judging by the polls.
Comment by Blue State Red — January 19, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
BS R Prior approval is not the issue, retroactive approval is. I’ve asked this before: Can you tell me why Bush refuses to seek warrants within the 72-hours granted him? And saying because he might have been turned down doesn’t cut it. If he has no problem defying the law by not getting warrants, he would have no trouble defying it if the warrants were refused.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:48 pm“That is exactly what is being said by every person who claims that the President is limited to surveillance under FISA. More precisely, they are saying that Congress and the courts have the right to trump the President’s determination, during wartime, as to what constitutes a “legitimate need.†Blue State Red”
Would you point me to that declaration of war? And you do realize that this spying occurred BEFORE 9/11 as well don’t you? I suppose we were in a pre-emptive war then?
“It just doesn’t work that way. It never has. American Presidents have always had the inherent power to intercept and monitor enemy communication during wartime. Before World War II we cracked Japan’s diplomatic code. During World War II we cracked Japan’s military code, and the British cracked the German military code. This allowed us to intercept encrypted enemy comunications - regardless of who was receiving them or where. Blue State Red”
Once again, where’s that pesky declaration of war again?
And you do realize that article 2 applies to foreign agents, and not to american citizens who haven’t been ’suspected’ of being a foreign agent right? And you also realize that the NSA spied on people who fit that category, right? And you also realize that there are restrictions on presidential power that can be placed by congress, and that the constitution permits that to occur, right? And FISA has been upheld, so clearly it’s legal for Congress to restrict what the President can do, even to foreign agents. They called it the ‘cold war’, but it wasn’t a real war either, and the president wasn’t allowed to break the law for that pseudo-cause either.
Please put aside your fear and partisan hate, and act like an american who cares about the civil liberties of your fellow americans. I’m sure that ‘real’ american is inside you dying to get out - I know I’d appreciate reading something that sane and rational from you.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:02 pmBy MICHAEL LIEDTKE,
AP Business Writer
1 hour, 1 minute ago
SAN FRANCISCO
Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration’s demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet’s leading search engine, a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.
Mountain View-based Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:35 pm#101
“Tracy, just curious….where did you get your law degree?”
I don’t have a law degree and never stated that anyone needed one to figure out that no one knows that details on the NSA’s wiretapping operations that Bush ordered.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:10 pm#107
“That’s very different from what you claim.”
I didn’t claim that it was a republican, a democrat, or an independent. You claimed it is a Republican eventhough you don’t know. I stated a fact that we don’t know who outed Plame.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:12 pmWORFEUS, I was encouraged to learn that, but then I read that AOL, MSN and Yahoo! agreed to comply.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:13 pmIt appears that everyone is afraid of this administration.
Yea, looks like were all switching to GOOGLE!
January 19th, 2006 at 11:25 pmWow, I just searched for “bin Laden tape” to view the story and contents. I guess I won’t be posting anywhere anymore. Maybe some of us will be cell mates.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:40 pmUmm #95 you need to whole story, quotes out of context mean nothing.
#97 the Washington times? Oh my god, you stand a better chance of making shit up out of the blue that sounds more believable than the times. Their credibility is zero or less.
#104 she like most of the right wing get their steady diet of kool aid from the talking points. To leave the talking points is to become a liberal heretic. If the facts don’t match the talking points, change the facts, deny the facts or treat the facts as a liberal smear against the finest president ever.
#105 the CIA will neither confirm nor deny her status, they are a spy agency, to confirm or deny could put people in danger, could compromise projects in transit. However the simple act of them approaching justice to investigate should speak volumes. Of course you need to listen to hear what they say.
#107 shortly after it all happened the Wall Street Journal ran an article attributing the leak to two senior white house officials. So we may not know who exactly but we do know where they work (ed). And you are correct that they are republicans, because this administration has only thugs working for them. The WSJ is hardly a liberal rag either.
#109 you are confusing foreign communications with US citizens communications, you are confusing WWII with today. You are missing the point of Article two (I think) of Richard Nixon’s Impeachment. That was the whole reason for FISA in the first place. You are missing the point that this is the first administration to verbally state their incompetence when it come to FISA…the paperwork was too onerous? Really? Not for the other 19,000 warrants granted. To difficult to get? Really a statistical 100% approval rate. Ticking time bomb…72 hours. This is one of the most law enforcement friendly laws in existence and the administration still does not feel the need to follow it. But once again I ask you to explain specifically how the constitution allows the president to have these mythical constitution trumping powers? Nixon was impeached because these powers do no exist.
#116 we do know it was a republican. The leak came from the White House, how many dems work there? Wait don’t answer you lost all credibility when you posted a link to the Washington times.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:42 pm“I didn’t claim that it was a republican, a democrat, or an independent. You claimed it is a Republican eventhough you don’t know. I stated a fact that we don’t know who outed Plame. Tracy”
Actually we know it was Novak, we’re just not sure if he was the first person who received the information, or the first reported that the republicans divulged the information to. The NOVAKULA beast is clearly the first release into the public space by a press person, but as the indictment and information from the Fitzgerald investigation shows, the republicans did divulge and coverup the release of this information. The specific person who released it hopefully will also go to jail (Rove?), but in reality the entire administration is responsible.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:40 amWho needs a Congressional Research Service [CRS] report to see the evil that is in the current administration? What do we do when we see evil? Ignore it and hope it goes away? YES. That’s the real problem. Nitwits, too wealthy to care about the others. American antipathy has never eached such a high as in 2000, where the election of the most heavily armed, wealthiest nation in the world was RIGGED by some political institute, ow yeah, the supreme court. Everyone who had some sense in them was protesting, screaming to the world this was evil. Nothing happened, at leat it seems that way, but I remain optimistic.
January 20th, 2006 at 7:10 amRight Punch, your point about whether this was done before 911 is a real bobmshell. Got any links for more insight. That would be totally devastating if it has any truth to it.WNSM.
January 20th, 2006 at 7:38 amChrist, I just washed my keyboard and can’t do a thing with it. Sorry. BOMBSHELL. More coffee!
January 20th, 2006 at 7:39 amSo clearly the President does have the inherent power to intercept and monitor enemy communications without getting prior approval from Congress or the courts.
Comment by Blue State Red #109
Fool’s State inb’Red,
That’s “the country’s enemies”, not Bushiva’s political enemies…
FISA was also set up to curb the executive branch’s unchecked power (you so vociferously defend) and outline presidential behavior in order to “protect” American citizens’ civil rights…
Your (and all your inbred Bushite extremist cohorts’) position on this NSA warrantless wiretapping scandal is proof positive that you HATE the Constitution, HATE our Democratic republic, HATE our freedom…
You are MORE dangerous than bin Laden and the mujahedin…
January 20th, 2006 at 9:27 amConsidering you or I DO NOT know who outed Plame my side cannot be blamed for her outing.
Comment by Tracy #105
T’raitor,
You and everyone on your “side” should be rounded up and rooted out…or is that rubbed?
January 20th, 2006 at 9:30 amJustice Department to declare warrantless wiretaps legal
John Byrne
Published: January 19, 2006
In a detailed 42-page legal memorandum set for release this evening the Bush Justice Department will defend the President’s warrantless wiretap program as legal. A copy of the document was leaked to RAW STORY.
http://rawstory.com/ news/ 2005/ Justice_Department_to_declare_warrantless_wiretaps_0119.html
January 20th, 2006 at 9:47 am#120
“shortly after it all happened the Wall Street Journal ran an article attributing the leak to two senior white house officials.”
So since the WSJ is NOT a liberal rag I guess we can all accept their reporting as fact. Tough choice here…believe the the leak source is Republican as they CLAIM or don’t believe it and wait for the truth to come out. I will wait.
“The WSJ is hardly a liberal rag either.”
But the Washington Times is along with the NY Times and the LA Times?
“…you are confusing foreign communications with US citizens communications”
The NSA wiretapping in question involved communications between someone in the U.S. and someone in another country.
“The leak came from the White House, how many dems work there?”
We don’t know that for sure. All the evidence points to the White House however you need to state facts and NOT speculation.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:26 pm#121
“…we’re just not sure if he was the first person who received the information”
That what we are talking about not the fact the Novak received the leak and reported it.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:29 pm#122
“American antipathy has never eached such a high as in 2000, where the election of the most heavily armed, wealthiest nation in the world was RIGGED by some political institute, ow yeah, the supreme court.”
If the Democrats were not involved in breaking Florida election laws we would have never had a problem and you liberal whinners know it. If Gore would have actually won his home states Gore would have won. If Clinton wouldn’t have been so pathetic at the end of his second t