Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Choppin Broccoli Dec 15 2005, 10:31 PM

Report: Bush Permitted NSA to Spy in U.S.


NEW YORK - President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States — without getting search warrants — following the Sept. 11 attacks, the New York Times reports.

The presidential order, which Bush signed in 2002, has allowed the agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States, according to a story posted Thursday on the Times' Web site.

Before the new program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders to do so. Under the post-Sept. 11 program, the NSA has eavesdropped, without warrants, on as many 500 people inside the United States at any given time. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.

The Times said reporters interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.

Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting al-Qaida by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.

But some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group's initial reaction to the disclosure was "shock that the administration has gone so far in violating American civil liberties to the extent where it seems to be a violation of federal law."

Asked about the administration's contention that the eavesdropping has disrupted terrorist attacks, Fredrickson said the ACLU couldn't comment until it seems some evidence. "They've veiled these powers in secrecy so there's no way for Congress or any independent organizations to exercise any oversight."

The Bush administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.

Aides to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, declined to comment Thursday night.

The Times said it delayed publication of the report for a year because the White House said it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. The Times said it omitted information from the story that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists.

Posted by: Choppin Broccoli Dec 15 2005, 10:35 PM

Violation of federal law? Sounds like a "high crime or misdemeanor" to me.

IM-PEACH!
IM-PEACH!
IM-PEACH!

Posted by: Desron Dec 15 2005, 10:36 PM

I don't know if it is or not but I doubt Congress will pursue the matter.

Posted by: JasonATexan Dec 15 2005, 10:55 PM

The boy King can get away with murder this means nothing.

Posted by: Choppin Broccoli Dec 15 2005, 11:31 PM

True to form, this headline has disappeared from Yahoo's front page within about 30 minutes of its being posted. You have to make a concerted effort to find this story now, and if you didn't know it was there, you'd never find it at all (which I suppose is exactly the intention). I noticed this phenomenon (of Yahoo removing articles critical of Bush from their front-page headlines area within minutes of being posted) about a year ago, but was told I was crazy by a Bush Apologist who shall remain nameless. Meanwhile, the headline about Bush crowing over the successful Iraqi elections has remained right at the top of the headlines for well over an hour.

Posted by: JasonATexan Dec 15 2005, 11:37 PM

This was in the link recommended at the dailykos on this story. Even if Yahoo tries to hide it dailykos has already recommended which is good because it will spread. Here is the New York Times version with a lot more too it.

http://nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-program.html?ei=5094&en=0a4739ca3ab6d63b&hp=&ex=1134709200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say
By JAMES RISEN
and ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 ­- Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval represents a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."

Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.

According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said.

The Bush administration views the operation as necessary so that the agency can move quickly to monitor communications that may disclose threats to this country, the officials said. Defenders of the program say it has been a critical tool in helping disrupt terrorist plots and prevent attacks inside the United States.

Administration officials are confident that existing safeguards are sufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, the officials say. In some cases, they said, the Justice Department eventually seeks warrants if it wants to expand the eavesdropping to include communications confined within the United States. The officials said the administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues.

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it said the N.S.A. eavesdropped without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands over the past three years, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials.

Several officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program, the officials said. But they said most people targeted for N.S.A. monitoring have never been charged with a crime, including an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden.

Dealing With a New Threat

The eavesdropping program grew out of concerns after the Sept. 11 attacks that the nation's intelligence agencies were not poised to deal effectively with the new threat of Al Qaeda and that they were handcuffed by legal and bureaucratic restrictions better suited to peacetime than war, according to officials. In response, President Bush significantly eased limits on American intelligence and law enforcement agencies and the military.

But some of the administration's antiterrorism initiatives have provoked an outcry from members of Congress, watchdog groups, immigrants and others who argue that the measures erode protections for civil liberties and intrude on Americans' privacy. Opponents have challenged provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the focus of contentious debate on Capitol Hill this week, that expand domestic surveillance by giving the Federal Bureau of Investigation more power to collect information like library lending lists or Internet use. Military and F.B.I. officials have drawn criticism for monitoring what were largely peaceful antiwar protests. The Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security were forced to retreat on plans to use public and private databases to hunt for possible terrorists. And last year, the Supreme Court rejected the administration's claim that those labeled "enemy combatants" were not entitled to judicial review of their open-ended detention.

Mr. Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States ­ including American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners ­ is based on classified legal opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A. operation.

The National Security Agency, which is based at Fort Meade, Md., is the nation's largest and most secretive intelligence agency, so intent on remaining out of public view that it has long been nicknamed "No Such Agency.'' It breaks codes and maintains listening posts around the world to eavesdrop on foreign governments, diplomats and trade negotiators as well as drug lords and terrorists. But the agency ordinarily operates under tight restrictions on any spying on Americans, even if they are overseas, or disseminating information about them.

What the agency calls a "special collection program" began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, as it looked for new tools to attack terrorism. The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, the officials said.

In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said.

Under the agency's longstanding rules, the N.S.A. can target for interception phone calls or e-mail messages on foreign soil, even if the recipients of those communications are in the United States. Usually, though, the government can only target phones and e-mail messages in this country by first obtaining a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which holds its closed sessions at the Justice Department.

Traditionally, the F.B.I., not the N.S.A., seeks such warrants and conducts most domestic eavesdropping. Until the new program began, the N.S.A. typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions in Washington, New York and other cities, and obtained court orders to do so.

Since 2002, the agency has been conducting some warrantless eavesdropping on people in the United States who are linked, even if indirectly, to suspected terrorists through the chain of phone numbers and e-mail addresses, according to several officials who know of the operation. Under the special program, the agency monitors their international communications, the officials said. The agency, for example, can target phone calls from someone in New York to someone in Afghanistan.

Warrants are still required for eavesdropping on entirely domestic-to-domestic communications, those officials say, meaning that calls from that New Yorker to someone in California could not be monitored without first going to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court.

A White House Briefing

After the special program started, Congressional leaders from both political parties were brought to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in the White House. The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency's director and is now the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said.

It is not clear how much the members of Congress were told about the presidential order and the eavesdropping program. Some of them declined to comment about the matter, while others did not return phone calls.

Later briefings were held for members of Congress as they assumed leadership roles on the intelligence committees, officials familiar with the program said. After a 2003 briefing, Senator Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who became vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee that year, wrote a letter to Mr. Cheney expressing concerns about the program, officials knowledgeable about the letter said. It could not be determined if he received a reply. Mr. Rockefeller declined to comment. Aside from the Congressional leaders, only a small group of people, including several cabinet members and officials at the N.S.A., the C.I.A. and the Justice Department, know of the program.

Some officials familiar with it say they consider warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States to be unlawful and possibly unconstitutional, amounting to an improper search. One government official involved in the operation said he privately complained to a Congressional official about his doubts about the legality of the program. But nothing came of his inquiry. "People just looked the other way because they didn't want to know what was going on," he said.

A senior government official recalled that he was taken aback when he first learned of the operation. "My first reaction was, ‘We're doing what?' " he said. While he said he eventually felt that adequate safeguards were put in place, he added that questions about the program's legitimacy were understandable.

Some of those who object to the operation argue that is unnecessary. By getting warrants through the foreign intelligence court, the N.S.A. and F.B.I. could eavesdrop on people inside the United States who might be tied to terrorist groups without skirting longstanding rules, they say.

The standard of proof required to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is generally considered lower than that required for a criminal warrant ­ intelligence officials only have to show probable cause that someone may be "an agent of a foreign power," which includes international terrorist groups ­ and the secret court has turned down only a small number of requests over the years. In 2004, according to the Justice Department, 1,754 warrants were approved. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court can grant emergency approval for wiretaps within hours, officials say.

Administration officials counter that they sometimes need to move more urgently, the officials said. Those involved in the program also said that the N.S.A.'s eavesdroppers might need to start monitoring large batches of numbers all at once, and that it would be impractical to seek permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court first, according to the officials.

Culture of Caution and Rules

The N.S.A. domestic spying operation has stirred such controversy among some national security officials in part because of the agency's cautious culture and longstanding rules.

Widespread abuses ­ including eavesdropping on Vietnam War protesters and civil rights activists ­ by American intelligence agencies became public in the 1970's and led to passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which imposed strict limits on intelligence gathering on American soil. Among other things, the law required search warrants, approved by the secret F.I.S.A. court, for wiretaps in national security cases. The agency, deeply scarred by the scandals, adopted additional rules that all but ended domestic spying on its part.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, though, the United States intelligence community was criticized for being too risk-averse. The National Security Agency was even cited by the independent 9/11 Commission for adhering to self-imposed rules that were stricter than those set by federal law.

Several senior government officials say that when the special operation first began, there were few controls on it and little formal oversight outside the N.S.A. The agency can choose its eavesdropping targets and does not have to seek approval from Justice Department or other Bush administration officials. Some agency officials wanted nothing to do with the program, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation, a former senior Bush administration official said. Before the 2004 election, the official said, some N.S.A. personnel worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected president.

In mid-2004, concerns about the program expressed by national security officials, government lawyers and a judge prompted the Bush administration to suspend elements of the program and revamp it.

For the first time, the Justice Department audited the N.S.A. program, several officials said. And to provide more guidance, the Justice Department and the agency expanded and refined a checklist to follow in deciding whether probable cause existed to start monitoring someone's communications, several officials said.

A complaint from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the federal judge who oversees the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, helped spur the suspension, officials said. The judge questioned whether information obtained under the N.S.A. program was being improperly used as the basis for F.I.S.A. wiretap warrant requests from the Justice Department, according to senior government officials. While not knowing all the details of the exchange, several government lawyers said there appeared to be concerns that the Justice Department, by trying to shield the existence of the N.S.A. program, was in danger of misleading the court about the origins of the information cited to justify the warrants.

One official familiar with the episode said the judge insisted to Justice Department lawyers at one point that any material gathered under the special N.S.A. program not be used in seeking wiretap warrants from her court. Judge Kollar-Kotelly did not return calls for comment.

A related issue arose in a case in which the F.B.I. was monitoring the communications of a terrorist suspect under a F.I.S.A.-approved warrant, even though the National Security Agency was already conducting warrantless eavesdropping. According to officials, F.B.I. surveillance of Mr. Faris, the Brooklyn Bridge plotter, was dropped for a short time because of technical problems. At the time, senior Justice Department officials worried what would happen if the N.S.A. picked up information that needed to be presented in court. The government would then either have to disclose the N.S.A. program or mislead a criminal court about how it had gotten the information.

The Civil Liberties Question

Several national security officials say the powers granted the N.S.A. by President Bush go far beyond the expanded counterterrorism powers granted by Congress under the USA Patriot Act, which is up for renewal. The House on Wednesday approved a plan to reauthorize crucial parts of the law. But final passage has been delayed under the threat of a Senate filibuster because of concerns from both parties over possible intrusions on Americans' civil liberties and privacy.

Under the act, law enforcement and intelligence officials are still required to seek a F.I.S.A. warrant every time they want to eavesdrop within the United States. A recent agreement reached by Republican leaders and the Bush administration would modify the standard for F.B.I. wiretap warrants, requiring, for instance, a description of a specific target. Critics say the bar would remain too low to prevent abuses.

Bush administration officials argue that the civil liberties concerns are unfounded, and they say pointedly that the Patriot Act has not freed the N.S.A. to target Americans. "Nothing could be further from the truth," wrote John Yoo, a former official in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, and his co-author in a Wall Street Journal opinion article in December 2003. Mr. Yoo worked on a classified legal opinion on the N.S.A.'s domestic eavesdropping program.

At an April hearing on the Patriot Act renewal, Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, asked Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the F.B.I., "Can the National Security Agency, the great electronic snooper, spy on the American people?"

"Generally," Mr. Mueller said, "I would say generally, they are not allowed to spy or to gather information on American citizens." President Bush did not ask Congress to include provisions for the N.S.A. domestic surveillance program as part of the Patriot Act and has not sought any other laws to authorize the operation. Bush administration lawyers argued that such new laws were unnecessary, because they believed that the Congressional resolution on the campaign against terrorism provided ample authorization, officials said.

Seeking Congressional approval was also viewed as politically risky because the proposal would be certain to face intense opposition on civil liberties grounds. The administration also feared that by publicly disclosing the existence of the operation, its usefulness in tracking terrorists would end, officials said.

The legal opinions that support the N.S.A. operation remain classified, but they appear to have followed private discussions among senior administration lawyers and other officials about the need to pursue aggressive strategies that once may have been seen as crossing a legal line, according to senior officials who participated in the discussions.

For example, just days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon, Mr. Yoo, the Justice Department lawyer, wrote an internal memorandum that argued that the government might use "electronic surveillance techniques and equipment that are more powerful and sophisticated than those available to law enforcement agencies in order to intercept telephonic communications and observe the movement of persons but without obtaining warrants for such uses."

Mr. Yoo noted that while such actions could raise constitutional issues, in the face of devastating terrorist attacks "the government may be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties."

The next year, Justice Department lawyers disclosed their thinking on the issue of warrantless wiretaps in national security cases in a little-noticed brief in an unrelated court case. In that 2002 brief, the government said that "the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority."

Administration officials were also encouraged by a November 2002 appeals court decision in an unrelated matter. The decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which sided with the administration in dismantling a bureaucratic "wall" limiting cooperation between prosecutors and intelligence officers, noted "the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."

But the same court suggested that national security interests should not be grounds "to jettison the Fourth Amendment requirements" protecting the rights of Americans against undue searches. The dividing line, the court acknowledged, "is a very difficult one to administer."

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 15 2005, 11:49 PM

This adminstration has violated so many laws it is hard to even keep track of it anymore. And we impeached a president for having an affair.

I'm certainly going to be glued to my TV tomorrow watching the Senate. They are supposed to be debating the Patriot Act. This new NSA spying information most certainly will come up quite often in that debate.

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 16 2005, 12:05 AM

December 15, 2005
House Renews Antiterror Law, but Opposition Builds in Senate
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 - The House voted Wednesday to renew the broad antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act, but opposition was growing in the Senate, where members of a bipartisan coalition predicted they would block the measure by filibuster when it comes up for consideration on Friday.

Faced with the filibuster threat, the White House sent Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to the Republicans' weekly policy luncheon to assuage concerns that the law does not strike the correct balance between safeguarding civil liberties and protecting national security.

Three Republican senators were already on record as opposing the reauthorization in its current form, and by the time Mr. Gonzales arrived in the Capitol, a fourth - Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska - had joined them, saying he had "many concerns" about the bill.

Mr. Hagel signed a letter Wednesday in which opponents say they are concerned about "government fishing expeditions targeting innocent Americans" and demand further restrictions on provisions allowing government searches and access to private and personal information including medical and library records.

The White House has made renewing the antiterrorism law a priority, but time is running short.

The current law, which greatly expanded the government's investigative and surveillance powers in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, is set to expire, and Congress is hoping to adjourn for the year this weekend at the latest.

"The Patriot Act is scheduled to expire at the end of the month, but the terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule," President Bush said Wednesday, in a statement urging the Senate to follow the House's lead. "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment."

The House passed the bill by a vote of 251 to 174. Forty-four Democrats voted for the bill, and 18 Republicans voted against it. Those Republicans included some of the most conservative members of the House - a sign, critics said, that members of both parties are uneasy about the bill. The critics are calling for a three-month extension of the current law to give both sides time to make changes.

"I think it sends a message that there are people across the political spectrum that think this bill doesn't do what it should, that it doesn't do enough to protect civil liberties," said Senator John E. Sununu, Republican of New Hampshire, referring to the House vote.

Mr. Sununu said he did not believe that the Republican leadership could muster the 60 votes required to break a filibuster. The senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, agreed.

"I don't think they have the votes," Mr. Leahy said in an interview on Wednesday, adding: "The recommendation I made to both Republicans and Democrats is just fix the bill. We can do that this week if the White House would cooperate."

But Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, rejected a short-term extension and called for his colleagues to approve the reauthorization, a conference report that was the product of weeks of House-Senate negotiations.

"Today's overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House for the Patriot Act - with the support of 44 Democrats, including members of the House Democratic leadership - shows that we can all unite to make America safer from terrorism while safeguarding our civil rights and civil liberties," Mr. Frist said. "Senate Democrats should follow the lead of their House counterparts."

In setting the vote for Friday, Mr. Frist may be betting that although critics dislike the extension, they dislike the idea of letting the law expire even more.

The vote is also laden with political implications for Democrats, who suffered at the polls in 2002 after defeating legislation to create a Department of Homeland Security. Republican backers of the bill are taking pains to remind Democrats of that, as did Ken Mehlman, the head of the Republican National Committee.

"Voters will react the same way in 2006 if Democrats block the reauthorization of the Patriot Act to appease the hard left," Mr. Mehlman said Wednesday in a statement.

Ever since its adoption in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Patriot Act has drawn vigorous complaints from advocates for civil liberties, who contend that provisions like those allowing the government to obtain a person's library and medical records infringe on basic constitutional rights.

The measure passed by the House makes permanent 14 of 16 provisions that were set to expire, while putting in place additional judicial oversight and safeguards against abuse. The House Republican leadership praised the vote, saying the bill is essential to national security.

"We need to stay tough on terrorism," Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois said in a statement. "This bill ensures that our law enforcement keep the tools they already have in place to root out and prosecute terrorists."

But critics, including the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, argue that the safeguards do not go nearly far enough. "The criticism we had about this legislation previously was because of 9/11, we rushed to judgment on a number of provisions in that bill," Mr. Reid told reporters Wednesday. "We certainly shouldn't do that this time."

Democratic aides say a majority of their caucus supports a filibuster. In addition to Mr. Hagel and Mr. Sununu, two other Republicans, Senators Larry Craig of Idaho and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have said they will vote to block the measure. The four signed on to a letter circulated to senators Wednesday by Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin.

"We still have the opportunity to pass a good reauthorization bill this year," the letter says. "But to do that, we must stop this conference report."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15patriot.html?pagewanted=print

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 16 2005, 02:48 AM

Bush Authorized Domestic Spying
Post-9/11 Order Bypassed Special Court

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005; A01



President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.

The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, the New York Times disclosed last night.

The aim of the program was to rapidly monitor the phone calls and other communications of people in the United States believed to have contact with suspected associates of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups overseas, according to two former senior administration officials. Authorities, including a former NSA director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, were worried that vital information could be lost in the time it took to secure a warrant from a special surveillance court, sources said.

But the program's ramifications also prompted concerns from some quarters, including Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, and the presiding judge of the surveillance court, which oversees lawful domestic spying, according to the Times.

The Times said it held off on publishing its story about the NSA program for a year after administration officials said its disclosure would harm national security.

The White House made no comment last night. A senior official reached by telephone said the issue was too sensitive to talk about. None of several press officers responded to telephone or e-mail messages.

Congressional sources familiar with limited aspects of the program would not discuss any classified details but made it clear there were serious questions about the legality of the NSA actions. The sources, who demanded anonymity, said there were conditions under which it would be possible to gather and retain information on Americans if the surveillance were part of an investigation into foreign intelligence.

But those cases are supposed to be minimized. The sources said the actual work of the NSA is so closely held that it is difficult to determine whether it is acting within the law.

The revelations come amid a fierce congressional debate over reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Patriot Act granted the FBI new powers to conduct secret searches and surveillance in the United States.

Most of the powers covered under that law are overseen by a secret court that meets at Justice Department headquarters and must approve applications for wiretaps, searches and other operations. The NSA's operation is outside that court's purview, and according to the Times report, the Justice Department may have sought to limit how much that court was made aware of NSA activities.

Public disclosure of the NSA program also comes at a time of mounting concerns about civil liberties over the domestic intelligence operations of the U.S. military, which have also expanded dramatically after the Sept. 11 attacks.

For more than four years, the NSA tasked other military intelligence agencies to assist its broad-based surveillance effort directed at people inside the country suspected of having terrorist connections, even before Bush signed the 2002 order that authorized the NSA program, according to an informed U.S. official.

The effort, which began within days after the attacks, has consisted partly of monitoring domestic telephone conversations, e-mail and even fax communications of individuals identified by the NSA as having some connection to al Qaeda events or figures, or to potential terrorism-related activities in the United States, the official said.

It has also involved teams of Defense Intelligence Agency personnel stationed in major U.S. cities conducting the type of surveillance typically performed by the FBI: monitoring the movements and activities -- through high-tech equipment -- of individuals and vehicles, the official said.

The involvement of military personnel in such tasks was provoked by grave anxiety among senior intelligence officials after the 2001 suicide attacks that additional terrorist cells were present within U.S. borders and could only be discovered with the military's help, said the official, who had direct knowledge of the events.

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies at George Washington University, said the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity.

The law governing clandestine surveillance in the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, prohibits conducting electronic surveillance not authorized by statute. A government agent can try to avoid prosecution if he can show he was "engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction," according to the law.

"This is as shocking a revelation as we have ever seen from the Bush administration," said Martin, who has been sharply critical of the administration's surveillance and detention policies. "It is, I believe, the first time a president has authorized government agencies to violate a specific criminal prohibition and eavesdrop on Americans."

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she is "dismayed" by the report.

"It's clear that the administration has been very willing to sacrifice civil liberties in its effort to exercise its authority on terrorism, to the extent that it authorizes criminal activity," Fredrickson said.

The NSA activities were justified by a classified Justice Department legal opinion authored by John C. Yoo, a former deputy in the Office of Legal Counsel who argued that congressional approval of the war on al Qaeda gave broad authority to the president, according to the Times.

That legal argument was similar to another 2002 memo authored primarily by Yoo, which outlined an extremely narrow definition of torture. That opinion, which was signed by another Justice official, was formally disavowed after it was disclosed by the Washington Post.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos would not comment on the report last night.

Staff writers Dafna Linzer and Peter Baker contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021_pf.html

Posted by: Snuffysmith Dec 16 2005, 08:31 AM

--------------------
Report: Bush Permitted NSA to Spy in U.S.
--------------------


December 16 2005, 3:23 AM PST

NEW YORK -- The National Security Agency has eavesdropped, without warrants, on as many 500 people inside the United States at any given time since 2002, The New York Times reported Friday.

The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top13dec16,0,1366219.story

Visit latimes.com at http://www.latimes.com

Posted by: shah269 Dec 16 2005, 09:14 AM

Right you don't have no stinking rights!
Our glorious Boy King, Mr Bubbles controls all of us!
He tells us that to do and when to do it!
What country to invade and what lame ass excuse justifying it!
Who to torture and what lame ass way to ignore it!
Rights! Justice! ha! Don’t bore me with such quaint little words!
We are in a war against the biggest boogy man ever! Alqueda and those good of nothing tree hugging liberal commy terrorists! And in such a war we don't have room for such old thinking!



Ladies and Gents the fallowing was an expert of what was going threw Rummy little head when these questions asked of him.


6 or so years agoe, i use to believe that there was an underlying sence of justice in our country. that we as well as our governemnt even though not perfect did our best to behave ourselve in a civilized manner.
Boy have i been let down!

Now I bet in the next few day Red Joe will come out on Faux news and state that the Mr. Bubbles did nothing wrong and that he should be labled a hero!

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 16 2005, 12:12 PM

Wow, I thought we would have tons of comments about this story.

Posted by: NiteOwl Dec 16 2005, 12:16 PM

I heard Bush flushed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Must be true because nobody seems to remember what they stood for.

Posted by: winston smith Dec 16 2005, 12:22 PM

I hope you don't object to the edit...

Posted by: Desron Dec 16 2005, 12:25 PM

I would still doubt Congress would actively pursue impeachment even if the Democrats gained control of the House.

Posted by: MrJim Dec 16 2005, 12:32 PM

Democratic Congressional response to this:

"Uh, sir, I'm not sure if this was such a good thing to do. Can we all agree not to do this sort of thing again? Okay. Group hug? Ahhh... now everybody feels better."

Democratic Senatorial Response:

" ".

Posted by: shah269 Dec 16 2005, 01:38 PM

Check this out!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_nsa;_ylt=ApuZCGhSS2DEdSy4_16SYy4DW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Bush Won't Discuss Report of NSA Spying

WASHINGTON - President Bush refused to say whether the National Security Agency eavesdropped without warrants on people inside the United States but leaders of Congress condemned the practice on Friday and promised to look into what the administration has done.

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said there would be hearings early next year and that they would have "a very, very high priority." He wasn't alone in reacting harshly to the report. Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said the story, first reported in Friday's New York Times, was troubling.
................................................................................
.....................................


"Ahhh Dicky did I mess up again! ah did i did i"

"Shut up Mr. Bubbles and make the monkey noise!"

Posted by: shah269 Dec 16 2005, 01:42 PM

my favorite part of the artilcle!

Bush played down the importance of the eavesdropping story. "It's not the main story of the day," Bush told Lehrer. "The main story of the day is the Iraqi elections" for parliament which took place on Thursday.

quick dumb ass save your self, use the Iraqi election 9-11 terrorist clause. come on it worked for OJ it can work for your Monkey ass!

Posted by: veritas Dec 16 2005, 01:43 PM

That's NOT what I'm hearing.

Senator Feinstein is OUTRAGED!
Senator Byrd is OUTRAGED!

LISTEN TO C-SPAN 2 NOW
LIVE SENATE PROCEEDINGS

http://c-span.org/watch/cspan2_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2

Posted by: TheRestofUs Dec 16 2005, 01:46 PM

Dianne Feintsein on the Floor of the Senate, claimed that this is a violation of Federal Law!

That means this is impeachable!

Posted by: TheRestofUs Dec 16 2005, 01:48 PM

Don't worry though, someone here will still trash the Democrats, even though it is Bush who broke the LAW!

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 16 2005, 01:56 PM

This IS an impeachable offense.

Posted by: rox63 Dec 16 2005, 02:01 PM

Is there a link to Bolton, and to the documents that BushCo wouldn't release for his confirmation hearings?

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/16/142620/20

Posted by: picadilly Dec 16 2005, 02:08 PM

... Hey listen up to your local DJ
You better hear what he's got to say
There's not a problem that I can't fix
Cause I can do it in the mix
And if a man gives you trouble
Get it movin on the double
If you don't it'll trouble your brain
Cause away goes trouble
Down the drain
I said away goes trouble
Down the drain ...

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 16 2005, 02:10 PM

I wouldn't be a bit surprised. I thought at the time that Bolton had gotten info on Joe Wilson through these reports. Here is something that I posted on my CGCS blog in April of this year.

Posted by: DWB04 Dec 16 2005, 03:04 PM

Hearings Eyed In Wake Of Spy Flap


WASHINGTON, Dec. 16, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS/AP) A key Republican committee chairman put the Bush administration on notice Friday that his panel would hold hearings into a report that the National Security Agency eavesdropped without warrants on people inside the United States.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he would make oversight hearings by his panel next year "a very, very high priority."

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Other key bipartisan members of Congress also called on the administration to explain and said a congressional investigation may be necessary.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., appeared annoyed that the first he had heard of such a program was through a New York Times story published Friday. He said the report was troubling.

Neither Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice nor White House press secretary Scott McClellan, asked about the story earlier Friday, would confirm or deny that the super-secret NSA had spied on as many as 500 people at any given time since 2002.

That year, following the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States, the Times reported.

Before the program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.

"We need to look into that," McCain told reporters at the White House after a meeting on Iraq with President Bush. "Theoretically, I obviously wouldn't like it. But I don't know the extent of it and I don't know enough about it to really make an informed comment. Ask me again in about a week."

McCain said it's not clear whether a congressional probe is warranted. He said the topic had not come up in the meeting with Bush.

"We should be informed as to exactly what is going on and then find out whether an investigation is called for," he said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., also said he needed more information.

"Of course I was concerned about the story," said Lieberman, who also attended the White House Iraq meeting. "I'm going to go back to the office and see if I can find out more about it."

Other Democrats were more harsh.

"This is Big Brother run amok," declared Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "We cannot protect our borders if we cannot protect our ideals." Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., called it a "shocking revelation" that he said "ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American."

Administration officials reacted to the report by asserting that the president has respected the Constitution while striving to protect the American people.

Rice said Bush has "acted lawfully in every step that he has taken." And CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller reported McClellan said Bush "is going to remain fully committed to upholding our Constitution and protect the civil liberties of the American people. And he has done both."

The report surfaced in an untimely fashion as the administration and its GOP allies on Capitol Hill were fighting to save provisions of the expiring USA Patriot Act that they believe are key tools in the fight against terrorism.

The Times said reporters interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.

Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting al Qaeda by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.

Faris' lawyer, David B. Smith, said on Friday the news puzzled him because none of the evidence against Faris appeared to have come from surveillance, other than officials eavesdropping on his cell phone calls while he was in FBI custody.

Some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.

Asked about this on NBC's "Today" show, Rice said, "I'm not going to comment on intelligence matters."

"We're finding out that the president has possibly authorized the breaking of the law so that our government can eavesdrop on American citizens?" Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, told CBS Radio News. "We're still trying to process it, but it's truly amazing."

"This is sort of a centerpiece of our Constitution that we have the Fourth Amendment to prevent unreasonable search and seizures. The government is supposed to go through a process when it wants to use surveillance, particularly on an American citizen," Fredrickson added.

Earlier this week, the Pentagon said it was reviewing its use of a classified database of information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States after a report by NBC News said the database listed activities of anti-war groups that were not a security threat to Pentagon property or personnel.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said that while it appears that some information may have been left in the database longer than it should have been, it was not clear yet whether mistakes were made. A written statement issued by the department implied, but did not explicitly acknowledge, that some information had been handled improperly.

The administration had briefed congressional leaders about the NSA program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.

An aide to West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CBS News the senator will not comment on the program today. Aides to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte declined to comment Thursday night.

The Times said it delayed publication of the report for a year because the White House said it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. The Times said it omitted information from the story that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/16/politics/main1132556.shtml

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 16 2005, 03:08 PM

This is from Salon magazine.

How long did the Times hold its news?

As we noted earlier today, the New York Times is out with a story in which it says the Bush administration has been monitoring -- without warrants -- telephone calls and e-mail messages originated in the United States. What we didn't mention, and should have, is this snippet from the piece: "The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting."

Our question: When did the White House make its request, and what does "a year" mean? The Times is awfully light on details here, leaving itself open for speculation from the left as to whether the Times sat on the story through last year's presidential election. At the same time, the right is free to speculate about the Times' decision to run the story now, just as the Senate was about to take up and -- as it turns out -- vote down the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.

We put the question of timing to Times reporters Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, whose names appear at the top of the story. Lichtblau's response: "I'm afraid we're referring all calls to Catherine Mathis in corporate PR." So we put the question to Mathis' office, which faxed us a long statement from Times editor Bill Keller in response. It doesn't answer the question of timing -- Mathis said she'd look into that and get back to us -- but here's what it does say about the delay in publishing more generally:

"We start with the premise that a newspaper's job is to publish information that is a matter of public interest. Clearly a secret policy reversal that gives an American intelligence agency discretion to monitor communications within the country is a matter of public interest. From the outset, the question was not why we would publish it, but why we would not.

"A year ago, when this information first became known to Times reporters, the administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security. Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions. As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time.

"We also continued reporting, and in the ensuing months two things happened that changed our thinking.

"First, we developed a fuller picture of the concerns and misgivings that had been expressed during the life of the program. It is not our place to pass judgment on the legal or civil liberties questions involved in such a program, but it became clear those questions loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood.

"Second, in the course of subsequent reporting we satisfied ourselves that we could write about this program -- withholding a number of technical details -- in a way that would not expose any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record. The fact that the government eavesdrops on those suspected of terrorist connections is well-known. The fact that the NSA can legally monitor communications within the United States with a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is also public information. What is new is that the N.S.A. has for the past three years had the authority to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without a warrant. It is that expansion of authority -- not the need for a robust anti-terror intelligence operation -- that prompted debate within the government, and that is the subject of the article."

We'll post more when we hear more from the Times.

-- Tim Grieve

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

Posted by: picadilly Dec 16 2005, 03:15 PM

‘‘They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Posted by: rox63 Dec 16 2005, 03:17 PM

Another story that the media sat on, which could have changed the outcome of the 2004 election.

Posted by: DWB04 Dec 16 2005, 03:19 PM

NRNS

Larry Johnson thinks so!!! from post on TPM...at least as it relates to Bolton




Spying on Americans and John Bolton

By Larry Johnson

The revelation that the National Security Agency was allowed to conduct non-FISA intercepts of American citizens should bring last summer's hearing on John Bolton's nomination to the United Nations back into focus. As Legal times noted in September of this year, "During the confirmation hearings of John Bolton as the U.S. representative to the United Nations, it came to light that the NSA had freely revealed intercepted conversations of U.S. citizens to Bolton while he served at the State Department. . . . More generally, Newsweek reports that from January 2004 to May 2005, the NSA supplied intercepts and names of 10,000 U.S. citizens to policy-makers at many departments, other U.S. intelligence services, and law enforcement agencies."
We still don't know who he was looking at and what information was contained in those intercepts. More importantly, were they legally obtained? In light of the latest revelation, we have another possible explanation why the Bush Administration fought so strenuously to keep those intercepts secret and out of the hearing. Snooping without judicial review is wrong and must be punished.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/16/142620/20

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 16 2005, 03:22 PM

Here are excerpts from today's WH Press Briefing. The questions started off with civil liberties issues and ended with civil liberties issues.

Q Scott, Senator Specter says that the Judiciary Committee is going to make it a high priority to look into this report that the President authorized the NSA to eavesdrop without warrant on people in the United States. And he says that there is no doubt that this is inappropriate. How do you respond to his characterization of what happened?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we have a responsibility to work with Congress to do all we can, within the law, to protect the American people. And that means preventing attacks and saving lives. And the President made a commitment that he would do everything within his power and within the law to prevent attacks and save lives. He renewed that commitment more than ever after September 11th. He also made a commitment that we would remain firmly committed to protecting the civil liberties of Americans and upholding our Constitution. He is doing both.

We are continuing to do all we can to save lives. That is the President's number one priority. We are sitting here talking about waging the war on terrorism. And the President is going to continue to act to protect the American people, but he'll do so within our laws. And in terms of these issues, there is congressional oversight of intelligence activities, and we will continue to work with members of Congress on those matters.

Q Will the Judiciary Committee be part of that oversight, or is that just the Intelligence Committees?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'd just say we would continue to work with members of Congress on these matters. This is about protecting the American people.

Q Will you cooperate with Senator Specter as the Judiciary Committee looks into this?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure there's any request that's been made of us at this point.

Q Is it your position that legal authority is required --

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry should turn off his phone.

Q -- for any surveillance of U.S. citizens by the NSA?

MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. One, I'm aware of the reports that were in the papers this morning.

Q I hope so.

MR. McCLELLAN: This relates to intelligence activities and ongoing intelligence operations that are aimed at saving lives. And there's a reason why we don't get into discussing ongoing intelligence activities, because it could compromise our efforts to prevent attacks from happening. We are doing all we can to disrupt plots and prevent attacks from happening. And it could telegraph to the enemy what we are doing. The enemy wants to know exactly what we are doing to go after them and prevent attacks from happening. And we don't want to do anything to compromise sources and methods.

Q Right, but all I asked you was whether it's your position that it always requires a court order for surveillance of U.S. citizens.

MR. McCLELLAN: What it's getting into -- again, let me reiterate. The President is firmly committed to upholding our Constitution and protecting people's civil liberties. That is something he has always kept in mind as we have moved forward from the attacks of September 11th, to do everything within our power to prevent attacks from happening. It's very important to him. We are meeting both those priorities. Those are two important priorities.

Now in terms of talking about the National Security Agency or matters like that, that would be getting into talking about ongoing intelligence activities. And they're classified for a reason, because they go to the issue of sources and methods and protecting the American people. And because they're classified, I'm not able to get into discussing those issues from this podium.

Q Let me follow with one other question. Is it your position that the congressional authorization for war against al Qaeda in 2001 allows the President to take some steps to collect intelligence?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just told you why I'm not going to get into discussing ongoing intelligence activities.

Q You mean you cannot say whether it's lawful to spy on Americans or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: We have a Constitution and we have laws.

Q We're not asking for any details. We're asking you --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I'm making a broad statement to let you know that we --

Q It is broad. Is it legal to spy on Americans?

MR. McCLELLAN: We have a Constitution and we have laws in place, and we follow those --

Q You say you are abiding by the law?

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely. And there's congressional oversight of intelligence activities, there's other oversight of intelligence activities.

Q Why do you have to have secret orders then?

MR. McCLELLAN: Does anybody have a question? Go ahead.

Q And how many secret orders have been issued by this President?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the American people appreciate what we do to work within the law to prevent attacks from happening. The Patriot Act is being debated right now.

Q It's never been within the law to spy on Americans.

MR. McCLELLAN: The Patriot Act is something that members of the Senate are debating right now. The House has already acted on it. And the House, in a strong bipartisan fashion, renewed these vital tools for our law enforcement intelligence officers to protect the American people. This law has helped prevent attacks from happening by breaking up terrorist cells in parts of the United States.

And while the Senate didn't pass the vote that they were looking to do right now, their -- the leadership is committed to moving forward on this. They're still in -- there's some more time this year. We urge them to get this done now and pass that legislation. The President has made it very clear that he is not interested in signing any short-term renewal. The terrorist threats will not expire at the end of this year. They won't expire in three months. We need to move forward and pass this critical legislation.

Carl, do you have something?

Q Yes. To what extent is the administration confident that it has maintained communications with the necessary committees and jurisdiction on the Hill so that they're not going to claim that they're kept in the dark on this? Is there -- are you prepared to assert from the podium today that there is the necessary communication with the Hill so that their oversight remains intact?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. We stay in contact with members of Congress -- the appropriate members of Congress who are responsible for these matters on intelligence activities.

Q To the extent that there has been --

MR. McCLELLAN: I noticed that report pointed something like that out within it.

Q To the extent that there has been "shock and dismay" already expressed on the floor of the U.S. Senate this morning, does that run contrary to your understanding of some of the communications that would allow them their oversight jurisdiction?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me, again, just repeat that the Congress does have an important oversight role. We stay in touch with them on intelligence activities. We all share the responsibility of doing our part to prevent attacks and save lives, and we will continue to work with members of Congress on those efforts

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051216-1.html

Posted by: Snuffysmith Dec 16 2005, 04:39 PM

Bush Won't Discuss Report of NSA Spying
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

President Bush refused to say whether the National Security Agency eavesdropped without warrants on people inside the United States but leaders of Congress condemned the practice on Friday and promised to look into what the administration has done.

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said there would be hearings early next year and that they would have "a very, very high priority." He wasn't alone in reacting harshly to the report. Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said the story, first reported in Friday's New York Times, was troubling.

Bush said in an interview that "we do not discuss ongoing intelligence operations to protect the country. And the reason why is that there's an enemy that lurks, that would like to know exactly what we're trying to do to stop them.

"I will make this point," Bush said. "That whatever I do to protect the American people — and I have an obligation to do so — that we will uphold the law, and decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people."

The president spoke in an interview to be aired Friday evening on "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer."

Bush played down the importance of the eavesdropping story. "It's not the main story of the day," Bush told Lehrer. "The main story of the day is the Iraqi elections" for parliament which took place on Thursday.

Neither Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice nor White House press secretary Scott McClellan would confirm or deny the report which said the super-secret NSA had spied on as many as 500 people at any given time since 2002 in this country.

That year, following the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States, the Times reported.

McClellan said the White House has received no requests for information from lawmakers because of the report. "Congress does have an important oversight role," he said.

Before the program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.

"This is Big Brother run amok," declared Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass. Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., called it a "shocking revelation" that "ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American."

Administration officials reacted to the report by asserting that the president has respected the Constitution while striving to protect the American people.

Rice said Bush has "acted lawfully in every step that he has taken." And McClellan said Bush "is going to remain fully committed to upholding our Constitution and protect the civil liberties of the American people. And he has done both."

The report surfaced as the administration and its GOP allies on Capitol Hill were fighting to save provisions of the expiring USA Patriot Act that they believe are key tools in the fight against terrorism. An attempt to rescue the approach favored by the White House and Republicans failed on a procedural vote Friday morning.

The Times said reporters interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.

Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting al-Qaida by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.

Some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales refused to confirm that the NSA eavesdrops on Americans or whether he played any role, in his previous job as White House counsel, in providing legal justification for the program.

Gonzales said Bush is waging an aggressive fight against terrorism, but one that is "consistent with the Constitution."

But he said generally that the government has an intense need for information in the struggle. "Winning the war on terrorism requires winning the war of information We are dealing with a patient, diabolical enemy who wants to harm America," Gonzales said at a news conference at the Justice Department on child prostitution arrests.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group was shocked by the disclosure.

Earlier this week, the Pentagon said it was reviewing its use of a classified database of information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States after a report by NBC News said the database listed activities of anti-war groups that were not a security threat to Pentagon property or personnel.

The administration had briefed congressional leaders about the NSA program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.

The Times said it delayed publication of the report for a year because the White House said it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. The Times said it omitted information from the story that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists.



Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Posted by: Snuffysmith Dec 16 2005, 04:51 PM

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411366/640786

Scandal emerges over US wire taps


Dec 17, 2005

President George W. Bush refused to discuss a report that he secretly authorized a US agency to eavesdrop on people in America but said everything he does to protect the public against terrorism is within the law.

The New York Times said Bush signed a secret presidential order after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to allow the National Security Agency to track the international telephone calls and emails of hundreds of people without the court approval normally required for domestic spying.

The report added to critics' concerns that the White House violated civil rights while pursuing the war on terrorism it declared after the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

Bush and other administration officials declined to comment specifically on the report, but said he stayed within the law while acting to protect people from further attacks.

"We do not discuss ongoing intelligence operations to protect the country, and the reason why is that there's an enemy that lurks, that would like to know exactly what we're trying to do to stop them," Bush said.

"I will make this point. That whatever I do to protect the American people, and I have an obligation to do so, that we will uphold the law, and decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people," he said.

He was speaking in an interview with with PBS's "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" to be broadcast later on Friday.

The Times said the 2002 directive to the NSA marked a major shift in US intelligence-gathering and led some officials to question whether the strategy violated constitutional limits on legal searches.

The NSA, based at Fort Meade, Maryland, is authorized to monitor communications on foreign soil.

An NSA spokesperson declined to comment on the report.

Concern from civil liberties advocates

Americans have been wary of domestic monitoring by intelligence agencies since it was learned in the 1970s that the Pentagon spied on civil rights and anti-Vietnam War groups. That led to legislation imposing strict limits on intelligence gathering inside the United States.

The Bush administration has faced criticism over a range of rights issues in its declared war on terrorism, including its treatment of detainees.

On Friday, a group of senators calling for increased protection of civil liberties blocked renewal by Congress of the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law passed soon after the Sept. 11 attacks. It expanded the federal government's authority to share information, conduct secret searches and obtain private records.

Civil liberties advocates condemned what they viewed as illegal and unconstitutional NSA activities.

"The administration is claiming extraordinary presidential powers at the expense of civil liberties and is putting the president above the law," Caroline Fredrickson, Washington legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

John Negroponte, US director of national intelligence, has said in interviews that the country is safer now partly due to more integration of international and domestic espionage.

A Democratic congressional official involved in intelligence oversight said, "The lesson we learned from 9/11 - more than how the intelligence was organized, more than information-sharing - was that we had been doing an abysmal job of learning what terrorists might be doing inside our own country."

He added, "But as part of the process of overseeing intelligence, I hope whatever we're doing, we're doing in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations."

The New York Times cited some officials as saying questions about the NSA's new powers led the administration to suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions.

It said the administration informed the leaders of the Senate and House intelligence committees about the program. But other lawmakers said on Friday there was a need for greater disclosure to Congress.

"We need to look into that," remarked Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who said he had heard only media reports about the NSA program. "We should be informed as to exactly what's going on, and then find out whether an investigation is called for. All we have is initial reports."


Source: Reuters

Posted by: Choppin Broccoli Dec 16 2005, 08:27 PM

Bush Approved Eavesdropping, Official Says
By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON - President Bush has personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times since October 2001, a senior intelligence official said Friday night.

The disclosure follows angry demands by lawmakers earlier in the day for congressional inquiries into whether the monitoring by the highly secretive National Security Agency violated civil liberties.

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," declared Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He promised hearings early next year.

Bush on Friday refused to discuss whether he had authorized such domestic spying without obtaining warrants from a court, saying that to comment would tie his hands in fighting terrorists.

In a broad defense of the program put forward hours later, however, a senior intelligence official told The Associated Press that the eavesdropping was narrowly designed to go after possible terrorist threats in the United States.

The official said that, since October 2001, the program has been renewed more than three dozen times. Each time, the White House counsel and the attorney general certified the lawfulness of the program, the official said. Bush then signed the authorizations.

During the reviews, government officials have also provided a fresh assessment of the terrorist threat, showing that there is a catastrophic risk to the country or government, the official said.

"Only if those conditions apply do we even begin to think about this," he said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the intelligence operation.

"The president has authorized NSA to fully use its resources — let me underscore this now — consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution to defend the United States and its citizens," the official said, adding that congressional leaders have also been briefed more than a dozen times.

Senior administration officials asserted the president would do everything in his power to protect the American people while safeguarding civil liberties.

"I will make this point," Bush said in an interview with "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." "That whatever I do to protect the American people — and I have an obligation to do so — that we will uphold the law, and decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people."

The surveillance, disclosed in Friday's New York Times, is said to allow the agency to monitor international calls and e-mail messages of people inside the United States. But the paper said the agency would still seek warrants to snoop on purely domestic communications — for example, Americans' calls between New York and California.

"I want to know precisely what they did," Specter said. "How NSA utilized their technical equipment, whose conversations they overheard, how many conversations they overheard, what they did with the material, what purported justification there was."

Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., a member of the Judiciary Committee, said, "This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every American."

Vice President Dick Cheney and Bush chief of staff Andrew Card went to the Capitol Friday to meet with congressional leaders and the top members of the intelligence committees, who are often briefed on spy agencies' most classified programs. Members and their aides would not discuss the subject of the closed sessions.

The intelligence official would not provide details on the operations or examples of success stories. He said senior national security officials are trying to fix problems raised by the Sept. 11 commission, which found that two of the suicide hijackers were communicating from San Diego with al-Qaida operatives overseas.

"We didn't know who they were until it was too late," the official said.

Some intelligence experts who believe in broad presidential power argued that Bush would have the authority to order these searches without warrants under the Constitution.

In a case unrelated to the NSA's domestic eavesdropping, the administration has argued that the president has vast authority to order intelligence surveillance without warrants "of foreign powers or their agents."

"Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority," the Justice Department said in a 2002 legal filing with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.

Other intelligence veterans found difficulty with the program in light of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed after the intelligence community came under fire for spying on Americans. That law gives government — with approval from a secretive U.S. court — the authority to conduct covert wiretaps and surveillance of suspected terrorists and spies.

In a written statement, NSA spokesman Don Weber said the agency would not provide any information on the reported surveillance program. "We do not discuss actual or alleged operational issues," he said.

Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, former NSA general counsel, said it was troubling that such a change would have been made by executive order, even if it turns out to be within the law.

Parker, who has no direct knowledge of the program, said the effect could be corrosive. "There are programs that do push the edge, and would be appropriate, but will be thrown out," she said.

Prior to 9/11, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance activities to foreign embassies and missions — and obtained court orders for such investigations. Much of its work was overseas, where thousands of people with suspected terrorist ties or other valuable intelligence may be monitored.

The report surfaced as the administration and its GOP allies on Capitol Hill were fighting to save provisions of the expiring USA Patriot Act that they believe are key tools in the fight against terrorism. An attempt to rescue the approach favored by the White House and Republicans failed on a procedural vote.

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 16 2005, 08:31 PM

Spy agency disruption reaches Fort Meade
America's "ear" on terrorism war wracked by poor morale, management failures

By Wayne Madsen
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Download a .pdf file for printing.
Adobe Acrobat Reader required.
Click here to download a free copy.

April 12, 2005—Up to now, little has been reported on how the Bush administration's disastrous intelligence policies have affected the super secret National Security Agency (NSA).

According to NSA insiders, the chief U.S. signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection agency has been wracked by much of the same internal feuding, senior management failures, and external political pressure that have plagued other U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, FBI, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Geo-spatial Intelligence Agency, and National Reconnaissance Office.

NSA insiders lay blame for the problems at NSA's Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters squarely on the shoulders of agency director Air Force General Michael V. Hayden and his small coterie of close advisers, a few of whom have no substantive intelligence background. Hayden has been NSA director since March 1999, the longest tour for any NSA director. Not only did the White House extend Hayden's NSA tour, but also nominated him to be the first deputy director of National Intelligence, where he will serve under John Negroponte.

Hayden's reign at NSA has been marked by the emaciation of the career civilian corps through forced retirements and resignations, outsourcing of government positions to contractors, intimidation, forced psychiatric and psychological examinations for "problem" employees, increased work loads for shift personnel with no personnel augmentation, unreasonable personal searches by security personnel, and withholding salary increases for career personnel. A number of NSA employees are suffering from stress and fatigue and that is adversely affecting their job performance.

One of the most pervasive operational problems at NSA stems from the fact that when newly trained civilian and military linguists, analysts, and other operational personnel arrive at NSA for duty and are integrated into various operational work centers, they are soon quickly transferred to Iraq. This puts an inordinate workload on the career civilian NSA personnel.

In other cases, critical experienced employees have been forced out of NSA because of policy differences, especially those related to the war against Iraq. One linguist who was fluent in 14 languages, including Arabic, Russian, Japanese, Hindi, Chinese, Modern Greek, and Spanish was forced into retirement over policy differences with NSA senior management. NSA concocted trumped up charges against the linguist. Another analyst, who worked closely with the CIA's satellite imagery division on Iraq and other hot spots, was repeatedly harassed by NSA's Stasi-like security personnel. In other cases, experienced NSA employees who don't fit the mold have been charged with infractions as ludicrous as stalking, gun running, and personality disorders.

When Hayden first began his civilian shake up at NSA in 2000, career professionals described it as an "internal coup." For many longtime NSA employees, the writing was on the wall and it was not a pleasant message. However, to the outsider, Hayden has represented a "kinder and gentler" NSA director. During the filming of the movie thriller about NSA, "Enemy of the State," Hayden invited lead star Will Smith to tour the National Security Operations Center (NSOC). Members of the film crew were allowed to buy NSA curios and souvenirs from the agency's gift shop. In addition, Hayden has thrown NSA's doors open to 60 Minutes, Nightline, and other news media. However, to NSA career employees, Hayden's iron fist tactics have earned him the nickname "Hitler Hayden."

Hayden also seems more concerned about public relations than NSA's mission. NSA insiders cite the presence of two female analysts in the Denial and Deception (called "D and D" in NSA parlance) branch of the NSOC who do nothing but scan the media for any stories about NSA, positive and negative. Their jobs are duplicated in Hayden's General Counsel's office.

Career NSA personnel claim that their most senior member, Deputy Director of NSA William B. Black, Jr., shows little interest in their plight. One long-time NSAer said Black often nods off at Hayden's staff meetings. In 2000, Black, a retired NSA employee with 38 years of service, was rehired by Hayden from Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to be his deputy. Hayden's selection of Black from outside the agency was considered a slap in the faces of those line NSA officers who would have been normally considered next in line for promotion to the much-coveted post. That slight began to severely affect agency morale a little over a year before the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

After 9-11 and subsequent revelations that NSA had intercepted two Arabic language phone calls on September 10, 2001, ("Tomorrow is zero hour" and "The match is about to begin") that indicated an imminent attack by al Qaeda but failed to translate and analyze them in a timely manner to be effective, Hayden was looking for scapegoats. According to NSA insiders, he found one in Maureen A. Baginski, the director of NSA's Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) Directorate. According to the NSA insiders, Baginski, a 27-year NSA veteran and Russian and Spanish linguist, was set up for a fall by Hayden and his team. In 2003, Baginski was named executive assistant director of the FBI for Intelligence.

Another Hayden project, "Groundbreaker," the outsourcing of NSA functions to contractors, has also been used by Hayden's advisers to assign blame for the 911 failures at NSA.

However, the career NSA operational personnel may be getting squeezed not so much for policy differences but because of what they know about the lies of the Bush administration. In addition to the obvious lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD), many personnel are well aware that what occurred on the morning of 9-11 was not exactly what was reported by the White House.

For example, George W. Bush spoke of the heroic actions of the passengers and crew aboard United Flight 93 over rural Pennsylvania on the morning of 9-11. However, NSA personnel on duty at the NSOC that morning have a very different perspective. Before Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, NSA operations personnel clearly heard on the intercom system monitoring military and civilian communications that the "fighters are engaged" with the doomed United aircraft. NSOC personnel were then quickly dismissed from the tactical area of the NSOC where the intercom system was located leaving only a few senior personnel in place. NSA personnel are well aware that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did not "misspeak" when, addressing U.S. troops in Baghdad during Christmas last year, said, "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania." They believe the White House concocted the "passengers-bring-down-plane" story for propaganda value.

Morale at NSA has plummeted from repeated cover-ups of serious breaches of security by senior officials. While rank-and-file employees are subjected to abusive psychological and psychiatric evaluations for disagreeing with summary intelligence reports provided to outside users or "consumers" and even for more mundane matters, others are given a pass. Ironically, one of the psychiatrists used by NSA to evaluate problem or disgruntled employees was recently found by police to be growing marijuana at his home in Crofton, Maryland.

In another case, after suggestive photos of a female Air Force captain, who was an aide to Hayden, were found on a pornographic website under the title Captain amErika. NSA security did nothing to discipline or seriously investigate the officer in question. The website was apparently set up by the Air Force officer's ex-husband. After NSA took legal action, the original website was taken down. The NSA contended it was concerned about the website because it contained the names of NSA field stations, including the Bad Aibling intercept station in Germany. However, a group of non-commissioned officers who object to the double standards for conduct imposed on enlisted personnel and officers have re-created much of the original Captain amErika website at www.captainamerika.us. The web administrator is based in South Bend, Indiana. The site continues to refer to Bad Aibling and the NSA communications intercept system known as "Echelon," contains the original pornographic material, and makes severe allegations about General Hayden's personal conduct. The website claims the officer known as Captain amErika has been promoted to major and is on the fast track for early promotion to lieutenant colonel.

There have been other sexual related scandals at NSA that resulted in little or no action being taken against the offenders. In 1999, a senior NSA officer, on assignment overseas, was arrested by police in his hotel room while filming a sex video with a child. The officer was forced to retire but became an NSA contractor in Florida making two to three times his NSA salary. In a more recent incident, an NSA SIGINT operator who was monitoring a targeted person's Internet activity involving access to child pornography web sites, lifted the NSA security filters to look at the pornography for himself, a violation of NSA operational procedures.

The recently-released 600-page report of the Presidential Commission on WMD intelligence failures in Iraq, co-chaired by Republican Judge Laurence Silberman and former Democratic Senator Charles Robb, concluded that there was no evidence that the Bush administration pressured U.S. intelligence agencies to "cook" or "cherry pick" the intelligence needed to justify the war against Iraq. Rather than focus on the pressure exerted on agencies by Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and other neoconservative officials in the National Security Council, Pentagon, and State Department, the report blamed the intelligence agencies for providing "worthless or misleading" information on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to senior Bush policymakers. Silberman, a key player in the Iran-Contra cover-up scandal while a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, told Bush at the White House briefing in which the final report was submitted, "We did not see any evidence of false intelligence being injected by any policymaker into the intelligence community."

What is happening at NSA is also occurring at the CIA and other agencies. A senior CIA official is suing the CIA for being fired last August for refusing to falsify CIA reports on Iraqi WMD in order to justify the White House's pre-emptive attack. As with the senior Arabic and Russian linguist at NSA, the CIA officer was falsely investigated for personal improprieties in retaliation for his refusal to cook intelligence for the White House. In the case of the CIA officer, the CIA's investigation was predicated on alleged financial and sexual misconduct.

The WMD Intelligence Commission's report failed to look at the underlying causes of U.S. intelligence failures: mismanagement and corruption at senior levels. That incompetence and malfeasance continues at the NSA, CIA, and other intelligence agencies. George Tenet, someone who was as damaging to CIA morale as Hayden has been for NSA's, resigned as CIA director and then was given a medal by President Bush. His successor, Porter Goss, has carried out a top-down purge directed by the neo-conservatives in the administration. Hayden, who has allowed morale at NSA to sink to an all-time low, has been promoted to the Directorate of National Intelligence as deputy.

By its failure to assign blame to the very top officials of the U.S. intelligence community and its continued harassment of career intelligence professionals, the Bush administration continues to send the message that it is okay to lie, cheat, and engage in inappropriate behavior. To challenge the administration, however, will result in firings, early retirements, harassment, and investigations on sham charges.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based journalist and nationally-distributed columnist. He is the author of the forthcoming book "Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops & Brass Plates." He was assigned to the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration.

http://www.onlinejournal.org/Special_Reports/041205Madsen/041205madsen.html

Posted by: JasonATexan Dec 16 2005, 08:50 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=astkV2gMsvUY&refer=us

Rice Denies U.S. Broke Law Amid Report Bush Authorized Spying

Dec. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today defended President George W. Bush against reports he authorized spying on American citizens and foreign nationals in the U.S. following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The New York Times reported that Bush in 2002 secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without the court-approved warrants that are required for domestic spying. The international phone calls and e-mail messages of hundreds, possibly thousands, of people have been monitored without warrants to find numbers linked to al-Qaeda, the paper said.

Rice, interviewed on NBC's ``Today'' show, said ``the president has been very clear that he would not order people to do things that are illegal.'' She declined to comment directly on the New York Times report.

The presidential order Bush signed represents a change in responsibilities for the NSA, which traditionally monitors actions in foreign countries, the Times said.

The paper said it interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because the information was classified. The officials said the administration is confident that existing safeguards protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, the Times said.

The Bush administration briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court, the secret court in Washington that handles national security issues, the paper said.

`A Heavy Responsibility'

Rice today said Bush has a responsibility to adhere to the rules of the Constitution when making intelligence decisions and has protected Americans' civil liberties.

``The kind of attack that we experienced on Sept. 11, that means that the president has a heavy responsibility'' to ``protect and defend Americans,'' Rice said. ``But he did it always -- anything that he did -- legally and within his constitutional responsibility.''

The Times said it held off publishing its report for a year because the administration said that could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. Some information that administration officials could be useful to terrorists was omitted, the paper said.

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 16 2005, 08:55 PM

I'd be looking for a special to be done by 60 minutes or Nightline (although Koppel is no longer at Nightline). I bet they are none too happy that their team was given a snow job to throw them off the track.

Posted by: Choppin Broccoli Dec 16 2005, 08:56 PM

Bush can't hide behind his bureaucracy this time. We have confirmation that Bush PERSONALLY OK'd this. Check out my other thread.

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=45285

Posted by: JasonATexan Dec 16 2005, 08:58 PM

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/New_York_Times_admits_it_held_1215.html

New York Times admits it held domestic spying story for a full year

RAW STORY

Print This | Email This

On the second page of a report which reveals the White House engaged in warrantless domestic spying, the New York Times reveals that it held the story for a full year at the request of the Bush Administration, RAW STORY can reveal.

The Times also reveals that senior members of Congress from both parties knew about Bush's decision to spy on Americans who were making international calls or emails, without warrants.

Further, the Times notes that they have omitted information in the article they did write, agreeing with the Bush Administration that the information could be useful for terrorists. Excerpts from the Times' article follow.

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it said the N.S.A. eavesdropped without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands over the past three years, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials.

Several officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program, the officials said. But they said most people targeted for N.S.A. monitoring have never been charged with a crime, including an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden.

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 16 2005, 09:08 PM

This is an excerpt where Brooks & Shields talk about the NSA story and the President's interview with Lehrer.

JIM LEHRER: Now, to the analysis of all of this, of Shields and Brooks-- syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks.

First on the NSA surveillance story, first what is your reaction to the story itself and how do you react to the president's reaction?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, when you open the paper I work at the paper but didn't see it until I opened the paper, and your eyes pop out.

And the president's reaction is not going to fly. If you are not getting warrants, the burden of proof is on you to say why. I'm perfectly willing to accept that maybe there is a good reason why they had to go around the warrant system. But you got to tell me why.

And you got to tell me why, given that there has been this torture debate where they didn't seem to want to defend that. They just bluntly said we need it but then they never could tell you why.

You know, this is the administration's problem on many of these issues. They want to put up a firm wall, secretly the smart people in the administration know they're going to have to give in and give an explanation, eventually they will cave. Why don't they do it right away?

JIM LEHRER: What do you think, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I thought, first of all, the interview the president basically confirmed the story in the New York Times by not denying it and not addressing it and not responding to it.

JIM LEHRER: Because if he said oh my goodness, this is an outrage, we would never do anything like this --

MARK SHIELDS: No wonder I don't read the New York Times -

JIM LEHRER: Right, right, right. Except for Brooks.

MARK SHIELDS: Exactly. Which I would read on-line if I could afford it.

JIM LEHRER: Moving right along.

MARK SHIELDS: But it also, Jim, goes right to, there has been an historical division in the separation of church and state between the National Security Agency which collects intelligence abroad and it's not a domestic spying operation at all.

I mean there has been a clear division, and the FBI does it in this country and the CIA and the NSA are overseas. And they have an entirely different charter which has obviously been bridged, ignored and breached in this case.

So I just, I mean, I think the other question that is raised by this is, we saw the vote in the Senate on the Patriot Act which was directly connected with this.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that, David?

DAVID BROOKS: Absolutely.

The Patriot Act
JIM LEHRER: In other words, this story broke today and they were going to vote on it and this fed the ant-Patriot Act --

DAVID BROOKS: People are worried about civil liberties and this piles on. And everybody says whoa, whoa, what's going on here.

MARK SHIELDS: Which raises a question for those of us who are a little paranoid, why did the New York Times say, why did they break it today, as Senate was in the process of appropriating the Patriot Act --

JIM LEHRER: We have a representative of the New York Times -

MARK SHIELDS: But the other thing is they sat on it for a year. And some Democrats today were grumbling, saying wait a minute, they sat on this for a year. What if it came out in the campaign of 2004; would it have made a difference?

JIM LEHRER: But I'm interested in your point, David, that eventually the president or somebody in the White House or somebody in the administration is going to have to fess up to this and explain it, right?

DAVID BROOKS: Right.

JIM LEHRER: Do you think that is inevitable as we sit here?

DAVID BROOKS: I think it is inevitable because you look at it and think about it for maybe three and a half seconds. And you know that of course Democrats are going to be upset. But you also know after three and a half seconds a lot of Republicans will be upset.

And when you get that kind of unified wall of suspicion, you at least have to provide an explanation. I mean, maybe there will be a debate about why they needed to go around the warrant system, but you at least have to give an argument. You can't just say trust me, trust me.

JIM LEHRER: And that point is true on the Patriot Act in terms of Republicans and Democrats, is it not, Mark? There are some very conservative Republicans that are on -- did not go for extending the Patriot Act today.

MARK SHIELDS: Larry Craig of Idaho, a member of the National Rifle Association, Broad John Sununu of New Hampshire, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. I mean there were -- they were lined up. It wasn't just Russ Feingold all by himself.

JIM LEHRER: What is going on here? What's going to happen?

DAVID BROOKS: You have this competing interest, I'm not Mr. Civil Libertarian but I know there is legitimate interest in civil liberties as we fight the war on terror.

But I think the people in the White House and I remember the days after 9/11, they went to work thinking they were going to get killed. They went to work thinking there was going to be a missile or something to hit the White House. And they were possibly going to die there in office. And that was the atmosphere. And so their attitude was we're going to do everything we can to prevent this country from getting hit again and everything they can.

And now the attitudes are a little different. Maybe now they would do it differently. But if are you sitting in the White House, to be honest, you would do whatever you can to protect lives. But there is this competing interest out there.

MARK SHIELDS: Competing interest, yes, but I think that there is no question that that was a feverish response and a fevered response. We saw, Jim, in the compromise, if you would, the cave, the apomatic scene at the White House on torture was a perfect example of this. I mean, the president having publicly threatened himself, he was going to veto the bill, realized he couldn't -- realized that -- that the Senate by a nine to one vote, the House by better than a foolproof, veto-proof majority, over 300 people voted to outlaw, to put in concrete terms what torture was, and a prohibition against it. And the administration, now this was another example of pushing, stretching, bending after 9/11.

JIM LEHRER: But the president, I asked him about that, of course, David. I mean, he made it seem like he and McCain have been together all along.

DAVID BROOKS: I think the part where they are friends is actually true.

JIM LEHRER: Is that right?

DAVID BROOKS: I think they used to dislike each other but now they actually get along quite well. But the idea that they were always together is not true. They worked hard and I think actually the White House had a legitimate interest here making sure that people are actually doing the interrogating could do so without fear of getting sued and everything else.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec05/sb_12-16.html

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 16 2005, 09:27 PM

Oh well that's different....if the WH Counsel, the Atty. Gen. and the Pres. have all certified that it is lawful then of course it must be lawful. After all these are the same people who assured us that we don't torture, right?

G.D. is there nothing these people won't do? I can not believe that you already see people out there defending this crap (Matthews & Chambliss). This adminstration has positioned "their" people in all of the spy agencies and have purged a lot of the career people....why aren't more people worried about this?

Posted by: Snuffysmith Dec 16 2005, 10:55 PM

On Hill, Anger and Calls for Hearings Greet News of Stateside Surveillance

By Dan Eggen and Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, December 17, 2005; A01



Congressional leaders of both parties called for hearings and issued condemnations yesterday in the wake of reports that President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 allowing the National Security Agency to spy on hundreds of U.S. citizens and other residents without court-approved warrants.

Bush declined to discuss the domestic eavesdropping program in a television interview, but he joined his aides in saying that the government acted lawfully and did not intrude on citizens' rights.

"Decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people," Bush said on "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer."

Disclosure of the NSA plan had an immediate effect on Capitol Hill, where Democratic senators and a handful of Republicans derailed a bill that would renew expiring portions of the USA Patriot Act anti-terrorism law. Opponents repeatedly cited the previously unknown NSA program as an example of the kinds of government abuses that concerned them, while the GOP chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said he would hold oversight hearings on the issue.

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who favored the Patriot Act renewal but said the NSA issue provided valuable ammunition for its opponents.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the Intelligence and Judiciary committees who has often sided with the administration on national security issues, called the program "the most significant thing I have heard in my 12 years" in the Senate and suggested the president may have broken the law by authorizing surveillance without proper warrants.

"How can I go out, how can any member of this body go out, and say that under the Patriot Act we protect the rights of American citizens if, in fact, the president is not going to be bound by the law?" she asked

Officials across the government yesterday declined to publicly acknowledge the presidential order. But they defended, in general terms, the administration's aggressive strategies in attempting to combat terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and said that all programs have been lawful and protective of individual rights.

"Let me just say that winning the war on terror requires winning the war of information," Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told reporters. ". . . And so we will be aggressive in obtaining that information, but we will always do so in a manner that's consistent with our legal obligations."

Government officials credited the new program with helping to uncover and disrupt terrorist plots, including plans by Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver who pleaded guilty in 2003 to planning to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. Faris's attorney, David B. Smith, said he and his client were never informed of NSA surveillance and had presumed that monitoring of his cell phone had been authorized by a court-issued warrant.

The existence of the NSA domestic surveillance program was reported late Thursday by the New York Times and confirmed by U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

The Washington Post, citing an informed U.S. official, reported that the NSA's warrantless monitoring of U.S. subjects began before Bush's order was issued in early 2002 and included electronic and physical surveillance carried out by other military intelligence agencies assigned to the task.

Since the intelligence reforms of the 1970s, the NSA has adhered to tight restrictions on its activities in the United States and has devoted its efforts almost exclusively to obtaining intelligence overseas. Domestic spying, much of which is handled by the FBI, is governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and overseen by a special and highly secretive court that meets at Justice Department headquarters in Washington.

The order issued by Bush in 2002, however, allowed the NSA to monitor without a warrant international telephone calls, e-mails and other communications between people in the United States and those overseas.

A government official familiar with the NSA order said the president urged that the change be explained to only a very limited group of people on a "need-to-know" basis. That meant that for nearly four years, only two people in the judicial branch of the U.S. government knew about the warrantless searches: U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who presided over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court at the time of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and rotated off the court in May 2002, and U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who succeeded him.

The official said that then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and top officials in the Justice Department's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review first briefed a few critical officials on the plans to change the 25-year prohibition on most domestic surveillance. In a series of meetings, officials also answered Lamberth's questions about what some informally called "the president's program," and they asserted that no information gained through warrantless surveillance would be used to gain the court's authorization for secret wiretaps and warrants.

Under the president's plan, only the presiding judge of the secret court was allowed to hear cases in which warrantless surveillance may have played a role, the government official said.

Lamberth and Kollar-Kotelly declined to comment yesterday. According to the government source, both raised questions about whether the program was constitutional but neither suggested they had a basis for asserting that Bush did not have the authority he claimed. They focused instead on the integrity of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Lamberth had previously expressed grave doubts about the White House's post-Sept. 11 interest in mixing the investigative powers of intelligence agents with those of criminal detectives and prosecutors. A showdown over the issue resulted in the only decision ever issued by the secret court's appellate panel, which ruled against Lamberth and said the president had broad powers to authorize eavesdropping to fight terror.

After Kollar-Kotelly became presiding FISA judge in 2002, she became concerned in the course of one case that warrantless eavesdropping in the NSA collection program could be used to develop information to be presented in the FISA court, the government source said. There appeared to be no evidence that it had happened, only an indication that it could.

As a result of her complaint to the Justice Department, an intelligence source said, the department agreed to have high-ranking officials certify -- under threat of perjury -- that information presented to the FISA court was totally independent of any information gleaned in warrantless surveillance. The New York Times reported that the NSA program was stalled while this debate took place.

The NSA program highlights an ongoing and often tense legal debate over the boundaries of presidential power. John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer whose legal opinion helped support creation of the NSA surveillance program, also was instrumental in other memos that argued that Bush had nearly unfettered authority in areas related to the war on terrorism.

Former CIA general counsel Jeffrey H. Smith said he was "not shocked" by the program or the legal arguments underpinning it, because "the theory or the belief that the president had this constitutional power has been around for a long time."

But Smith also said: "These programs always have a way of being abused, of expanding beyond the purpose for which they were created. If the president believed it, he could have gotten authority to do it in the Patriot Act. By avoiding that course, in so doing, he may ultimately wind up eroding the very power he seeks to assert."

Some prominent Republicans defended the surveillance, arguing it was necessary to combat terrorism. "I don't agree with the libertarians," said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). "I want my security first. I'll deal with all the details after that."

Staff writers Carol D. Leonnig, Barton Gellman and R. Jeffrey Smith and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.


© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Posted by: Snuffysmith Dec 16 2005, 10:59 PM

Back to Story - Help
Bush Approved Eavesdropping, Official Says By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer
50 minutes ago



President Bush has personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times since October 2001, a senior intelligence official said Friday night.

The disclosure follows angry demands by lawmakers earlier in the day for congressional inquiries into whether the monitoring by the highly secretive National Security Agency violated civil liberties.

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," declared Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He promised hearings early next year.

Bush on Friday refused to discuss whether he had authorized such domestic spying without obtaining warrants from a court, saying that to comment would tie his hands in fighting terrorists.

In a broad defense of the program put forward hours later, however, a senior intelligence official told The Associated Press that the eavesdropping was narrowly designed to go after possible terrorist threats in the United States.

The official said that, since October 2001, the program has been renewed more than three dozen times. Each time, the White House counsel and the attorney general certified the lawfulness of the program, the official said. Bush then signed the authorizations.

During the reviews, government officials have also provided a fresh assessment of the terrorist threat, showing that there is a catastrophic risk to the country or government, the official said.

"Only if those conditions apply do we even begin to think about this," he said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the intelligence operation.

"The president has authorized NSA to fully use its resources — let me underscore this now — consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution to defend the United States and its citizens," the official said, adding that congressional leaders have also been briefed more than a dozen times.

Senior administration officials asserted the president would do everything in his power to protect the American people while safeguarding civil liberties.

"I will make this point," Bush said in an interview with "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." "That whatever I do to protect the American people — and I have an obligation to do so — that we will uphold the law, and decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people."

The surveillance, disclosed in Friday's New York Times, is said to allow the agency to monitor international calls and e-mail messages of people inside the United States. But the paper said the agency would still seek warrants to snoop on purely domestic communications — for example, Americans' calls between New York and California.

"I want to know precisely what they did," Specter said. "How NSA utilized their technical equipment, whose conversations they overheard, how many conversations they overheard, what they did with the material, what purported justification there was."

Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., a member of the Judiciary Committee, said, "This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every American."

Vice President Dick Cheney and Bush chief of staff Andrew Card went to the Capitol Friday to meet with congressional leaders and the top members of the intelligence committees, who are often briefed on spy agencies' most classified programs. Members and their aides would not discuss the subject of the closed sessions.

The intelligence official would not provide details on the operations or examples of success stories. He said senior national security officials are trying to fix problems raised by the Sept. 11 commission, which found that two of the suicide hijackers were communicating from San Diego with al-Qaida operatives overseas.

"We didn't know who they were until it was too late," the official said.

Some intelligence experts who believe in broad presidential power argued that Bush would have the authority to order these searches without warrants under the Constitution.

In a case unrelated to the NSA's domestic eavesdropping, the administration has argued that the president has vast authority to order intelligence surveillance without warrants "of foreign powers or their agents."

"Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority," the Justice Department said in a 2002 legal filing with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.

Other intelligence veterans found difficulty with the program in light of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed after the intelligence community came under fire for spying on Americans. That law gives government — with approval from a secretive U.S. court — the authority to conduct covert wiretaps and surveillance of suspected terrorists and spies.

In a written statement, NSA spokesman Don Weber said the agency would not provide any information on the reported surveillance program. "We do not discuss actual or alleged operational issues," he said.

Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, former NSA general counsel, said it was troubling that such a change would have been made by executive order, even if it turns out to be within the law.

Parker, who has no direct knowledge of the program, said the effect could be corrosive. "There are programs that do push the edge, and would be appropriate, but will be thrown out," she said.

Prior to 9/11, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance activities to foreign embassies and missions — and obtained court orders for such investigations. Much of its work was overseas, where thousands of people with suspected terrorist ties or other valuable intelligence may be monitored.

The report surfaced as the administration and its GOP allies on Capitol Hill were fighting to save provisions of the expiring USA Patriot Act that they believe are key tools in the fight against terrorism. An attempt to rescue the approach favored by the White House and Republicans failed on a procedural vote.



Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Posted by: DWB04 Dec 16 2005, 11:37 PM

Apparently we are faced on one hand with the situation of a possible breach of law enacted by congress in 1978 post Watergate which prohibits the chief executive from wiretapping and spying without judicial authorization ...and on the other hand the 'understanding' that a CIC has broad powers in utilizing methods at his disposal for protecting the public.

The supreme court has not been clear on the issue (heaven help us with the Supremes)

In any case public and congressional disdain may play a factor in condemning this action...

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 17 2005, 12:31 AM

At the Times, a Scoop Deferred

By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 17, 2005; A07



The New York Times' revelation yesterday that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct domestic eavesdropping raised eyebrows in political and media circles, for both its stunning disclosures and the circumstances of its publication.

In an unusual note, the Times said in its story that it held off publishing the 3,600-word article for a year after the newspaper's representatives met with White House officials. It said the White House had asked the paper not to publish the story at all, "arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."

The Times said it agreed to remove information that administration officials said could be "useful" to terrorists and delayed publication for a year "to conduct additional reporting."

The paper offered no explanation to its readers about what had changed in the past year to warrant publication. It also did not disclose that the information is included in a forthcoming book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," written by James Risen, the lead reporter on yesterday's story. The book will be published in mid-January, according to its publisher, Simon & Schuster.

The decision to withhold the article caused some friction within the Times' Washington bureau, according to people close to the paper. Some reporters and editors in New York and in the bureau, including Risen and co-writer Eric Lichtblau, had pushed for earlier publication, according to these people. One described the story's path to publication as difficult, with much discussion about whether it could have been published earlier.

In a statement yesterday, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller did not mention the book. He wrote that when the Times became aware that the NSA was conducting domestic wiretaps without warrants, "the Administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security."

"Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions," Keller continued. "As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time."

In the ensuing months, Keller wrote, two things changed the paper's thinking. The paper developed a fuller picture of misgivings about the program by some in the government. And the paper satisfied itself through more reporting that it could write the story without exposing "any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record."

Tom Rosenstiel, executive director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said it was conceivable the Times waited to publish its NSA story as the Senate took up renewal of the Patriot Act. "It's not unheard of to wait for a news peg," he said. "It's not unusual to discover the existence of something and not know the context of it until later."

Yesterday's article was a dramatic scoop for a newspaper whose national security coverage has been marked by some turmoil in recent years. The Times admitted last year that much of its reporting on Iraq's weapons programs before the war was flawed. The principal author of those stories, Judith Miller, later spent 85 days in jail to protect the identity of an administration source in the CIA leak case.

More recently, the Times has been scooped by the Los Angeles Times on a story that the U.S. military has been secretly paying to run favorable stories in the Iraqi media, and by The Washington Post on the revelation last month of a secret network of CIA prisons for terrorism suspects in foreign countries. The Times announced last week that it was replacing its deputy bureau chief in Washington, which outsiders read as a sign of the paper's dissatisfaction with its Washington coverage.

The Post was in contact with senior administration officials before publication last month of its story on the CIA prisons. But officials did not seek to stop publication of the article, only to remove information that could jeopardize national security, said Leonard Downie Jr., The Post's executive editor.

The story said the officials argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and could make them targets of terrorist retaliation. The Post honored one request by not publishing the Eastern European countries that permitted the prisons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601716_pf.html

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 17 2005, 12:45 AM

December 17, 2005

News Analysis
Behind Power, One Principle as Bush Pushes Prerogatives

By SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 - A single, fiercely debated legal principle lies behind nearly every major initiative in the Bush administration's war on terror, scholars say: the sweeping assertion of the powers of the presidency.

From the government's detention of Americans as "enemy combatants" to the just-disclosed eavesdropping in the United States without court warrants, the administration has relied on an unusually expansive interpretation of the president's authority. That stance has given the administration leeway for decisive action, but it has come under severe criticism from some scholars and the courts.

With the strong support of Vice President Dick Cheney, legal theorists in the White House and Justice Department have argued that previous presidents unjustifiably gave up some of the legitimate power of their office. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, made it especially critical that the full power of the executive be restored and exercised, they said.

The administration's legal experts, including David S. Addington, the vice president's former counsel and now his chief of staff, and John C. Yoo, deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department from 2001 to 2003, have pointed to several sources of presidential authority.

The bedrock source is Article 2 of the Constitution, which describes the "executive power" of the president, including his authority as commander in chief of the armed forces. Several landmark court decisions have elaborated the extent of the powers.

Another key recent document cited by the administration is the joint resolution passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, authorizing the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for Sept. 11 in order to prevent further attacks.

Mr. Yoo, who is believed to have helped write a legal justification for the National Security Agency's secret domestic eavesdropping, first laid out the basis for the war on terror in a Sept. 25, 2001, memorandum that said no statute passed by Congress "can place any limits on the president's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing and nature of the response."

That became the underlying justification for numerous actions apart from the eavesdropping program, disclosed by The New York Times on Thursday night. Those include the order to try accused terrorists before military tribunals; the detention of so-called enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret overseas jails operated by the Central Intelligence Agency; the holding of two Americans, Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi, as enemy combatants; and the use of severe interrogation techniques, including some banned by international agreements, on Al Qaeda figures.

Mr. Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, declined to comment for this article. But Bradford A. Berenson, who served as associate counsel to President Bush from 2001 to 2003, explained the logic behind the assertion of executive power.

"After 9/11 the president felt it was incumbent on him to use every ounce of authority available to him to protect the American people," Mr. Berenson said.

He said he was not familiar with the N.S.A. program, in which the intelligence agency, without warrants, has monitored international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of people inside the United States. He said that he could not comment on whether the program was justified, but that he believed intelligence gathering on an enemy was clearly part of the president's constitutional war powers.

"Any program like this would have been very carefully analyzed by administration lawyers," Mr. Berenson said. "It's easy, now that four years have passed without another attack, to forget the sense of urgency that pervaded the country when the ruins of the World Trade Center were still smoking."

But some legal experts outside the administration, including some who served previously in the intelligence agencies, said the administration had pushed the presidential-powers argument beyond what was legally justified or prudent. They say the N.S.A. domestic eavesdropping illustrates the flaws in Mr. Bush's assertion of his powers.

"Obviously we have to do things differently because of the terrorist threat," said Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, former general counsel of both N.S.A. and the Central Intelligence Agency, who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. "But to do it without the participation of the Congress and the courts is unwise in the extreme."

Even if the administration believes the president has the authority to direct warrantless eavesdropping, she said, ordering it without seeking Congressional approval was politically wrongheaded. "We're just relearning the lessons of Vietnam and Watergate," said Ms. Parker, now dean of the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law.

Jeffrey H. Smith, who served as C.I.A. general counsel in 1995 and 1996, said he was dismayed by the N.S.A. program, which he said was the latest instance of legal overreach by the administration.

"Clearly the president felt after 9/11 that he needed more powers than his predecessors had exercised," Mr. Smith said. "He chose to assert as much power as he thought he needed. Now the question is whether that was wise and consistent with our values."

William C. Banks, a widely respected authority on national security law at Syracuse University, said the N.S.A. revelation came as a shock, even given the administration's past assertions of presidential powers.

"I was frankly astonished by the story," he said. "My head is spinning."

Professor Banks said the president's power as commander in chief "is really limited to situations involving military force - anything needed to repel an attack. I don't think the commander in chief power allows" the warrantless eavesdropping, he said.

Mr. Berenson, the former White House associate counsel, said that in rare cases, the presidents' advisers may decide that an existing law violates the Constitution "by invading the president's executive powers as commander in chief."

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 typically requires warrants for the kind of eavesdropping carried out under the special N.S.A. program. Whether administration lawyers argued that that statute unconstitutionally infringed the president's powers is not known.

But Mr. Smith, formerly of the C.I.A., noted that when President Carter signed the act into law in 1978, he seemed to rule out any domestic eavesdropping without court approval.

"The bill requires, for the first time, a prior judicial warrant for all electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purposes in the United States" if an American's communications might be intercepted, President Carter said when he signed the act.

By asserting excessive powers, Mr. Smith said, President Bush may provoke a reaction from Congress and the courts that ultimately thwarts executive power.

"The president may wind up eroding the very powers he was seeking to exert," Mr. Smith said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/politics/17legal.html?ei=5094&en=e6794b1f39df0692&hp=&ex=1134882000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 17 2005, 01:07 AM

On Hill, Anger and Calls for Hearings Greet News of Stateside Surveillance

By Dan Eggen and Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, December 17, 2005; A01

Congressional leaders of both parties called for hearings and issued condemnations yesterday in the wake of reports that President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 allowing the National Security Agency to spy on hundreds of U.S. citizens and other residents without court-approved warrants.

Bush declined to discuss the domestic eavesdropping program in a television interview, but he joined his aides in saying that the government acted lawfully and did not intrude on citizens' rights.

"Decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people," Bush said on "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer."

Disclosure of the NSA plan had an immediate effect on Capitol Hill, where Democratic senators and a handful of Republicans derailed a bill that would renew expiring portions of the USA Patriot Act anti-terrorism law. Opponents repeatedly cited the previously unknown NSA program as an example of the kinds of government abuses that concerned them, while the GOP chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said he would hold oversight hearings on the issue.

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who favored the Patriot Act renewal but said the NSA issue provided valuable ammunition for its opponents.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the intelligence and judiciary committees, called the program "the most significant thing I have heard in my 12 years" in the Senate and suggested that the president may have broken the law by authorizing surveillance without proper warrants.

"How can I go out, how can any member of this body go out, and say that under the Patriot Act we protect the rights of American citizens if, in fact, the president is not going to be bound by the law?" she asked.

Officials across the government yesterday declined to publicly acknowledge the presidential order. But they defended, in general terms, the administration's aggressive strategies in attempting to combat terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and said that all programs have been lawful and protective of individual rights.

"Let me just say that winning the war on terror requires winning the war of information," Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told reporters. ". . . And so we will be aggressive in obtaining that information, but we will always do so in a manner that's consistent with our legal obligations."

Government officials credited the new program with helping to uncover and disrupt terrorist plots, including plans by Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver who pleaded guilty in 2003 to planning to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. Faris's attorney, David B. Smith, said he and his client were never informed about the NSA surveillance and had presumed that the monitoring of his cell phone had been authorized by a court-issued warrant.

The existence of the NSA domestic surveillance program was reported late Thursday by the New York Times and confirmed by U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

The Washington Post, citing an informed U.S. official, reported that the NSA's warrantless monitoring of U.S. subjects began before Bush's order was issued in early 2002 and included electronic and physical surveillance carried out by other military intelligence agencies assigned to the task.

Since the intelligence reforms of the 1970s, the NSA has adhered to tight restrictions on its activities in the United States and has devoted its efforts almost exclusively to obtaining intelligence overseas. Domestic spying, much of which is handled by the FBI, is governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and overseen by a special and highly secretive court that meets at Justice Department headquarters in Washington.

The order issued by Bush in 2002, however, allowed the NSA to monitor without a warrant international telephone calls, e-mails and other communications between people in the United States and those overseas. The Associated Press reported last night that Bush reauthorized the order 36 times.

A government official familiar with the NSA order said the president urged that the change be explained to only a very limited group of people on a "need-to-know" basis. That meant that, for nearly four years, only two people in the judicial branch of the U.S. government knew about the warrantless searches: U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who presided over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court at the time of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and rotated off the court in May 2002, and U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who succeeded him.

The official said that then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and top officials in the Justice Department's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review first briefed a few key officials on the plans to change the 25-year prohibition on most domestic surveillance. In a series of meetings, officials also answered Lamberth's questions about what some informally called "the president's program," and they asserted that no information gained through warrantless surveillance would be used to gain the court's authorization for secret wiretaps and warrants.

Under the president's plan, only the presiding judge of the secret court was allowed to hear cases in which warrantless surveillance may have played a role, the government official said.

Lamberth and Kollar-Kotelly declined to comment yesterday. According to the government source, both raised questions about whether the program was constitutional but neither suggested they had a basis for asserting that Bush did not have the authority he claimed. They focused, instead, on the integrity of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Lamberth had previously expressed grave doubts about the White House's post-Sept. 11 interest in mixing the investigative powers of intelligence agents with those of criminal detectives and prosecutors. A showdown over the issue resulted in the only decision ever issued by the secret court's appellate panel, which ruled against Lamberth and said the president had broad powers to authorize eavesdropping to fight terrorism.

After Kollar-Kotelly became presiding FISA judge in 2002, she became concerned in the course of one case that warrantless eavesdropping in the NSA collection program could be used to develop information to be presented in the FISA court, the government source said. There appeared to be no evidence that it had happened, only an indication that it could.

As a result of her complaint to the Justice Department, an intelligence source said, the department agreed to have high-ranking officials certify -- under threat of perjury -- that information presented to the FISA court was totally independent of any information gleaned in warrantless surveillance. The New York Times reported that the NSA program was stalled while this debate took place.

The NSA program highlights an ongoing and often tense legal debate over the boundaries of presidential power. John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer whose legal opinion helped support the creation of the NSA surveillance program, was also instrumental in the preparation of other memos that argued that Bush had nearly unfettered authority in areas related to the war on terrorism.

Former CIA general counsel Jeffrey H. Smith said he was "not shocked" by the program or the legal arguments underpinning it, because "the theory or the belief that the president had this constitutional power has been around for a long time."

But Smith also said: "These programs always have a way of being abused, of expanding beyond the purpose for which they were created. If the president believed it, he could have gotten authority to do it in the Patriot Act. By avoiding that course, in so doing, he may ultimately wind up eroding the very power he seeks to assert."

Some prominent Republicans defended the surveillance, arguing it was necessary to combat terrorism. "I don't agree with the libertarians," said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). "I want my security first. I'll deal with all the details after that."

Staff writers Carol D. Leonnig, Barton Gellman and R. Jeffrey Smith and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601825_pf.html

Posted by: 70sliberalism Dec 17 2005, 06:37 AM

http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/

demand to know what is going on with OUR government.

get the forms for a few agencies and file for a report.
_____

http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/other_age.htm

here is a list (links on the page with every name) found at the above link:

Federal Departments

* Department of Agriculture
* Department of Commerce
o National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* Department of Defense
o Air Force
o Army
o Defense Contract Audit Agency
o Defense Contract Management Agency
o Defense Finance and Accounting Service
o Defense Information Systems Agency
o Defense Intelligence Agency
o Defense Logistics Agency
o Defense Security Service
o Defense Threat Reduction Agency
o Marine Corps
o National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
o National Reconnaissance Office
o National Security Agency
o Navy
o Office of the Inspector General
* Department of Education
* Department of Energy
* Department of Health and Human Services
o Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
o Food and Drug Administration
o National Institutes of Health
* Department of Homeland Security
o United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
o Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
o Federal Emergency Management Agency
o Transportation Security Administration
o United States Coast Guard
o United States Secret Service
* Department of Housing and Urban Development
* Department of the Interior
* Department of Labor
* Department of State
* Department of Transportation
o Federal Aviation Administration
* Department of the Treasury
o Comptroller of the Currency
o Internal Revenue Service
o Office of Thrift Supervision
* Department of Veterans Affairs

Federal Agencies

* Agency for International Development
* Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation)
* Broadcasting Board of Governors
* Central Intelligence Agency
* Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
* Commission on Civil Rights
* Committee for Purchase from People who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
* Commodity Futures Trading Commission
* Consumer Product Safety Commission
* Corporation for National Service
* Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia
* Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
* Environmental Protection Agency
* Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
* Executive Office of the President
o Council on Environmental Quality
o Office of Administration
o Office of Management and Budget
o Office of National Drug Control Policy
o Office of Science and Technology Policy
o Office of the United States Trade Representative
* Export-Import Bank
* Farm Credit Administration
* Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation
* Federal Communications Commission
* Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
* Federal Election Commission
* Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
* Federal Housing Finance Board
* Federal Labor Relations Authority
* Federal Maritime Commission
* Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
* Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
* Federal Open Market Committee
* Federal Reserve System
* Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
* Federal Trade Commission
* General Services Administration
* Institute of Museum and Library Services
* Inter-American Foundation
* Legal Services Corporation
* Library of Congress (Copyright Office)
* Merit Systems Protection Board
* National Aeronautics and Space Administration
* National Archives and Records Administration
* National Credit Union Administration
* National Endowment for the Arts
* National Endowment for the Humanities
* National Indian Gaming Commission
* National Labor Relations Board
* National Mediation Board
* National Science Foundation
* National Transportation Safety Board
* Nuclear Regulatory Commission
* Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
* Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
* Office of Government Ethics
* Office of Personnel Management
* Office of Special Counsel
* Overseas Private Investment Corporation
* Peace Corps
* Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
* Postal Rate Commission
* Railroad Retirement Board
* Securities and Exchange Commission
* Selective Service System
* Small Business Administration
* Social Security Administration
* Surface Transportation Board
* Tennessee Valley Authority
* United States International Trade Commission
* United States Postal Service
* United States Trade and Develo

Posted by: Snuffysmith Dec 17 2005, 08:24 AM

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/fisher.php?articleid=8269

December 17, 2005
PATRIOT Act in Limbo Amid New Spying Flap

by William Fisher
A bipartisan majority of senators refused to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act Friday, which was hurriedly passed six weeks after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and gave U.S. law enforcement agencies significant expanded powers to investigate suspected terrorists.

While in favor of most of the act's provisions, senators opposing reauthorization targeted several provisions that they said failed to protect privacy and liberty. These include some of the PATRIOT Act's most controversial provisions that will soon expire, along with the whole legislation.

The bill's Senate supporters, led by Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, were unable to muster the 60 votes needed to cut off debate and overcome a threatened filibuster by Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, and Sen. Larry Craig, a Republican from Idaho. The final vote was 52-47.

The bill that was rejected was the product of a "conference committee" between the Senate and the House of Representatives that attempted to reconcile the different versions of the reauthorization produced by the two legislative bodies. If a compromise among senators is not reached, the 16 PATRIOT Act provisions will expire on Dec. 31.

Opponents of reauthorization appealed for a three-month extension to give House-Senate conferees further time to consider changes. But President George W. Bush, Majority Leader Frist, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have said they will not accept a short-term extension of the law.

Critics of the Act were handed new ammunition for their campaign by a report in Friday's New York Times alleging that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) – part of the Pentagon's intelligence apparatus – to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States.

Previously, the NSA limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations.

"I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care," said Sen. Feingold, who was the only senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act in 2001.

"It is time to have some checks and balances in this country," shouted Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. "We are more American for doing that."

President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and Republican congressional leaders had lobbied fiercely to make most of the expiring PATRIOT Act provisions permanent, adding new safeguards and expiration dates to the two most controversial parts: roving wiretaps and secret warrants for books, records, and other items from businesses, hospitals, and organizations such as libraries.

Feingold, Craig, and other critics said that was not enough, and have called for the law to be extended in its present form so they can continue to try and add more civil liberties safeguards.

The central issue raised by Feingold, Craig, and their supporters is whether Congress has been rigorous enough in assessing how the PATRIOT Act – which the White House calls vital to its war on terror – has been implemented.

Many lawmakers were stunned by recent press reports, denied but not corrected by the Justice Department, that the FBI has issued as many as 30,000 "National Security Letters" (NSLs) since the law was passed. The letters order private and public entities to turn over records and other private data about U.S. citizens – and demand that they remain silent about it.

The government began issuing NSLs in the 1970s as "narrow exceptions in consumer privacy law, enabling the FBI to review in secret the customer records of suspected foreign agents." The PATRIOT Act expanded those letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors who are not necessarily alleged to be terrorists or spies.

The Washington Post reported that the FBI now hands out over 30,000 national security letters per year, "a hundredfold increase over historic norms," which are allowing the government to delve "as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans."

Sen. Specter said the 30,000 figure – first published in the Washington Post – was incorrect. However, he added that he could not disclose the correct number because the information is classified.

Expanded federal powers to seek library, business, and medical records have attracted considerable public and congressional concern. Under the House version of the law, those powers would be subject to judicial review. But, critics say, many other features of the reauthorization bill also deserve more congressional attention.

The controversial issue of library record searches intensified earlier this year, after an American Library Association (ALA) report found that "U.S. law enforcement authorities made more than 200 requests for information from libraries since October 2001."

The ALA said at the time, "What this says to us is that agents are coming to libraries and they are asking for information at a level that is significant, and the findings are completely contrary to what the Justice Department has been trying to convince the public."

The compromise sunsets the PATRIOT Act's infamous "library provisions" in four years, but will not tighten the standards the government needs to subpoena personal information. The government can still obtain personal data merely by showing "relevance" to a terrorism investigation.

Other changes in the law made by House-Senate conferees include allowing intelligence gathered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution, and establishing a judicial review to determine whether the records are relevant to a terrorist probe before investigators can seize a company's business records.

They also limit the use of roving wiretaps to cases in which officials show that a target may thwart surveillance; establish a judicial review of "national security letters"; and require reports to Congress on how often National Security Letters are used.

Finally, they extend the duration of FISA surveillance of non-U.S. persons; require that people subjected to a "sneak and peek" warrant – in which their property has been searched without their knowledge – be notified within seven days of the search, unless law enforcement applies for an extension.

The Senate's action today will be gratifying to human rights groups. Typical is the American Civil Liberties Union, which has called on senators to reject the compromise agreement on reauthorization and urged that body to vote against a motion for cloture.

Said the ACLU, "Concerns about the lack of substantive reforms to the anti-terrorism law have come from an unusual set of allies, including former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, the American Conservative Union, librarians, and other moderate organizations."

(Inter Press Service)

Posted by: Indianhead Dec 17 2005, 09:20 AM

Lied us into war.
Sapped the strength of our military.
Broke international and national laws on torture.
Broke the budget.
Spied on US citizens illegally.
Illegal bribes by contractors, money laundering.
Impeachment?
Hell we need a special prosecutor for RICO.

I don't care what Bush, Rice, Gonzales or any
other of these lying cheating, snooping a**-holes
say they have ZERO credibility.

The Patriot Act should be scrapped, not because we
don't need some protection against terrorism, but
because this administration can't be trusted on a damned thing.

http://www.serendipity.li/cda/niemoll.html

There are several versions of the well-known statement
attributed to the German anti-Nazi activist, Pastor Martin
Niemöller (his family name can also be writted without the
umlaut as "Niemoeller"). The following is said, by someone
who heard him speak at Columbia Theological Seminary
in Decautur GA in 1959 (or 1960), to be what he actually said:

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Speak up long, hard and frequently my friends...they're coming.

Posted by: Pkemp22402 Dec 17 2005, 10:02 AM

I disagree. This should only be an impeachable offense if someone can proove this was used in a way that harmed an American unjustly by the President specifically, which isn't going to happen. Everyone knows America is in a war right now and if they have nothing to hide should not be affected by this. This, unfortunately was one of the things that had to be done as a componenet of the information war. We allowed terrorist to get into this country, and we had to find them, this was one of the way to do it. I think the only issue here should be finding out if this power, since enacted, has been used in an abusive way, such as someone high up using this power to spy on another American because he thinks he is cheating on his wife (sound familiar?).
Otherwise, the NSA has to do what they have to do to protect us at home, and I support it.

Posted by: demo Dec 17 2005, 10:17 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10505574/


Bush says he authorized eavesdropping in U.S.
President lashes out at lawmakers who revealed secret program



• Bush defends spying, urges Patriot Act renewal
Dec. 17: President says he personally approved eavesdropping in U.S. and blasts lawmakers for revealing secret program.
MSNBC

Updated: 11:08 a.m. ET Dec. 17, 2005
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and he lashed out at those involved in publicly revealing the program.

"This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security," he said in a radio address delivered live from the White House's Roosevelt Room.

"This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States," Bush said.

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Angry members of Congress have demanded an explanation of the program, first revealed in Friday's New York Times and whether the monitoring by the National Security Agency violates civil liberties.



Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.

The program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program, the president said.

Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program's activities.

The president also said the intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training to make sure civil liberties are not violated.

Appearing angry at points during his eight-minute address, Bush said he had reauthorized the program more than 30 times since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and plans to continue doing so.

"I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups," he said.

The president contended the program has helped "detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the U.S. and abroad," but did not provide specific examples.

He said it is designed in part to fix problems raised by the Sept. 11 commission, which found that two of the suicide hijackers were communicating from San Diego with al-Qaida operatives overseas.

"The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time," he said.

Bush's remarks echoed — in many cases word-for-word — those issued Friday night by a senior intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity. His highly unusual discussion of classified activities showed the sensitive nature of the program, whose existence was revealed as Congress was trying to renew the terrorism-fighting Patriot Act and complicated that effort, a top priority of Bush's.

Senate Democrats joined with a handful of Republicans on Friday to stall the bill. Those opposing the renewal of key provisions of the act that are expiring say they threaten constitutional liberties.

Reacting to Bush's defense of the NSA program, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said the president's remarks were "breathtaking in how extreme they were."

Feingold said it was "absurd" that Bush said he relied on his inherent power as president to authorize the wiretaps.

"If that's true, he doesn't need the Patriot Act because he can just make it up as he goes along. I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," Feingold told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

The president had harsh words for those who talked about the program to the media, saying their actions were illegal and improper.

"As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have," he said. "The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."

Posted by: Callicles Dec 17 2005, 10:25 AM

And the spin begins....

Pat Buchanan on MSNBC says, (paraphrased) is that "far more serious than the president spying on people is the LEAK of this information to the media"

"there will be a criminal investigation into this LEAK"

"this is going to be a major, major investigation"




I don't give a dang who leaked it or who got the story....

I say its IMPEACHMENT TIME !!!!

Posted by: Istoodforu Dec 17 2005, 10:29 AM

The problems I see are whether or not there are checks and balances by Legislative and Judicial branches. Is there due process to determine probable cause that a subject is in communication with terrorists, Could NSA resources be used for industrial espionage or to spy on rival political campaigns. Could NSA assets be used to smear a political oponent? Could this information be expropriated to do identity theft?

There needs to be oversight, transparency, and due process. If Bush is removing constitutional safeguards that protect our due process and privacy as citizens, then he musy be confronted with articles of impeachment,

9/11 was over 4 years ago. When do we return to normal?

Posted by: Pie Dec 17 2005, 10:42 AM

Ok- on MSNBC during the discussion with Buchanan, there was another dude on-
he said that there is a "secret" court available on a moment's notice to issue the necessary authorizations to wire taps or whatever:

THIS PROVIDES JUDICIAL REVIEW instantaneously.

I missed the name of this Court... did you catch it, Jeff ?

(And, no, apparently Bush has not used this court)

Posted by: Pie Dec 17 2005, 10:45 AM

nrns posted this last night:

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=45284&st=0&p=458127&#entry458127

take the time to read the first part of Lehrer's interview with Bush, at least !

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 17 2005, 12:58 PM

December 18, 2005
In Speech, Bush Says He Ordered Domestic Spying
By DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 - President Bush acknowledged on Saturday that he had ordered the National Security Agency to conduct an electronic eavesdropping program in the United States without first obtaining warrants, and said he would continue the highly classified program because it was "a vital tool in our war against the terrorists."

In his weekly radio address from the White House, which, in an unusual step, he delivered live, Mr. Bush also lashed out at senators - both Democrats and Republicans - who voted on Friday to block the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, which expanded the president's power to conduct surveillance in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The revelation that Mr. Bush had secretly instructed the security agency to intercept the communications of Americans and suspected terrorists inside the United States, without first obtaining warrants from a secret court that oversees intelligence matters, was cited by several senators as a reason for their vote.

"In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment," Mr. Bush said from behind a lectern in the Roosevelt Room, next to the Oval Office.

He said the Senate's action "endangers the lives of our citizens," and added that "the terrorist threat to our country will not expire in two weeks," a reference to the approaching deadline of Dec. 31, when critical provisions of the current law will end.

Mr. Bush's public confirmation Saturday morning of the existence of one of the country's most secret intelligence programs, which had been known to only a select number of his aides, was a rare moment in the presidency. But he linked it with a forceful assertion of his own authority to act without court approval, making it clear that he planned to resist any effort to infringe on his powers.

As recently as Friday, when he was interviewed by Jim Lehrer of PBS, Mr. Bush refused to confirm the report that day in The New York Times that in 2002 he authorized the domestic spying operation by the security agency, which is usually barred from intercepting domestic communications.

But as the clamor over the revelation rose and Vice President Dick Cheney went to Capitol Hill to counter charges that the program was an illegal assumption of presidential powers, even in a time of war, Mr. Bush and his senior aides decided that it was futile to dismiss the report as "speculation," the word he used in his interview.

In his radio address, Mr. Bush sharply criticized the leak of the information, saying that it had been "improperly provided to news organizations." As a result of the report, he said, "our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country."

But Mr. Bush did not address the main question directed at him by some members of Congress on Friday: why he felt it necessary to circumvent the system established under current law, which allows the president to seek emergency warrants, in secret, from the court that oversees intelligence operations. His critics said that under that law, the administration could have obtained the same information.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on Friday that "there is no doubt this is inappropriate" and that he would conduct hearings to determine why Mr. Bush took the action.

The president said on Saturday that he acted in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks because the United States had failed to detect communications that might have tipped them off to the plot. He said that two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, "communicated while they were in the United States to other members of Al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late."

As a result, "I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations," Mr. Bush said. "This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security."

Mr. Bush said that every 45 days the program was reviewed, based on "a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland." That review involves the attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, and Mr. Bush's counsel, Harriet E. Miers, whom Mr. Bush unsuccessfully tried to nominate to the Supreme Court this year.

"I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from Al Qaeda and related groups," the president said. He said Congressional leaders had been repeatedly briefed on the program, and that intelligence officials "receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization."

The Patriot Act vote in the Senate, coming a day after Mr. Bush was forced to accept an amendment sponsored by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, that places limits on interrogation techniques that can be used by Central Intelligence Agency officers and other non-military personnel, was a setback to the president's assertion of broad powers. In both cases, he lost a number of Republicans along with almost all Democrats.

"This reflects a complete transformation of the debate in America over torture," said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director of Human Rights Watch. "After the attacks, no politician was heard expressing any questions about the executive branch's treatment of captured terrorists." That has now "changed fundamentally," Mr. Malinowski said, a view that even some of Mr. Bush's aides and former aides echoed.

Mr. Bush's unusual radio address is part of a broader effort this weekend to regain the initiative, after weeks in which the political ground has shifted under his feet. On Sunday evening he has scheduled a live television address from the Oval Office to celebrate the success of the elections in Iraq, and to declare that they are evidence that he made the right decision to depose Saddam Hussein.

The last time Mr. Bush delivered such an address, in the formal setting that he usually tries to avoid, was in March 2003, when he informed the world that he had ordered the Iraq invasion.

As part of the planned address, Mr. Bush appears ready to at least hint at reductions in the troop levels in Iraq, which he has said in a series of four recent speeches on Iraq strategy could be the ultimate result if Iraqi security forces are able to begin to perform more security operations currently conducted by American forces.

Currently, there are roughly 160,000 American troops in Iraq, a number that was intended to keep order for Friday's parliamentary elections, which were conducted with little violence and an unexpectedly heavy turnout of Sunnis, the ethnic minority that ruled the country under Mr. Hussein's reign. The American troop level was already scheduled to decline to 138,000 - what the military calls its "baseline" level of troops - after the election.

But on Friday, as the debate in Washington swirled over the president's order to the N.S.A., Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top American commander in Iraq, hinted that further reductions may be on the way. "We're doing our assessment, and I make some recommendations in the coming weeks about whether I think it's prudent to go below the baseline," Gen. Casey told reporters in Baghdad.

In Washington, officials said that could enable Mr. Bush to point to deeper cuts in coming months, assuming that the new government forms and the insurgency is held in check. The Army, for example, has prepared plans to hold back one brigade that was scheduled to enter Iraq and to assign some soldiers from another brigade to train Iraqis and guard utilities and other public infrastructure, Pentagon civilian and military officials say. Under these plans, a Germany-based brigade of the First Armored Division, now in Kuwait, would remain there as a quick-reaction force; all or part of the brigade also could be sent home from Kuwait should the security in Iraq situation settle down in the weeks after the vote, officials said. An Army brigade is 3,000 to 5,000 troops, but can have additional supporting units attached to it.

A brigade of the First Infantry Division based at Fort Riley, Kan., would be sent to Iraq in smaller units, and not all at once, under the proposals. Some soldiers from the brigade could be sent to Iraq to help train Iraqi security forces, while others might be sent to Iraq subsequently to guard utilities, infrastructure and other important locations as required next year, Pentagon civilian and military officials said.

It is unclear how far Mr. Bush may be prepared to go in his Oval Office speech to committing to troop reductions; in his four recent speeches on Iraq he said repeatedly that troop levels would decline only as Iraqi and American forces accomplished several objectives: Breaking the back of the insurgency, protecting the new government, and making sure that terror groups cannot use Iraq as a launching pad for new attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/politics/18bush.html?ei=5094&en=5b0fa310edb6186f&hp=&ex=1134882000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 17 2005, 12:59 PM

December 17, 2005
Transcript
President Bush's Address
Following is a transcription of President Bush’s weekly radio address yesterday as recorded by The New York Times.

As president, I took an oath to defend the Constitution and I have no greater responsibility than to protect our people, our freedom and our way of life.

On Sept. 11, 2001, our freedom and way of life came under attack by brutal enemies who killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. We’re fighting these enemies across the world. Yet in this first war of the 21st century, one of the most critical battlefronts is the home front. And since Sept. 11, we’ve been on the offensive against the terrorists plotting within our borders.

One of the first actions we took to protect America after our nation was attacked was to ask Congress to pass the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act tore down the legal and bureaucratic wall that kept law enforcement and intelligence authorities from sharing vital information about terrorist threats. And the Patriot Act allowed federal investigators to pursue terrorists with tools they already used against other criminals.

Congress passed this law with a large bipartisan majority, including a vote of 98 to 1 in the United States Senate. Since then, America’s law enforcement personnel have used this critical law to prosecute terrorist operatives and supporters and to break up terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia, California, Texas and Ohio.

The Patriot Act has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do. It is protecting American liberty and saved American lives. Yet key provisions of this law are set to expire in two weeks.

The terrorist threat to our country will not expire in two weeks. The terrorists want to attack America again and inflict even greater damage than they did on Sept. 11. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that law enforcement and intelligence officials have the tools they need to protect the American people.

The House of Representatives passed reauthorization of the Patriot Act, yet a minority of senators filibustered to block the renewal of the Patriot Act when it came up for a vote yesterday. That decision is irresponsible and it endangers the lives of our citizens.

The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics and the Senate must vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

In the war on terror we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment. To fight the war on terror, I’m using authority vested in me by Congress, including the joint authorization for use of military force, which passed overwhelmingly in the first week after Sept. 11. I’m also using constitutional authority vested in me as commander in chief.

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies.

Yesterday, the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have.

And the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies and endangers our country.

As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the Sept. 11 attacks. And the commission criticized our nation’s inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad.

Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet in the Pentagon, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid al-Midhar, communicated while they were in the United States, to other members of Al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn’t know they were here until it was too late.

The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after Sept. 11 helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities.

The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time.

And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligment assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland.

During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation’s top legal officials, including the attorney general and the counsel to the president.

I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from Al Qaeda and related groups.

The N.S.A.’s activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and N.S.A.’s top legal officials, including N.S.A.’s general counsel and inspector general.

Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activities also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.

This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do so long as I’m the president of the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/politics/17text-bush.html?pagewanted=print

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 17 2005, 01:02 PM

Here is the WaPo take on the Presiden'ts speech.

President Acknowledges Approving Secretive Eavesdropping
Bush Also Urges Congress to Extend Patriot Act

By Peter Baker and Lexie Verdon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 17, 2005; 12:12 PM



President Bush today acknowledged that he had secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international communications of Americans and other domestic residents with known links to al Qaeda.

The controversial order has been approved by legal authorities in his administration, Bush said, and he added that members of Congress had been notified of it more than a dozen times.

He defended his decision to sign the secret order, calling the program a "vital tool in our war against terrorists" and "critical to saving American lives."

"This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security," a stern-looking Bush said. "Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends, and allies. . . .And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad."

"I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups," Bush added.

The disclosure of the program, first reported in yesterday's editions of the New York Times, raised strong protests from congressional leaders of both parties, and key members of Congress yesterday called for hearings into the president's action.

Bush today also strongly urged the Senate to pass the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism bill passed overwhelmingly by Congress shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Key provisions of the law are scheduled to expire at the end of the month, but concerns have been raised recently its effect on the possible erosion of Americans' civil liberties. Yesterday, with the news of the NSA domestic eavesdropping program reverberating around Capitol Hill, opponents of the bill in the Senate blocked efforts to pass renew the Patriot Act.

"That decision is irresponsible, and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics, and the Senate must vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act," Bush said. "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment."

Noting that the act expires in two weeks, he said, "The terrorist threat to our country will not expire in two weeks."

The president used his weekly Saturday morning address to the country to talk about the growing furor over the NSA secret eavesdropping program. In a sign of the interest in the speech, instead of the usual taped radio speech, the president spoke live this morning and it was carried on television. The speech ran about seven minutes, slightly longer than his usual radio addresses.

He chastised the news accounts, saying, "The existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."

Bush said that he authorized the program "using constitutional authority vested in me as commander-in-chief." He argued that the program is consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, and used "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."

"The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time," Bush said. "And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad."

He said the surveillance is reviewed about every 45 days and fresh intelligence about the subjects is considered. Those involved in the reviews include the "nation's top legal officials, including the attorney general and the counsel to the president." The NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general, are also part of the review, he said.

"The American people expect me to do everything under my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties," Bush said, "and that is exactly what I will continue to do so long as I am the president of the United States."

Bush took no questions after his comments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700456_pf.html

Posted by: DWB04 Dec 17 2005, 01:02 PM

Correct Pie, which makes it seem highly irregular (to say the least) that they did not avail themselves of this legal authorization. How can anyone then not assume that this activity was intended to bypass legal authority and thus be in violation of the 1978 law?

We don't know who was being watched or when...but if Larry Johnson is correct about Bolton resurfacing in conjunction with these NSA intercepts etc it could have been pre-war intel related...... more lies!


BTW did you catch bush's 'patriot' speech this morning and Feingold's reply?
CNN truncated Feingold's remarks but he got the message out. Essentially that bush is not a king.....he thinks he can do anything he likes etc....

Posted by: Choppin Broccoli Dec 17 2005, 01:03 PM

Well gee whiz. I guess if you have nothing to hide, you wouldn't mind the police breaking into your house in the middle of the night and going through your belongings.

This is still America, and you still have rights in this country (for now, anyway--after a few more years of Republican rule, who knows?). If you subscribe to the "rights only protect criminals" philosophy (or as I like to call it, the "it can't happen to me" philosophy), then I guess you'd be just hunky-dory with trashing the Constitution altogether. Why would you want all the rights it guarantees you.........unless you have something to hide, right? Luckily, since repealing the Constitution and trampling on people's rights is right up your alley, Bush is exactly the President for you. Soon Americans will have no rights left, and you'll be just as happy as a clam.

Here's an idea. If you ever get tired of living in a country where people have rights to not be spyed on by their own government, then feel free to move to Red China or Afghanistan. You'll feel right at home..............and very well protected too. Because we all know that the REAL threat to YOU comes from OUTSIDE forces who OPPOSE the government, rather than the government itself that sees you as nothing more than an impediment to its goals.

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 17 2005, 01:06 PM

This is a wonderful piece. It is a must read.

Unclaimed Territory
by Glenn Greenwald

Saturday, December 17, 2005
Bush's unchecked Executive power v. the Founding principles of the U.S.

Underlying all of the excesses and abuses of executive power claimed by the Bush Administration is a theory of absolute, unchecked power vested in the Presidency which literally could not be any more at odds with the central, founding principles of this country.

As this morning’s New York Times analysis put it in describing the rationale behind the Adminstration's violations of the Foreign Intelligence Security Act, pursuant to which it has been secretly spying on the commuincations of American citizens without judicial warrants:

As the Times reports, Bush's claim to absolute executive power has its origins principally in one document:



a Sept. 25, 2001, memorandum [by the Justice Department’s John Yoo] that said no statute passed by Congress "can place any limits on the president's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing and nature of the response."




The notion that one of the three branches of our Government can claim power unchecked by the other two branches is precisely what the Founders sought, first and foremost, to preclude. And the fear that a U.S. President would attempt to seize power unchecked by the law or by the other branches – i.e., that the Executive would seize the powers of the British King – was the driving force behind the clear and numerous constitutional limitations placed on Executive power. It is these very limitations which the Bush Administration is claiming that it has the power to disregard because the need for enhanced national security in time of war vests the President with unchecked power.

But that theory of the Executive unconstrained by law is completely repulsive to the founding principles of the country, as well as to the promises made by the Founders in order to extract consent from a monarchy-fearing public to the creation of executive power vested in a single individual. The notion that all of that can be just whimsically tossed aside whenever the nation experiences external threats is as contrary to the country’s founding principles as it is dangerous.

It cannot be said that the Founders were unaware of the potential for national emergencies and external threats. They engaged in a war with the British which was at least as much of an existential threat to the Republic as those posed by 9/11 and related threats of Islamic extremism. Notwithstanding those threats, the Founders, in creating an Executive branch, sought first and foremost to ensure that the President could never wield unchecked powers which would exist above and separate from Congressionally enacted laws.

Among recent Republican Administrations, this theory of the unchecked President is not new. Digby recalls Richard Nixon's endorsement of it, and the theory came to life in the Iran-Contra scandal, where the Reagan Administration unilaterally deemed it necessary to U.S. national security to arm the Nicaraguan contras and then asserted for itself the power to circumvent the law enacted by the Congress which prohibited exactly that.

But the situation we have now is far more egregious, and far more dangerous, because the Administration is not even bothering to pretend now (as the Reagan Administration at least did) that the Executive acts undertaken really did adhere to Congressional intent, or alternatively, to the extent that such acts violated Congressional mandates, the acts were simply the by-product of overzealous and rogue officials who broke the law without the knowledge or approval of President Reagan.

The Bush Administration’s position now is almost the opposite of that posture, in that the Administration is expressly claiming that the President does have the right to violate laws of Congress because his executive power is absolute and thus cannot be restricted by anything. And rather than applying this theory of unchecked executive power to a single case (as the Reagan Administration did in Iran-contra), the Bush Administration has arrogated unto itself this monarchical power as a general proposition, applicable to each and every issue which can be said to relate, however generally, to this undeclared "war" against terrorism.

This view of the Presidency – which now exists not just in odious theory but in real, live, breathing form vested in George Bush – is precisely what the monarchy-fearing Founders insisted should never occur and, with the enactment of the U.S. Constitution, would never occur.

This absolute power claimed and enthusiastically exercised by George Bush violates not just specific Constitutional limitations, but the core principles of the Constitution: that we are a nation of laws not men; that each branch shall be "co-equal" to the others and checked and limited by the other two; and that the people shall retain ultimate power by vesting in them the right to enact supreme laws through the Congress which shall bind all other citizens, including the President.

That the Bush Administration’s claim to unchecked and supra-legal Executive power is squarely inconsistent with basic constitutional principles is conclusively demonstrated by James Madison’s Federalist No. 48, which is devoted to the principle that liberty cannot be maintained unless each branch remains accountable and subordinate to the others:





Similarly, Madison, in Federalist No. 51, defined the central objective for avoiding tyranny as ensuring that no branch be able to claim for itself powers which are absolute and unchecked by the other branches:



In particular, Madison emphasized in Federalist 51 that liberty could be preserved only if the laws enacted by the people through the Congress were supreme and universally binding:




Hamilton made the same point in Federalist No. 73. where he emphasized:




To the Founders, the defining characteristics of the tyrannical British King was that he possessed precisely those powers which the Constitution prohibits but which the Bush Administration is now claiming it can exercise. From Federalist 70:




Based on the fear of such unchecked executive power, Federalist 69 emphasized that unlike the British King, who did possess the absolute power to nullify duly enacted laws , the sole power possessed by the President to negate a law enacted by the Congress -- including with regard to matters of national security and war -- is the President’s qualified (i.e., override-able) veto power:





An extremely potent demonstration that the Bush Administration’s claim to unchecked Executive Power is fundamentally inconsistent with the most basic constitutional safeguards comes from one of the unlikeliest corners – Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S.Ct. 2633 (2004):






Both the Bush Administration’s theory of its own unchecked power and its indiscriminate and aggressive use of that power to violate Congressional law contradicts every constitutional principle created to ensure that we do not live under unchecked Executive tyranny. If the President is allowed to get away with secretly decreeing that he can violate the law and then doing exactly that, then there really are no remaining checks on Executive power -- and we have, without hyperbole, arrived at the very definition of tyranny.

The country has, more or less with a quiet complacency, stood by while this Administration imprisoned American citizens with no due process, while the Administration sanctioned torture and then used it to extract "evidence" to justify those detentions, and while the Administration exploited the fear of terrorist acts to bestow onto itself unprecedented powers.

If the naked assertion of absolute power by the Bush Administration -- and the use of that power to eavesdrop on American citizens without any judicial review -- does not finally prompt the public regardless of partisan allegiance to take a stand against this undiluted claim to real tyrannical power, then it is impossible to imagine what would ever prompt such a stand.

UPDATE: The more one thinks about the fact that the New York Times was aware of this patently illegal behavior for a full year and concealed it from the public because the Administration told it keep quiet, the more disturbing that complicity becomes.

About Me

Name:Glenn Greenwald Location:Rio de Janeiro & NYC
Until this year, I was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges (including some of the highest-profile free speech cases over the past few years), civil rights cases, and corporate and security fraud matters. I am currently living most of the time in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (the rest in NYC).


E-mail: GGreenwald@gclaw.us


http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/bushs-unchecked-executive-power-v.html

Posted by: Choppin Broccoli Dec 17 2005, 01:07 PM

OMG!!! The most appalling presidency in the entire history of this country just ADMITTED he approved spying on his own people. We are officially a Third World country.



Bush Acknowledges Approving Eavesdropping
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday he has no intention of stopping his personal authorizations of a post-Sept. 11 secret eavesdropping program in the U.S., lashing out at those involved in revealing it while defending it as crucial to preventing future attacks.

"This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security," he said in a radio address delivered live from the White House's Roosevelt Room.

"This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States," Bush said.

Angry members of Congress have demanded an explanation of the program, first revealed in Friday's New York Times and whether the monitoring by the National Security Agency without obtaining warrants from a court violates civil liberties. One Democrat said in response to Bush's remarks on the radio that Bush was acting more like a king than the elected president of a democracy.

Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.

The program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program, the president said.

Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program's activities.

The president also said the intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training to make sure civil liberties are not violated.

Appearing angry at points during his eight-minute address, Bush said he had reauthorized the program more than 30 times since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and plans to continue doing so.

"I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups," he said.

The president contended the program has helped "detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the U.S. and abroad," but did not provide specific examples.

He said it is designed in part to fix problems raised by the Sept. 11 commission, which found that two of the suicide hijackers were communicating from San Diego with al-Qaida operatives overseas.

"The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9-11 hijackers will be identified and located in time," he said.

In an effort by the administration that appeared coordinated to stem criticism, Bush's remarks echoed — in many cases word-for-word — those issued Friday night by a senior intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The president's highly unusual discussion of classified activities showed the sensitive nature of the program, whose existence was revealed as Congress was trying to renew the terrorism-fighting Patriot Act and complicated that effort, a top priority of Bush's.

Senate Democrats joined with a handful of Republicans on Friday to stall the bill. Those opposing the renewal of key provisions of the act that are expiring say they threaten constitutional liberties.

Reacting to Bush's defense of the NSA program, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said the president's remarks were "breathtaking in how extreme they were."

Feingold said it was "absurd" that Bush said he relied on his inherent power as president to authorize the wiretaps.

"If that's true, he doesn't need the Patriot Act because he can just make it up as he goes along. I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," Feingold told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

The president had harsh words for those who talked about the program to the media, saying their actions were illegal and improper.

"As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have," he said. "The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."

Posted by: EvelyninTexas Dec 17 2005, 01:12 PM

I agree! How come his speech tomorrow night can't be about his resignation??? His own party doesn't approve of this egregious use of power.

But, as usual, he is belligerent.

Posted by: DWB04 Dec 17 2005, 01:46 PM

NRNS thank you....excellent article...he has provided not only the unlawful application of this flagrant act, but a sense of the constitutional implications or basis for denouncing it.

I have often wondered, if the Congress does not act responsibly as our agent by proxy in such a matter, then could the public itself demand accountability by a form of 'citizen's arrest.

Posted by: JasonATexan Dec 17 2005, 01:49 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?ei=5094&en=c7596fe0d4798785&hp=&ex=1134795600&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&pagewanted=5&adxnnlx=1134848874-qg8lJ598WwY6vJDDBLqbtg

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

Bush administration officials argue that the civil liberties concerns are unfounded, and they say pointedly that the Patriot Act has not freed the N.S.A. to target Americans. "Nothing could be further from the truth," wrote John Yoo, a former official in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, and his co-author in a Wall Street Journal opinion article in December 2003. Mr. Yoo worked on a classified legal opinion on the N.S.A.'s domestic eavesdropping program.

At an April hearing on the Patriot Act renewal, Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, asked Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the F.B.I., "Can the National Security Agency, the great electronic snooper, spy on the American people?"

"Generally," Mr. Mueller said, "I would say generally, they are not allowed to spy or to gather information on American citizens."

President Bush did not ask Congress to include provisions for the N.S.A. domestic surveillance program as part of the Patriot Act and has not sought any other laws to authorize the operation. Bush administration lawyers argued that such new laws were unnecessary, because they believed that the Congressional resolution on the campaign against terrorism provided ample authorization, officials said.

The Legal Line Shifts

Seeking Congressional approval was also viewed as politically risky because the proposal would be certain to face intense opposition on civil liberties grounds. The administration also feared that by publicly disclosing the existence of the operation, its usefulness in tracking terrorists would end, officials said.

The legal opinions that support the N.S.A. operation remain classified, but they appear to have followed private discussions among senior administration lawyers and other officials about the need to pursue aggressive strategies that once may have been seen as crossing a legal line, according to senior officials who participated in the discussions.

For example, just days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon, Mr. Yoo, the Justice Department lawyer, wrote an internal memorandum that argued that the government might use "electronic surveillance techniques and equipment that are more powerful and sophisticated than those available to law enforcement agencies in order to intercept telephonic communications and observe the movement of persons but without obtaining warrants for such uses."

Mr. Yoo noted that while such actions could raise constitutional issues, in the face of devastating terrorist attacks "the government may be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties."

The next year, Justice Department lawyers disclosed their thinking on the issue of warrantless wiretaps in national security cases in a little-noticed brief in an unrelated court case. In that 2002 brief, the government said that "the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority."

Administration officials were also encouraged by a November 2002 appeals court decision in an unrelated matter. The decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which sided with the administration in dismantling a bureaucratic "wall" limiting cooperation between prosecutors and intelligence officers, cited "the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."

But the same court suggested that national security interests should not be grounds "to jettison the Fourth Amendment requirements" protecting the rights of Americans against undue searches. The dividing line, the court acknowledged, "is a very difficult one to administer."

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 17 2005, 01:54 PM

You don't consider it abusive for a president to assume power that he does not have? You don't consider it abusive for a president to violate the law? He bypassed the FISA Court and authorized warrantless searches (wiretaps). We DO NOT ALLOW warrantless searches in this country. It is against the law.

We need to wake up and stop letting Bush use the fear of terrorists argument to cow us into allowing him to abuse his power.

Here is a quote from the Glen Greenwald article that I posted above:

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 17 2005, 02:16 PM

He's going to use that speech to try to improve his poll numbers by citing the successful Iraqi elections. He is also going to use it to further scare the American people about terrorists that "lurk" among us so that he can get them to support his abuse of power.

My Senators and Reps. will get an angry call from me on Monday morning asking them why they are allowing the president to abuse his power.

Posted by: DWB04 Dec 17 2005, 02:30 PM

I just ran across this action....a proposed citizen's arrest by the people of Texas against Kay Bailey Hutchison....obviously unsuccesful, but I picture a similar declaration:

People of the United States vs George W Bush

Resolved that the "President," George W Bush did willfully, arrogantly, and unlawfully abuse the constitutional powers invested to him by the Constitution and by the American people and subject to congressional law .etc etc etc


http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/4724.php

Posted by: Pie Dec 17 2005, 02:40 PM

Sounds good to me. This HAS to stop !

Where are all the emails I get from various gov't reps on other issues ?
Why are they not screaming with outrage and asking us to sign on in protest ?

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 17 2005, 02:41 PM

I just sent a letter to the editor to my local paper. I hope everyone who reads this thread will send one to their local paper. The response to what Bush has done must be immediate before their spin has a chance to take hold.

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 17 2005, 02:55 PM

Calculated Machinations and Lies

The Madness of King George

How does one sit down to write about the deliberate circumvention of law in a nation of laws by the Chief Executive? Especially, when the actions taken by that executive ignore the lessons that were hard learned and codified into law for the express purpose of preventing the very actions taken?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (or FISA) provides the framework for how surveillance by covert agencies may or may not be done. The Bush Administration has put forth the argument that FISA had to be circumvented due to immediate need for surveillance of subjects in the aftermath of 9/11 due to urgent national security concerns. But this is a lie.

FISA provisions already provide for emergency surveillance measures. Under 36 USC 1805, the Attorney General may authorize emergency surveillance (including wiretapping and other regulated surveillance methods) for up to 72 hours, so long as application for approval by the FISA supervisory court is made before that time expires. The Administration already had all the emergency measures it needed to do surveillance without illegal encroachment on American civil liberties.

Further, this was a calculated effort to circumvent the law, resting these efforts on a matter of urgent national security -- which was designed to ensure that any opposition would have to occur privately in the interests of the nation. The "Gang of Eight" would have to have been informed of this Presidential directive -- this is the leadership of the House and Senate, and the leadership of the Intelligence committees in both houses -- at the time that the initial directive was put into place.

On John Yoo's recommendation (according to reports here and here), the President issued the first order within a very short framework after 9/11. The Gang of Eight does not have to give unanimous agreement by any means for a Presidential Directive to become effective, there is simply a notification requirement of actions of this nature prior to the order going into effect.

Because there was an ongoing threat of potential sleeper cell activity in this country at the time, any opposition would have to have been maintained behind intelligence walls, simply on the basis of urgent national security interests. The Administration knew that would be the consideration weighed in by all of those members notified, because first and foremost the immediate safety concerns would have been paramount at that time. And they used this to their advantage in this power grab that violates the principles of separation of powers and the prohibition against violation of Fourth Amendment rights.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The wholesale, willful and deliberate circumvention of this Constitutional principle by the Bush Administration is appalling, not least because it was wholly unnecessary, given the emergency provisions already in place in the FISA laws. (This FindLaw link provides a wealth of information on Fourth Amendment considerations and case law. Very useful.)

The question comes as to what oversight, if any, has been given to this matter after the immediate threat of 9/11 subsided. Why was this circumvention of the FISA law allowed to continue? The recent articles on the subject indicate that there was oppostion by Democrats, particularly by Sen. Rockefeller, but with an Administration and a Congress controlled by Republicans who have made it a policy to shut out the minority and any opposing opinions, how much if any of this got through?

Since the implementation of FISA, the FBI has primarily been responsible for domestic surveillance. The NSA, rather gratefully, retreated to foreign surveillance after the turmoil of the Vietnam era. (And it isn't just the NSA involved, it's also the DoD.)

The Bush Administration has thoughtlessly and needlessly breached that wall and, despite all indications being that the NSA program was very limited in terms of personnel being involved, has tainted the entire operation -- again -- and shined a light on an agency that thrives in the shadows. Which does not help us in terms of national security considerations. (NPR has had a series of reports on this matter, including an particularly exceptional interview with James Bamford which can be found here. Well worth the listen.)

But this is an Administration that appears to think only in short term needs and wants, and not in long term consequences and worst case scenarios. The President acknowledged today that he did, indeed, authorize this domestic surveillance. Reports are that he did so on multiple occasions.

Congressional leaders of both parties have called for hearings on the subject.

They would do well to remember that, in a nation of laws, neither the President nor members of Congress are above the rule of law. And that the nation is watching to see if anyone will be held to account for the machinations and lies of King George. If the Congress does not hold this Administration to account, then the public will do so in the 2006 elections. Period.

Digby, Atrios and Josh Marshall have more.

posted by ReddHedd @ 9:43 AM


http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/

Posted by: jesseaw Dec 17 2005, 03:54 PM

I, too, am not sure it's impeachable but am doubtful that, in a Republican-dominated Congress, much would be done about it unless their constituents insist.
Let's hope at least an honest investigation into the matter is pursued because their constituents insist.

Sincerely,

Jesseaw

Posted by: billfmsd Dec 17 2005, 04:39 PM

Posted by: Snuffysmith Dec 17 2005, 04:42 PM

Bush: Eavesdropping helps save U.S. lives

WASHINGTON (AP) — Facing angry criticism and challenges to his authority in Congress, President Bush on Saturday unapologetically defended his administration's right to conduct secret post-Sept. 11 spying in the U.S. as "critical to saving American lives."

President Bush delivers his weekly radio address in the Roosevelt Room of the White House.
By Martin Simon-Pool, Getty Images

One Democrat said Bush was acting more like a king than a democratically elected leader.

Bush's willingness to publicly acknowledge some of the government's most classified activities was a stunning development for a president known to dislike disclosure of even the most mundane inner workings of his White House.

Since October 2001, the super-secret National Security Agency has monitored, without court-approved warrants, the international phone calls and e-mails of people inside the United States.

News of the program comes at a particularly damaging and delicate time.

Already, the Bush administration is under fire for allegedly operating secret prisons in Eastern Europe and shipping suspected terrorists to other countries for harsh interrogations.

The NSA program's existence surfaced as the administration and its GOP allies on Capitol Hill were fighting to save the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the domestic anti-terrorism law enacted after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In a stinging failure to Bush, Democrats and a few Republicans who say this law gives so much latitude to law enforcement officials that it threatens Americans' constitutional liberties succeeded Friday in stalling its renewal.

So Bush scrapped the version of his weekly radio address that he had already taped — on the recent elections in Iraq — and delivered a live speech from the White House's Roosevelt Room on the Patriot Act and the NSA program.

The gravity with which the White House regarded the situation was evident by the presence in the West Wing on a normally quiet Saturday of many of Bush's closest aides.

Often appearing angry in his eight-minute address, the president lashed out at the senators who blocked the Patriot Act's renewal, branding them as irresponsible.

He also made clear that he has no intention of halting his authorizations of the NSA's monitoring activities and said the public disclosure of the spy operation endangered Americans.

Bush said his authority to approve what he called a "vital tool in our war against the terrorists" came from his constitutional powers as commander in chief. He said that he has personally signed off on reauthorizations more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties," Bush said. "And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the president of the United States."

James Bamford, author of two books on the National Security Agency, said the program could be problematic because it bypasses a special court set up by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to authorize eavesdropping on suspected terrorists.

"I didn't hear him specify any legal right, except his right as president, which in a democracy doesn't make much sense," Bamford said in an interview. "Today, what Bush said is he went around the law, which is a violation of the law — which is illegal."

Susan Low Bloch, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center, said the president needs authorization from Congress for this kind of activity.

"He's taking a hugely expansive interpretation of the Constitution and the president's powers under the Constitution," she said.

"It's consistent with everything the White House has been doing since 9/11. And every time that any of these measures have been challenged in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has ruled against the administration. The administration just doesn't seem to learn from that."

That view was echoed by congressional Democrats.

"I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., told The Associated Press.

Added Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.: "The Bush administration seems to believe it is above the law."

Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Friday said the NSA program was inappropriate and he promised hearings soon.

Bush defended the monitoring program as narrowly designed and used "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it is employed only to intercept the international communications of people inside the U.S. who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al-Qaeda or related terrorist organizations.

Government officials have refused to provide details, including defining the standards used to establish such a link or saying how many people are being monitored.

The program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews, and information from previous activities under the program, the president said. Intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training to make sure civil liberties are not violated, he said.

Bush also said members of the congressional leadership have been briefed more than a dozen times on the activities.

The program through the nation's largest spy agency is designed in part to fix problems revealed by the 2001 attacks, in which it came to be learned that two of the suicide hijackers were communicating from San Diego with al-Qaeda operatives overseas.

"The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9-11 hijackers will be identified and located in time," Bush said. "The activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

The president had harsh words for those who revealed the program to the media, saying they acted improperly and illegally. The surveillance, was first disclosed in Friday's New York Times.

"As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have," Bush said. "The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."

Bush has more to worry about on Capitol Hill than his difficulties with the Patriot Act. Lawmakers have begun challenging Bush on his Iraq policy, reflecting polling that shows half of the country is not behind him on the war.

On Sunday, the president was continuing his effort to reverse that by giving his fifth major speech in less than three weeks on Iraq. This latest one was a 15-minute address, set in prime time from the Oval Office, that was to focus on his vision for Iraq for 2006.

One bright spot for the White House was a new poll showing that a strong majority of Americans oppose, as does Bush and most lawmakers, an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The AP-Ipsos poll found 57% of those surveyed said the U.S. military should stay until Iraq is stabilized.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Posted by: DWB04 Dec 17 2005, 04:49 PM

useful quote from blogger at Huffington Post:

Posted by: rox63 Dec 17 2005, 04:55 PM

Apparently, Bush thinks that 9/11 gave him the authority to do anything he wants, regardless of the law. He's like some renegade sheriff who just rode into some one-horse frontier town and declared, "I am the law".

Some items on this subject from Josh Marshall at TPM:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007275.php

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007276.php



http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007277.php



http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007278.php

Posted by: rox63 Dec 17 2005, 05:07 PM

From Steve Clemons at The Washington Note, a demand that the list of people spied on be made public.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001151.html

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 17 2005, 05:14 PM

From Digby at Hullabaloo

If The President Does It It's Not Illegal

by digby

Oh for Gawd's sakes. Tom Brokaw is on Matthews boo-hooing that this NSA story stepped on Junior's wonderful Iraq triumph. He explains that when you are at war you need to do things that are difficult and believes that most people in the country will agree that the administration needed to spy on Americans after 9/11. He agrees with analyst Roger Cressy (who I used to think was sane) that once the "window" of a possible impending attack closed they should have gone up to the hill and sought permission to keep spying on Americans with no judicial oversight. (I haven't heard about this "window" before. Tom and Roger both seem to have a fantasy that the administration would not simply say that the "window" remains open as long as evil exists in the world.)

Look, the problem here, again, is not one of just spying on Americans, as repulsively totalitarian as that is. It's that the administration adopted John Yoo's theory of presidential infallibility. But, of course, it wasn't really John Yoo's theory at all; it was Dick Cheney's muse, Richard Nixon who said, "when the President does it, that means it's not illegal."

This was not some off the cuff statement. It was based upon a serious constitutional theory --- that the congress or the judiciary (and by inference the laws they promulgate and interpret) have no authority over an equal branch of government. The president, in the pursuit of his duties as president, is not subject to the laws. Citizens can offer their judgment of his performance every four years at the ballot box.

After the election, George W. Bush said this:


The Post: ...Why hasn't anyone been held accountable, either through firings or demotions, for what some people see as mistakes or misjudgments?

He, like Nixon, believes that the president has only one "accountability moment" while he is president. His re-election. Beyond that, he has been given a blank check. And that includes breaking the law since if the president does it, it's not illegal, the president being the executive branch which is not subject to any other branch of govenrment.

John Yoo, the former deputy attorney general who wrote many of the opinion undergirding these findings (on torture as well as spying) explains that the congress has no right to abridge the president's warmaking powers. Its only constitutional remedy to a war with which they disagree is to deny funding; they can leave the troops on the field with no food or bullets.

I suspect that there are many more of these instances out there in which the administration has simply ignored the law. They believe that the constitution explicitly authorizes them to do so.


After 9/11 these people went crazy and convinced themselves that the country was in such mortal, exitential danger that this theory of imperial presidential perogative was a necessity. They say they are doing it to protect the citizens of this country. But one thing that American conservatives used to understand was that our system of government was forged by people who understood that too much power invested in one place is dangerous and that sometimes the people needed to be protected from their own government. That's fundamental to our laborious process of checks and balances and a free press. (Indeed, it was that principle on which they based their absolutist stand on the second amendment.)

Now we hear conservative commentators like Ronald Kessler, who was just interviewed (alone) on FoxNews, opining that the president did nothing illegal and was completely within his rights to spy on Americans. There is no longer any question that the government would ever abuse its power by, for instance, spying on Americans for political purposes and even if it did, we're fighting for our lives and we have to accept these infringements for our own safety. I'm quite sure he'll agree that a President Howard Dean should be given the same level of trust, aren't you?

I think the president said it best:



Update:

A commenter to Larry Johnson's post over at TPM (reminding us that John Bolton was involved in some doing about NSA intercepts and American citizens) gives a nice historical view of the Yoo Doctrine:


Re: Spying on Americans and John Bolton (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by JamesW on Dec 16, 2005 -- 06:23:50 PM EST

The second part of the Yoo Doctrine is critical: it's the President, not Congress, who decides whether the country is at war or not.

In an extreme Tory argument, Yoo can just about argue that this was English 18th-century doctrine, but since Parliament rigorously controlled the purse-strings, it surely wasn't practice after 1688. [Yoo does make this argument --- ed] I doubt if English Whigs like Fox accepted the theory either, let alone American rebels.

Where Yoo surely parts company with any sane constitutional thinking since the Roman Republic is the extension that the monarch/president gets to decide what counts as a war. For George III, George Washington, Lincoln. Woodrow Wilson and FDR, war is an organised conflict between societies or social groups. Police actions against pirates, slavers, and terrorists are not war. By treating the rhetorical "war on terror", infinitely redefinable, as a real war with war's legal consequences, the Bush administration has entered the 1984 terrain of totalitarianism

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_digbysblog_archive.html#113477714899464334

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 17 2005, 05:16 PM

From Atrios

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Spying on Americans


We need to know who, why, what:


The revelation that the National Security Agency was allowed to conduct non-FISA intercepts of American citizens should bring last summer's hearing on John Bolton's nomination to the United Nations back into focus. As Legal times noted in September of this year, "During the confirmation hearings of John Bolton as the U.S. representative to the United Nations, it came to light that the NSA had freely revealed intercepted conversations of U.S. citizens to Bolton while he served at the State Department. . . . More generally, Newsweek reports that from January 2004 to May 2005, the NSA supplied intercepts and names of 10,000 U.S. citizens to policy-makers at many departments, other U.S. intelligence services, and law enforcement agencies."

We still don't know who he was looking at and what information was contained in those intercepts. More importantly, were they legally obtained? In light of the latest revelation, we have another possible explanation why the Bush Administration fought so strenuously to keep those intercepts secret and out of the hearing. Snooping without judicial review is wrong and must be punished.



There was absolutely no reason to not follow FISA unless they didn't want anyone to know who they were snooping on.

Criminals.

http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/

Posted by: rox63 Dec 17 2005, 05:17 PM

College student writing a research paper on communism gets a visit from the Feds, for requesting to borrow a copy of Mao's little red book from the library. This one happened right in my own state.

Your tax dollars at work: One nation, under surveillance, without liberty or justice at all.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm

Posted by: Pie Dec 17 2005, 05:39 PM

Great nrns ! And very clever to pick up on, and include, the word lurking in your letter to the editor. For those who may have missed the post/transcript of Bush's interview on The News Hour last night, he used the word to invoke fear as a justification for his actions.

lurk P Pronunciation Key (lûrk)
intr.v. lurked, lurk·ing, lurks
To lie in wait, as in ambush.
To move furtively; sneak.
To exist unobserved or unsuspected: danger lurking around every bend.

Such a word filled with emotion and oh, so Rovian.
Here's a link to that interview, which nrns posted here last night:


http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=45284&st=0&p=458127&#entry458127

"JIM LEHRER: Mr. President, welcome.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, sir.

JIM LEHRER: First, the New York Times story this morning that says that you authorized secret wiretaps by the National Security Agency of thousands of Americans. Is that true?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Jim, we do not discuss ongoing intelligence operations to protect the country, and the reason why is that there's an enemy that lurks , that would like to know exactly what we're trying to do to stop them." ...

Posted by: wundermaus Dec 17 2005, 05:44 PM

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Confession2.mov

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 17 2005, 05:55 PM

Snuffy posted this AP article a few posts earlier in this thread. I saw this version in my local paper...it has some different info.

Dec 17, 6:42 PM EST

Bush: Eavesdropping helps save U.S. lives

By JENNIFER LOVEN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Facing angry criticism and challenges to his authority in Congress, President Bush on Saturday unapologetically defended his administration's right to conduct secret post-Sept. 11 spying in the United States as "critical to saving American lives."

Bush said congressional leaders had been briefed on the operation more than a dozen times. That included Democrats as well as Republicans in the House and Senate, a GOP lawmaker said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she had been told on several occasions that Bush had authorized unspecified activities by the National Security Agency, the nation's largest spy agency. She said she had expressed strong concerns at the time, and that Bush's statement Saturday "raises serious questions as to what the activities were and whether the activities were lawful."

Often appearing angry in an eight-minute address, the president made clear he has no intention of halting his authorizations of the monitoring activities and said public disclosure of the program by the news media had endangered Americans.

Bush's willingness to publicly acknowledge a highly classified spying program was a stunning development for a president known to dislike disclosure of even the most mundane inner workings of his White House. Just a day earlier he had refused to talk about it.

Since October 2001, the super-secret National Security Agency has eavesdropped on the international phone calls and e-mails of people inside the United States without court-approved warrants. Bush said steps like these would help fight terrorists like those who involved in the Sept. 11 plot.

"The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time," Bush said. "And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad."

News of the program came at a particularly damaging and delicate time.

Bush says the news media should not have revealed the program's existence.

AP VIDEO

Bush Approved Eavesdropping, Official Says

Interactives
Poll: Bush Administration Ethics Questioned
Bush's Cabinet




President Bush



Already, the administration was under fire for allegedly operating secret prisons in Eastern Europe and shipping suspected terrorists to other countries for harsh interrogations.

The NSA program's existence surfaced as Bush was fighting to save the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the domestic anti-terrorism law enacted after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Democrats and a few Republicans who say the law gives so much latitude to law enforcement officials that it threatens Americans' constitutional liberties succeeded Friday in stalling its renewal.

So Bush scrapped the version of his weekly radio address that he had already taped - on the recent elections in Iraq - and delivered a live speech from the Roosevelt Room in which he lashed out at the senators blocking the Patriot Act as irresponsible and confirmed the NSA program.

Bush said his authority to approve what he called a "vital tool in our war against the terrorists" came from his constitutional powers as commander in chief. He said that he has personally signed off on reauthorizations more than 30 times.

"The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties," Bush said. "And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the president of the United States."

James Bamford, author of two books on the NSA, said the program could be problematic because it bypasses a special court set up by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to authorize eavesdropping on suspected terrorists.

"I didn't hear him specify any legal right, except his right as president, which in a democracy doesn't make much sense," Bamford said in an interview. "Today, what Bush said is he went around the law, which is a violation of the law - which is illegal."

Retired Adm. Bobby Inman, who led the NSA from 1977 to 1981, said Bush's authorization of the eavesdropping would have been justified in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks "because at that point you couldn't get a court warrant unless you could show probable cause."

"Once the Patriot Act was in place, I am puzzled what was the need to continue outside the court," Inman added. But he said, "If the fact is valid that Congress was notified, there will be no consequences."

Susan Low Bloch, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center, said Bush was "taking a hugely expansive interpretation of the Constitution and the president's powers under the Constitution.

That view was echoed by congressional Democrats.

"I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., told The Associated Press.

Added Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.: "The Bush administration seems to believe it is above the law."

Bush defended the program as narrowly designed and used "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it is employed only to intercept the international communications of people inside the U.S. who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.

Government officials have refused to provide details, including defining the standards used to establish such a link or saying how many people are being monitored.

The program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews, and information from previous activities under the program, the president said. Intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training in civil liberties, he said.

Bush said leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., told House Republicans that those informed were the top Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and of each chamber's intelligence committees. "They've been through the whole thing," Hoekstra said.

The president had harsh words for those who revealed the program to the media, saying they acted improperly and illegally. The surveillance was first disclosed in Friday's New York Times.

"As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have," Bush said. "The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."

Bush has more to worry about on Capitol Hill than his difficulties with the Patriot Act. Lawmakers have begun challenging Bush on his Iraq policy, reflecting polling that shows half of the country is not behind him on the war.

On Sunday, the president was continuing his effort to reverse that by giving his fifth major speech in less than three weeks on Iraq.

One bright spot for the White House was a new poll showing that a strong majority of Americans oppose, as does Bush and most lawmakers, an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The AP-Ipsos poll found 57 percent of those surveyed said the U.S. military should stay until Iraq is stabilized.

---

Associated Press Special Correspondent David Espo and writers Andrew Bridges and Will Lester contributed to this report.

Posted by: NiteOwl Dec 17 2005, 05:56 PM

Time for a full scale investigation into EXACTLY who was being spied upon.

My bet is that the spying wasn't on potential threats to national security / public safety / terrorism... but rather those critical of the administration.... like us.

It doesn't matter though... it is unconstitutional.

Oh, hell, I forgot... the first act of the $0B was to flush the Constitution down the toilet... using 911 as an excuse.

Ben Franklin said it best... (See my signature quotes).

Now IMPEACH THE BASTARD.

Posted by: DWB04 Dec 17 2005, 05:58 PM

Anthony Wade from Op ED

December 17, 2005

The Coronation of King George

By Anthony Wade

December 17, 2005

It became official today; President Bush named himself King of the United States. Granted those of us who follow this administration have seen Bush act as if he was a king and not an elected representative for the past five years but finally today Bush all but came out and said it.

The issue at hand is the wiretapping of US citizens without judicial oversight. In this country that is a felony and an impeachable offense. Essentially, the president does not have absolute power in this country. He is but one part of the government and is supposed to be “checked” and “balanced” by the other branches of government. In the Bush administration however, the other two branches are merely subservient to the omnipotent King George.

In order for the president to wiretap an American citizen he must obtain permission from the courts. In order to gain that permission he must prove to the courts that there is probable cause for such activities. There needs to be a justifiable reason for invading the privacy of the citizen. If the courts agree, then they grant the wiretap. In these instances, Bush bypassed the courts, never established probable cause, and “authorized” the wiretaps himself, making them illegal.

While the blogs have been reporting on such activities for over a year it took until recently for the mainstream media to catch up and when the truth finally came to light this week America huddled together to hear the president explain himself. Instead Bush took to the air waves today to say that not only did he do this, but he will continue to do so, thumbing his nose at the courts, checks and balances, and the Constitution of the Untied States of America. Bush actually was more upset that it was reported, claiming phantom damage done to their war on terror. Mind you they have yet to prosecute ONE person successfully since the onset of this “war.” So to sum up, the president violates federal law; illegally spies on the citizens he is sworn to protect, and then is angry that someone would expose it. Gotta love King George.

One telling quote from Bush today was:

"We don't talk about sources and methods. Don't talk about ongoing intelligence operations. I know there's speculation. But it's important for the American people to understand that we will do - or I will use my powers to protect us, and I will do so under the law, and that's important for our citizens to understand."

Essentially Bush is saying trust me. Sorry George we don’t. It is quite obvious that he is reluctant to discuss “sources and methods” because that would reveal the scope of the federal violations he has sponsored. While it is noble for the president to want to “use his powers” to protect us, it is ILLEGAL for him to determine what those powers are. It is ILLEGAL to rewrite the constitution and assume broader powers circumventing the checks and balances system set up by our founding fathers. What is important for American citizens to understand is that our president does not operate “under the law” but rather seems to believe he is above the law.

The catch phrases you will hear over the ensuing days is that Bush operated within the law, but the part they omit is that Bush decides what the law is, which ones he will follow and which ones he thinks fall under his “powers” to override. If you want to go to war, simply lie to Congress about the intel you have collected. If someone challenges your lies, attack him personally and out his secret agent wife. If you want to hold someone indefinitely, call him an enemy combatant. For whatever annoying law there is, simply create a fake “power” that you can then grant yourself and blame it all on living in a terrorist-post-911 world. If you want to violate the civil rights of citizens, simply don’t inform the courts that you authorized illegal wiretaps. This is all standard in the arrogant Bush administration that treats its citizens as children, who are guilty until the illegal wiretap proves them innocent.

The truly shocking thing today was the brazen admittance by King George. A few years ago he would have denied the story or sent out his emissaries to attack the credibility of any of the sources. Instead today he went on the air and told America that he no longer is bound by the Constitution and that the system of checks and balances which has served our country well for over 200 years has been rendered quaint. He took up the crown he has hid for the past five years, crafted with lies, corruption and war and placed it firmly upon his head. He declared himself to no longer be president but King of the United States, no longer answerable to law, courts, or any of the other branches of government. People within his own party were aghast at these revelations and have promised to investigate but they sound like court jesters before the mighty, omnipotent, King George.

Wake up America; it is time to throw the tea in the harbor again.



http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_anthony__051217_the_coronation_of_ki.htm



And David Sirota OP-ED

December 17, 2005

How the media "authorize" the abuse of government power

By David Sirota

The story of President Bush deliberately breaking the law to create a domestic spy operation is a lot of different things: it is a tale of power abuse, arrogance, and contempt for the law by an out-of-control president. But it is also a story of how today's major media behave with near total deference to power and its own profit motive. What we are watching, even in the seemingly small details of the coverage, is no less than the media's complicity in helping estsablish a quasi-legal framework for what was a clearly illegal abuse of government power. It is in the clearest sense the media being used as tools of state power in overriding the very laws that are supposed to confine state power.

You might be thinking, "How is that possible? Didn't the New York Times print the story exposing the surveillance program, and doesn't that show the media challenges power?"

Well, not really, when you consider that the Times actually held the story for a year. As the Washington Post reports, the Times' essentially held the story because of exactly what I said: deference to power, and its own bottom line. First, deference: the Times editors now tell us they held the story because the White House told them to. Then, profit: we learn that what changed between now and a year ago was that a Times reporter, James Risen, is about to publish a book about the entire affair and thus publishing the story now will mean maximum pre-sale buzz in January when the book is released - a key for any big book sales.

But even more interesting than these big embarrassing clues about the media's motives are the very small ones. Notice, for instance, that in describing the President's clearly illegal behavior, the media are parroting the White House's terminology - terminology specifically crafted to make it sound as if Bush was operating on quasi-legal grounds.

So for instance, the Times tells us Bush "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans." The paper also refers to "the powers granted the N.S.A. by President Bush." "Authorized" and "granted." The word "authorize" is defined as "to grant power or authority to," and the word "grant" is the act of giving something one has. The media's use of these terms, then, is the media trying to make the public assume as fact that Bush actually had the power or authority to grant in the first place.

In fact, only until the very end of the Times piece do we get a glimpse that the White House actually knew it didn't have the power or authority to grant, when the Times reports "President Bush did not ask Congress to include provisions for the N.S.A. domestic surveillance program as part of the Patriot Act and has not sought any other laws to authorize the operation." Why? Not because the White House thought a domestic surveillance operation was legal. But because "the proposal would be certain to face intense opposition on civil liberties grounds." They knew it wasn't legal, and they knew it wouldn't be made legal by Congress, but they went ahead and did it anyway. And yet as if playing a role in an Orwell novel, the media is still using terms that imply the President had every legal right to do it in the first place.

Sadly, other major media seem to be parroting this nonsense. The Associated Press, for example, reports that "President Bush said Saturday he has no intention of stopping his personal authorizations of a post-Sept. 11 secret eavesdropping program in the U.S." That's right: "his personal authorizations," as if he can just go around "authorizing" whatever he wants without regard to the fact that such powers are not his to authorize.

But then, we've seen this before. In a famous 1977 interview, Richard Nixon said "When the president does it that means that it is not illegal." At that time, we were lucky Nixon was long out of office and thus unable to turn that contempt for the law into presidential directives. Today, it is different - we clearly have a president with the same attitude, but a president who is still very much in a position to forge that attitude into government policy. And most disturbing of all, we have a media that, because of protive motives and fear of power, are more than happy to help that president publicly justify his disregard for the rule of law.


http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_si_051217_how_the_media__22autho.htm

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 17 2005, 06:06 PM

Yeah, I bet he will say that Congress had the same information just like he did about the pre-war intelligence. But, you don't go to Congress to get authority for specific wiretaps, you go to the Courts. By the way, I also didn't see Congress pass any laws that said that Bush could sidestep the Courts.

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 17 2005, 06:29 PM

Do you have a url for this. I can't click on your link. Thanks.

Posted by: wundermaus Dec 17 2005, 06:31 PM

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Confession2.mov
or just go to
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/

Posted by: wundermaus Dec 17 2005, 06:55 PM

oops!
the "just go to" link is forbidden!
go here instead!
http://www.crooksandliars.com/

Posted by: rox63 Dec 17 2005, 06:56 PM

More from Josh Marshall on FISA:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007280.php

Posted by: Just Thinking Dec 17 2005, 07:13 PM

A long time ago, when I said Bushie was well on the way to a total dictatorship ala Hitler style, I was shouted down. Now, the truth is slowly showing up.

Posted by: Pie Dec 17 2005, 07:40 PM

Good find of FISA Court.

This is all such a freak out. I am getting numb - when will the house of cards fall ?
When will enough people care if it does or not ?

Posted by: Pkemp22402 Dec 17 2005, 08:09 PM

I think we need more communication from the military in order to know how far we have come since 9/11 to gage where we should be on National Security right now. They should be signaling to the President when we return to a more normal state. I am not sure we are ever going live as openly as we did before all of this happened.

The only reason I am not more angry about the spying is because we are judging this action now rather than four years ago after 9/11. I really don't agree with domestic spying, but I can understand why he did it under the circumstances surrounding the attacks.

Posted by: Snuffysmith Dec 17 2005, 08:30 PM

President Acknowledges Approving Secretive Eavesdropping

By Peter Baker

President Bush said today that he secretly ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans with suspected ties to terrorists because it was "critical to saving American lives" and "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution."

Bush said the program has been reviewed regularly by the nation's top legal authorities and targets only those people with "a clear link to these terrorist networks." Noting the failures to detect hijackers already in the country before the strikes on New York and Washington, Bush said the NSA's domestic spying since then has helped thwart other attacks.

In his statement, delivered during a live and unusually long radio address, the president assailed the news media for disclosing the eavesdropping program, and rebuked Senate Democrats for blocking renewal of the USA Patriot Act, which gave the FBI greater surveillance power after 9/11 and which expires Dec. 31.

"The terrorist threat to our country will not expire in two weeks," said Bush, calling a filibuster by Democratic senators opposed to the Patriot Act "irresponsible."

The speech represented a turnaround for a White House that initially refused to discuss the highly classified NSA effort even after it was revealed in news accounts. Advisers said Bush decided to confirm the program's existence -- and combine that with a demand for reauthorization of the Patriot Act -- to put critics on the defensive by framing it as a matter of national security, not civil liberties.

The NSA "authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists," Bush said. "It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the president of the United States."

Congressional Democrats and some Republicans have expressed outrage at the NSA program, saying it contradicts long-standing restrictions on domestic spying and subverts constitutional guarantees against unwarranted invasions of privacy.

Some of them were further incensed by Bush's remarks today. "The president believes that he has the power to override the laws that Congress has passed," Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) said. "He is a president, not a king." Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said the administration "seems to believe it is above the law."

Rep. Dan Burton (Ind.) was among Republicans responding. "The liberal media and its liberal allies are attacking the president" for spying tactics that are legitimate and legal, he said on the House floor today afternoon. "The fact is, the president is defending the United States of America."

The order signed by Bush, reported by the New York Times on Thursday, empowered the NSA to monitor international telephone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens and residents without the warrant normally required by a secret foreign intelligence court.

A high-ranking intelligence official said today that the presidential directive was first issued in October 2001, not in 2002, as other sources have told the Times and The Washington Post. And today Bush said his directive came "weeks" after 9/11. The high-ranking official would not say whether the authority was changed or broadened significantly in 2002 or later during regular reviews.

Hundreds and perhaps thousands of people have been subjected to the surveillance, according to government officials. Officials have privately credited the eavesdropping with the apprehension of Iyman Faris, a truck driver who pleaded guilty in 2003 to planning to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. Bush said other plots have been disrupted as well.

"The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time," he said.

Bush said the program is reviewed every 45 days by the attorney general and White House counsel and that he must then reauthorize it to keep it active. He said he has reauthorized it more than 30 times "and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."

The president also said the administration has briefed key members of Congress on the program a dozen times. Classified programs are typically disclosed to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Bush justified his order on his presidential powers as commander in chief as well as his interpretation of the congressional resolution authorizing him to use force in response to the Sept. 11 attacks, passed just days after the World Trade Center and Pentagon were hit. But Bush did not explain his constitutional thinking, nor how the 2001 resolution gave him the authority to order domestic spying. He took no questions and aides would not discuss the legal issues surrounding the program.

The NSA surveillance is the latest chapter in a growing political struggle over the contours of the administration's tactics against terrorism. Two days ago, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) forced Bush to accept a new law explicitly outlawing the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners. Several senators are pressing the administration to provide information on secret CIA detention facilities overseas. And the debate over the Patriot Act centers on how far law enforcement can go in trying to find terror plots.

The president criticized the media for reporting on the NSA surveillance as well as the officials who "improperly" provided the information. "As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk," he said.

The White House decision to confirm the program was an extraordinary move by an administration that almost never publicly discusses such classified methods adopted in its battle against terrorism. The administration, for instance, has never publicly discussed the existence of secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe even after they were reported in The Post.

But in this case, with the Patriot Act renewal on the line, the president's advisers calculated that they should go on the offensive. "This directly takes on the Democrats and puts them in a box -- support our efforts to protect Americans or defend positions that put our nation's security at greater risk," said a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss political strategy. "We are confident most Americans support the president's actions."

Bush's confirmation of the NSA order, on the other hand, could embolden congressional critics to explore the extent of the program.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has already called such surveillance "inappropriate" and vowed to conduct hearings. It may prove harder for the administration to withhold information now that the president has publicly acknowledged its existence.

Staff writers Chuck Babington and Barton Gellman contributed to this report.


Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/emailafriend?contentId=AR2005121700456&sent=no&referrer=emailarticle

Posted by: Snuffysmith Dec 17 2005, 08:31 PM

On Hill, Anger and Calls for Hearings Greet News of Stateside Surveillance

By Dan Eggen and Charles Lane

Congressional leaders of both parties called for hearings and issued condemnations yesterday in the wake of reports that President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 allowing the National Security Agency to spy on hundreds of U.S. citizens and other residents without court-approved warrants.

Bush declined to discuss the domestic eavesdropping program in a television interview, but he joined his aides in saying that the government acted lawfully and did not intrude on citizens' rights.

"Decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people," Bush said on "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer."

Disclosure of the NSA plan had an immediate effect on Capitol Hill, where Democratic senators and a handful of Republicans derailed a bill that would renew expiring portions of the USA Patriot Act anti-terrorism law. Opponents repeatedly cited the previously unknown NSA program as an example of the kinds of government abuses that concerned them, while the GOP chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said he would hold oversight hearings on the issue.

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who favored the Patriot Act renewal but said the NSA issue provided valuable ammunition for its opponents.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the intelligence and judiciary committees, called the program "the most significant thing I have heard in my 12 years" in the Senate and suggested that the president may have broken the law by authorizing surveillance without proper warrants.

"How can I go out, how can any member of this body go out, and say that under the Patriot Act we protect the rights of American citizens if, in fact, the president is not going to be bound by the law?" she asked.

Officials across the government yesterday declined to publicly acknowledge the presidential order. But they defended, in general terms, the administration's aggressive strategies in attempting to combat terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and said that all programs have been lawful and protective of individual rights.

"Let me just say that winning the war on terror requires winning the war of information," Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told reporters. ". . . And so we will be aggressive in obtaining that information, but we will always do so in a manner that's consistent with our legal obligations."

Government officials credited the new program with helping to uncover and disrupt terrorist plots, including plans by Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver who pleaded guilty in 2003 to planning to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. Faris's attorney, David B. Smith, said he and his client were never informed about the NSA surveillance and had presumed that the monitoring of his cell phone had been authorized by a court-issued warrant.

The existence of the NSA domestic surveillance program was reported late Thursday by the New York Times and confirmed by U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

The Washington Post, citing an informed U.S. official, reported that the NSA's warrantless monitoring of U.S. subjects began before Bush's order was issued in early 2002 and included electronic and physical surveillance carried out by other military intelligence agencies assigned to the task.

Since the intelligence reforms of the 1970s, the NSA has adhered to tight restrictions on its activities in the United States and has devoted its efforts almost exclusively to obtaining intelligence overseas. Domestic spying, much of which is handled by the FBI, is governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and overseen by a special and highly secretive court that meets at Justice Department headquarters in Washington.

The order issued by Bush in 2002, however, allowed the NSA to monitor without a warrant international telephone calls, e-mails and other communications between people in the United States and those overseas. The Associated Press reported last night that Bush reauthorized the order 36 times.

A government official familiar with the NSA order said the president urged that the change be explained to only a very limited group of people on a "need-to-know" basis. That meant that, for nearly four years, only two people in the judicial branch of the U.S. government knew about the warrantless searches: U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who presided over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court at the time of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and rotated off the court in May 2002, and U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who succeeded him.

The official said that then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and top officials in the Justice Department's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review first briefed a few key officials on the plans to change the 25-year prohibition on most domestic surveillance. In a series of meetings, officials also answered Lamberth's questions about what some informally called "the president's program," and they asserted that no information gained through warrantless surveillance would be used to gain the court's authorization for secret wiretaps and warrants.

Under the president's plan, only the presiding judge of the secret court was allowed to hear cases in which warrantless surveillance may have played a role, the government official said.

Lamberth and Kollar-Kotelly declined to comment yesterday. According to the government source, both raised questions about whether the program was constitutional but neither suggested they had a basis for asserting that Bush did not have the authority he claimed. They focused, instead, on the integrity of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Lamberth had previously expressed grave doubts about the White House's post-Sept. 11 interest in mixing the investigative powers of intelligence agents with those of criminal detectives and prosecutors. A showdown over the issue resulted in the only decision ever issued by the secret court's appellate panel, which ruled against Lamberth and said the president had broad powers to authorize eavesdropping to fight terrorism.

After Kollar-Kotelly became presiding FISA judge in 2002, she became concerned in the course of one case that warrantless eavesdropping in the NSA collection program could be used to develop information to be presented in the FISA court, the government source said. There appeared to be no evidence that it had happened, only an indication that it could.

As a result of her complaint to the Justice Department, an intelligence source said, the department agreed to have high-ranking officials certify -- under threat of perjury -- that information presented to the FISA court was totally independent of any information gleaned in warrantless surveillance. The New York Times reported that the NSA program was stalled while this debate took place.

The NSA program highlights an ongoing and often tense legal debate over the boundaries of presidential power. John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer whose legal opinion helped support the creation of the NSA surveillance program, was also instrumental in the preparation of other memos that argued that Bush had nearly unfettered authority in areas related to the war on terrorism.

Former CIA general counsel Jeffrey H. Smith said he was "not shocked" by the program or the legal arguments underpinning it, because "the theory or the belief that the president had this constitutional power has been around for a long time."

But Smith also said: "These programs always have a way of being abused, of expanding beyond the purpose for which they were created. If the president believed it, he could have gotten authority to do it in the Patriot Act. By avoiding that course, in so doing, he may ultimately wind up eroding the very power he seeks to assert."

Some prominent Republicans defended the surveillance, arguing it was necessary to combat terrorism. "I don't agree with the libertarians," said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). "I want my security first. I'll deal with all the details after that."

Staff writers Carol D. Leonnig, Barton Gellman and R. Jeffrey Smith and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.




Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/emailafriend?contentId=AR2005121601825&sent=no&referrer=emailarticle

Posted by: Snuffysmith Dec 17 2005, 08:33 PM

At the Times, a Scoop Deferred

By Paul Farhi

The New York Times' revelation yesterday that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct domestic eavesdropping raised eyebrows in political and media circles, for both its stunning disclosures and the circumstances of its publication.

In an unusual note, the Times said in its story that it held off publishing the 3,600-word article for a year after the newspaper's representatives met with White House officials. It said the White House had asked the paper not to publish the story at all, "arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."

The Times said it agreed to remove information that administration officials said could be "useful" to terrorists and delayed publication for a year "to conduct additional reporting."

The paper offered no explanation to its readers about what had changed in the past year to warrant publication. It also did not disclose that the information is included in a forthcoming book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," written by James Risen, the lead reporter on yesterday's story. The book will be published in mid-January, according to its publisher, Simon & Schuster.

The decision to withhold the article caused some friction within the Times' Washington bureau, according to people close to the paper. Some reporters and editors in New York and in the bureau, including Risen and co-writer Eric Lichtblau, had pushed for earlier publication, according to these people. One described the story's path to publication as difficult, with much discussion about whether it could have been published earlier.

In a statement yesterday, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller did not mention the book. He wrote that when the Times became aware that the NSA was conducting domestic wiretaps without warrants, "the Administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security."

"Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions," Keller continued. "As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time."

In the ensuing months, Keller wrote, two things changed the paper's thinking. The paper developed a fuller picture of misgivings about the program by some in the government. And the paper satisfied itself through more reporting that it could write the story without exposing "any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record."

Tom Rosenstiel, executive director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said it was conceivable the Times waited to publish its NSA story as the Senate took up renewal of the Patriot Act. "It's not unheard of to wait for a news peg," he said. "It's not unusual to discover the existence of something and not know the context of it until later."

Yesterday's article was a dramatic scoop for a newspaper whose national security coverage has been marked by some turmoil in recent years. The Times admitted last year that much of its reporting on Iraq's weapons programs before the war was flawed. The principal author of those stories, Judith Miller, later spent 85 days in jail to protect the identity of an administration source in the CIA leak case.

More recently, the Times has been scooped by the Los Angeles Times on a story that the U.S. military has been secretly paying to run favorable stories in the Iraqi media, and by The Washington Post on the revelation last month of a secret network of CIA prisons for terrorism suspects in foreign countries. The Times announced last week that it was replacing its deputy bureau chief in Washington, which outsiders read as a sign of the paper's dissatisfaction with its Washington coverage.

The Post was in contact with senior administration officials before publication last month of its story on the CIA prisons. But officials did not seek to stop publication of the article, only to remove information that could jeopardize national security, said Leonard Downie Jr., The Post's executive editor.

The story said the officials argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and could make them targets of terrorist retaliation. The Post honored one request by not publishing the Eastern European countries that permitted the prisons.


Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/emailafriend?contentId=AR2005121601716&sent=no&referrer=emailarticle

Posted by: Snuffysmith Dec 17 2005, 08:33 PM

Bush's Fumbles Spur New Talk of Oversight on Hill

By Dana Milbank

After a series of embarrassing disclosures, Congress is reconsidering its relatively lenient oversight of the Bush administration.

Lawmakers have been caught by surprise by several recent reports, including the existence of secret U.S. prisons abroad, the CIA's detention overseas of innocent foreign nationals, and, last week, the discovery that the military has been engaged in domestic spying. After five years in which the GOP-controlled House and Senate undertook few investigations into the administration's activities, the legislative branch has begun to complain about being in the dark.

On Friday, after learning that the National Security Agency was eavesdropping on conversations in the United States, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said that the activity was "wrong and it can't be condoned at all," and that his committee "can undertake oversight on it."

That same day, the House approved a resolution that would direct the administration to provide House and Senate intelligence committees with classified reports on the secret U.S. prisons overseas.

Democrats have long complained about a dearth of congressional investigations into Bush administration activities, but their criticism has been gaining validation from others after the botched response to Hurricane Katrina, problems in Iraq and ethical lapses.

Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, said this fall that "the people's representatives over on the Hill in that other branch of government have truly abandoned their oversight responsibilities [on national security] and have let things atrophy to the point that if we don't do something about it, it's going to get even more dangerous than it already is."

In an interview last week, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, said "it's a fair comment" that the GOP-controlled Congress has done insufficient oversight and "ought to be" doing more.

"Republican Congresses tend to overinvestigate Democratic administrations and underinvestigate their own," said Davis, who added that he has tried to pick up some of the slack with his committee. "I get concerned we lose our separation of powers when one party controls both branches."

Democrats on the committee said the panel issued 1,052 subpoenas to probe alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party between 1997 and 2002, at a cost of more than $35 million. By contrast, the committee under Davis has issued three subpoenas to the Bush administration, two to the Energy Department over nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, and one last week to the Defense Department over Katrina documents.

Some experts on Congress say that the legislative branch has shed much of its oversight authority because of a combination of aggressive actions by the Bush administration, acquiescence by congressional leaders, and political demands that keep lawmakers out of Washington more than before.

"I do not think you can argue today that Congress is a coequal branch of government; it is not," said Lee H. Hamilton, president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman and vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, told reporters this month: "It has basically lost the war-making power. The real debates on budget occur not in Congress but in the Office of Management and Budget. . . . When you come into session Tuesday afternoon and leave Thursday afternoon, you simply do not have time for oversight or deliberation."

Last week, Democrats in the House denounced their GOP counterparts for failing to pursue investigations. Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, criticized Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) for his handling of an inquiry into former committee member Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), who resigned after acknowledging he took bribes. Hoekstra's decision to proceed with existing committee staff without the House counsel or inspector general "threatens to compromise our ability to conduct a thorough, expeditious and bipartisan investigation," she said.

Democrats demanded that Davis, who heads the select committee investigating the Katrina response, issue subpoenas to get e-mails and communications of White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and three other White House officials. "Congress will never understand why the federal response failed unless we obtain access to the e-mails and communications of Andrew Card and other senior White House officials," committee Democrats wrote Davis.

Last month, House Democrats tried to pass a measure criticizing the GOP for a "refusal to conduct oversight" of the Iraq war. In the Senate, Democrats forced the chamber into a closed session to embarrass Republicans for foot-dragging on an inquiry into the alleged manipulation of Iraq intelligence.

"The House has absolutely zero oversight. They just don't engage in that," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said in an interview last week.

Specifically, Democrats list 14 areas where the GOP majority has "failed to investigate" the administration, including the role of senior officials in the abuse of detainees; leaking the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame; the role of Vice President Cheney's office in awarding contracts to Cheney's former employer, Halliburton; the White House's withholding from Congress the cost of a Medicare prescription drug plan; the administration's relationship with Iraqi politician Ahmed Chalabi; and the influence of corporate interests on energy policy, environmental regulation and tobacco policy.

Meanwhile, the House ethics committee has not opened a new case or launched an investigation in the past 12 months, despite outside investigations involving, among others, Cunningham and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

In most cases, Republicans have said that Democrats are motivated by partisanship rather than fact-finding. After Democrats forced the closed Senate session last month over the slow pace of the inquiry into alleged manipulation of Iraq intelligence, Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.) railed: "They have no conviction. They have no principles. They have no ideas. This is a pure stunt."

Among the most visible oversight battles is Davis's Katrina inquiry, which most Democrats have boycotted as a "sham." Davis said he would "bet my reputation" that the committee will disprove doubts.

At times, Davis has been irritated by administration intransigence. At a hearing last month, he condemned the "lack of production of documents from various executive branch offices" and warned: "We're not going to be stonewalled here."

Democrats, who have tried to get Davis to subpoena the White House for Katrina documents, are not impressed. "Republicans have made a mockery of oversight," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), the committee's ranking Democrat. "There was nothing too small to be investigated in the Clinton administration and there's nothing so big that it can't be ignored in the Bush administration."

Davis said his reluctance to issue a subpoena is practical. The select committee faces a Feb. 15 deadline, and a subpoena -- even if approved, as required, by the entire House -- would be tied up in court by the administration until the committee's writ had expired. Issuing a subpoena would do nothing "except embarrass" the White House -- which Davis has not ruled out doing. "As of right now, I'm not satisfied" with White House cooperation, he said.

Davis said his Government Reform Committee has investigated the administration's handling of bioterrorism defenses and preparing for avian influenza and held four hearings on Halliburton's contracts -- after the House Armed Services Committee refused to do so. Similarly, Davis called hearings on the administration's policy on mad cow disease after Agriculture Committee Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.) declined.

"They said it would embarrass the administration," Davis said.


Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/emailafriend?contentId=AR2005121700992&sent=no&referrer=emailarticle

Posted by: Snuffysmith Dec 17 2005, 08:36 PM

Back to Story - Help
Sen. Accuses Times of Endangering U.S. 1 hour, 52 minutes ago



A Republican senator on Saturday accused The New York Times of endangering American security to sell a book by waiting until the day of the terror-fighting Patriot Act reauthorization to report that the government has eavesdropped on people without court-approved warrants.

"At least two senators that I heard with my own ears cited this as a reason why they decided to vote to not allow a bipartisan majority to reauthorize the Patriot Act," said Republican Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record) of Texas. "Well, as it turns out the author of this article turned in a book three months ago and the paper, The New York Times, failed to reveal that the urgent story was tied to a book release and its sale by its author."

Cornyn did not name the senators in his remarks on the Senate floor.

A call to The New York Times' Washington bureau was referred to spokeswoman Catherine Mathis, who could not be reached immediately.

Times reporter James Risen, who wrote the story, has a book "State of WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," coming out in the next few weeks, Cornyn said.

"I think it's a crying shame ... that we find that America's safety is endangered by the potential expiration of the Patriot Act in part because a newspaper has seen fit to release on the night before the vote on the floor on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act as part of a marketing campaign for selling a book," Cornyn said.

Since October 2001, the super-secret National Security Agency has, without court-approved warrants, eavesdropped on the international phone calls and e-mails of people inside the United States. President Bush said Saturday that the White House had kept the congressional leadership informed, which a Republican lawmaker confirmed.

But several senators cited the NSA revelation as a reason to uphold a filibuster on the renewal of the expiring portions of the USA Patriot Act — the domestic anti-terrorism law enacted after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — without getting additional safeguards into the law. Supporters of renewing the law failed to get 60 votes needed to break the filibuster.

Bush on Saturday also attacked the disclosure. "As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."




Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Posted by: Pkemp22402 Dec 17 2005, 08:41 PM

Are you suggesting that you think someone should break in my house and go through my belongings in order to proove the point that the President shouldn't have asked the NSA to eavesdrop on potential terrorists conversation's after 9/11 ? That doesn't make any sense.

Maybe you should calm down a little bit.

There are definetly serious implications to what he did, but it was a reaction to an attack that he felt was necessary to protect us. I don't particularly like it, and it doesn't make me feel like my rights are being respected. However, I can understand that under the circumstances surrounding 9/11, the fact that our defense systems were obviously compromised , and our intelligence had failed, he did what he had to do. It isn't the most popular decision, but have we had any more attacks since then? No.

Look, I am angry about the economy, the four lay offs I have been through, and on and on. But, I am not about to sit here and act like I am the only person in the world that has been through tough times, for whatever reason, because I am not. I am not going to sit and blame the NSA, the President, and domestic spying for anything bad that has happened to me either. If you want to that 's fine, but it doesn't make Bush my President, or me a communist.

There are separate issues going on within many different parts of our country. We have economic problems because of a crappy economic system that this government has pushed on everyone - that's huge. We have social problems because many of our leaders don't care about anyone but themselves, and ignore our constitution half of the time - that is more than obvious. We also have many people that are angry as all hell because they have been through hell and want to take it out on somebody, so we have distrust being directed at the President over the one thing that he just may have gotten right.

I am understanding of Bush's decision but it doesn't mean that I am anything else that you stated. Why should I back down from what I think, just because somebody who doesn't like the President might not understand? My biggest concern is this country, our safety, and our way of life. I am not changing my idea of what I believe to be right or wrong over an administration that has clearly made many mistakes and has been weak as far as protecting The American Way. I call it how I see it and I don't let someone's personality and/or lack of integrity alter my perception of what I know keeps us safe.

Posted by: Snuffysmith Dec 17 2005, 08:45 PM

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democratic_senator_says_Bush_violated_law_1217.html

Democratic senator says Bush violated law with wiretaps: He is a president, not a king
RAW STORY

From a release issued to RAW STORY by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) in response to President Bush's admission Saturday that the president personally authorized wiretaps of individuals who emailed or phoned other countries.

“Yesterday morning, Republican and Democratic Senators blocked a flawed bill that extended parts of the Patriot Act that are set to expire without fixing the fundamental problems with the law. Nobody wants these parts of the Patriot Act to expire -- we want to fix them before making them permanent, by including important protections for the rights and freedoms of innocent American citizens.

“With a few modest but critical improvements, like making sure that when the government seeks library records it has to show that those records have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy, we can give the government the powers it needs while also protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. The President can sign a bill into law tomorrow to reauthorize the Patriot Act if he will agree to the bill that the Senate unanimously passed in July or he could extend the law for a short period so negotiations can continue.

“The President's shocking admission that he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens, without going to a court and in violation of the Constitution and laws passed by Congress, further demonstrates the urgent need for these protections. The President believes that he has the power to override the laws that Congress has passed. This is not how our democratic system of government works. The President does not get to pick and choose which laws he wants to follow. He is a president, not a king.

“On behalf of all Americans who believe in our constitutional system of government, I call on this Administration to stop this program immediately and to fully cooperate with congressional inquiries and investigations. We have had enough of an Administration that puts itself above the law and the Constitution.”

Fact Sheet on Domestic Intelligence Wiretaps December 17, 2005

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted in 1978 to provide a statutory framework for eavesdropping on individuals within the United States, including U.S. citizens, who are not suspected of having committed a crime but who are likely to be spies or members of terrorist organizations.

FISA established a secret court that could issue wiretap orders if the government showed probable cause that the individual to be tapped is an “agent of a foreign power,” meaning he or she is affiliated with a foreign government or terrorist organization. This is an easier standard to meet than the criminal wiretap standard, which requires that there be: (1) probable cause that the individual to be tapped has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, and (2) probable cause that communications concerning that crime will be obtained through the electronic surveillance.

In the 27 years since it was established, the FISA court has turned down only a handful of applications for wiretap orders. The number of approved FISA wiretap orders has jumped since September 11, 2001, with 1,754 FISA orders issued last year, up from 934 such orders in 2001.

FISA already addresses emergency situations where there is not time to get pre-approval from the court. It includes an emergency exception that permits government agents to install a wiretap and start monitoring phone and email conversations immediately, as long as they then go to the FISA court and get a court order within 72 hours.

FISA makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conduct electronic surveillance except as provided for by statute. The only defense is for law government agents engaged in official duties conducting “surveillance authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order.” [50 U.S.C. § 1809]

Congress has specifically stated, in statute, that the criminal wiretap statute and FISA “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.” [18 U.S.C. § 2518(f)]

The target of a FISA wiretap is never given notice that he or she was subject to surveillance, unless the evidence obtained through the electronic surveillance is ultimately used against the target in a criminal trial.


Copyright © 2004-05 Raw Story Media, Inc. All rights reserved. | Site map |Privacy policy

Posted by: jesseaw Dec 17 2005, 08:56 PM

I want to amend my previous statement that I wasn't sure if the illegal eavesdropping sanctioned by Bush was an impeachable offense: If President Clinton could be impeached for his sexual indiscretions with a consenting adult, then the current president--George W. Bush--can be impeached for an anti-Constitutional offense. He is acting as if he's the first dictator of the United States rather than the legitimate law-abiding president of the United States; he seems to think he's above the law and should be proved wrong.

I just hope that the Republican-dominated Congress would do their Constitutional duty and start the proceedings rather than blindly adhering to party loyalty.


Sincerely,

Jesseaw

Posted by: Dyan Dec 17 2005, 08:59 PM

First off, we are not at war. It's high time that we all stopped buying into mindset that we are. It is that mindset that excuses Bush's constant abuse of power.

Secondly, what you are saying is true in any dictatorship or totalitarian government too. If people aren't doing something that government deems "wrong", then they have nothing to fear when the government checks up on them. Fortunately, our constitution protects the innocent as well as the guilty.

Finally, it was NOT necessary. Existing law allowed wiretapping in emergency situations without the need to obtain a warrent. All the government had to do was obtain the necessary warrent from a secret court within 72 hours of beginning the tap. 72 hours. That's three days! If they had an emergency and if immediate action was needed, they had the right to take action to protect America. ALL they had to do was go to a secret court THREE days after the fact.

This CANNOT be allowed to stand! Bush and his gang of thugs are already out screaming that the media has endangered national security. But there is not one reason on earth that they need unlimited power .......... and that is what they want. Unlimited power to poke into whatever and whoever they want without any oversight or even having to inform the person after the fact.

Think about that. Our government could check out each of us, read our mail, check our internet communications AND NEVER HAVE TO TELL US OR ANYONE ELSE ABOUT IT!!!!!

Posted by: Pkemp22402 Dec 17 2005, 09:02 PM

If we follow the same destructive principles that allowed President Clinton to be impeached then sure Bush could be impeached. However, we have to ask ourselves, is this really the road we want to travel. How can we hail this as the right thing to do when all of us know that the Clinton impeachment was wrong?
Mabye we should find a way to repeal the Clinton impeachment based on what we know was happening back then instead of going forward with another one. That would seem much more productive to me.

Posted by: Snuffysmith Dec 17 2005, 09:06 PM

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/


Make the List Public: Who Did the White House Spy On?
I don't care how long the list is of those people and phone numbers that have been surreptitiously monitored by the National Security Agency without court approval.

This list should be made public -- published in full on the Internet.

If there are specific individuals or numbers that a judge wishes to give ex post facto protection, I can accept that.

But this invasion of privacy in the case of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of American citizens must be challenged in the courts. What Bush did is engage in an extra-legal act against the citizens he is paid to represent -- and this is criminal.

Post the list. It should be made public because at this point there is NO NATIONAL SECURITY rationale to justify the monitoring of citizens in cases that have not been approved by a court. That means that all of those citizens monitored are innocent -- and unwitting victims of this domestic spy campaign launched by George W. Bush.

Publish the list of phone numbers, Mr. President. Do it now or lawyers may start working today to compel you through the courts to do it.

TWN would be happy to provide the bandwidth and home exposing this national intelligence disgrace.

-- Steve Clemons

05:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (58)
Timing of National Security Agency Spying on Americans Disclosure Helps Kill Patriot Act Extension
Although the New York Times cut a deal with the Bush administration a year ago to keep hidden the fact that it knew that the National Security Agency was spying on the electronic voice and data transmissions of American citizens -- without court approval -- the news of this which hit today resulted in the Senate saying enough is enough.

The Senate voted to kill extension of 16 Patriot Act provisions expiring on December 31st.

From an AP report:

President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Republicans congressional leaders had lobbied fiercely to make most of the expiring Patriot Act provisions permanent.
They also supported new safeguards and expiration dates to the act's two most controversial parts: authorization for roving wiretaps, which allow investigators to monitor multiple devices to keep a target from evading detection by switching phones or computers; and secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries.


There is momentum now behind those who want to clip the wings of the Bush White House. A genuine battle is breaking out. . .finally.

In the past, those who would preserve our system of checks and balances, our system of justice, and civil society have been too weak compared to a White House that had become intoxicated with a passionate belief in its own infallibility.

The White House is being handed one defeat after another, but the President and his team despise being beaten. I suspect that we are entering a dangerous period where the White House feels trapped and prone to excess to try and get back in control.

Stay tuned.

-- Steve Clemons

Posted by: Pkemp22402 Dec 17 2005, 09:18 PM

We are at war in Iraq.

.

I make this statement only in respect to the fact that wars end,and afterwards, we return to a normal state. Maybe that is why it wasn't put into a law, laws are very difficult to strike from the books.

.

Sure, we can see that it may not have been necessary now. This is a chance many were not willing to take right after 9/11. This is a obvious and legitimate argument.




I think about this the same way I think about a jury. A jury is picked from the general population and represent many different people. There are many different people working in our security agencies. A jury watches a situation and judges for themselves if someone is guilty or innocent with full knowledge of what is going on. They come to a verdict without a court warrant, they are fully dependent on what is presented to them, very rarely does a judge alter a verdict. Those that work in our security agencies are everyday American's like us. They are able to put themselves in our position and understand that if they abuse their power, that they are setting a precedence that could later allow someone to abuse them and their way of life as well. It's not like we have foreigners in this country spying on us, that's what happened before we were attacked, remember? These are other American's that know the position we are in. Is this foolproof? No, jury's aren't either. But its the best way we have right now until someone else comes up with something better.

Posted by: wundermaus Dec 17 2005, 09:28 PM

"We are at war in Iraq."


oh, I didn't know that. When Did War Get Declared?
Was I out of town?

http://www.ericblumrich.com/14.html

Posted by: Pkemp22402 Dec 17 2005, 09:34 PM

Whatever man, you know what I am talking about. We know that the "Victory" was a joke. The fight with the insurgents will more than likely be looked upon in the future as a separate war. I just assumed it a little early, that's all.

Posted by: jesseaw Dec 17 2005, 09:34 PM

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in my judgment to impeach, but this Congress should immediately start an investigation as to whether this was an impeachable offense and clearly anti-Constitutional or not. If his actions were proved wrong, Bush should at least be censured and corrected in his assumptions as to what is within and without the law of the land. We have a system of checks and balances that should be adhered to; no one--not even the president of the United States--is above the law.

BTW, I like your idea of exploring how--and if--the Clinton impeachment can be repealed.

Sincerely,

Jesseaw

Posted by: shah269 Dec 17 2005, 09:41 PM

Either we are a nation of idiots or he is a freaking moron!
what the hell is he thinking!


Bush defends eavesdropping

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051218/pl_nm/security_patriot_dc;_ylt=AsCkpNSW9vH_7FTI3nJWiHoDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYMlJVRPUCUl

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush defended a secret order he signed allowing for eavesdropping on people in the United States, as he fought on Saturday for the renewal of the anti-terror USA Patriot Act.

On Capitol Hill, where a hearing has been promised on Bush's order, lawmakers in both parties said they wanted to avoid allowing the Patriot Act to expire. One possibility was a temporary extension until differences could be resolved in efforts to balance national security with civil liberties.

Bush said he made the secret order to allow eavesdropping of people in the United States after the September 11, 2001, attacks, and criticized leaks to the news media about it.

"I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations," Bush said a rare live radio address.

"This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security," Bush said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, later responded by saying: "The president's statement today raises serious questions as to what the activities were and whether the activities were lawful."

Bush initially refused to confirm a report on Friday in The New York Times about the NSA program, saying he would not discuss sensitive intelligence matters.

On Saturday, the president said he had reauthorized the eavesdropping program 30 times since the September 11, 2001, and intends to continue it "for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat, voiced concern about the program and backed plans by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, for a congressional hearing.

"Electronic surveillance is an important law enforcement and intelligence gathering tool, but it can and must be done lawfully, in accordance with our laws and Constitution," he said.

Bush's radio address came amid an impasse in Congress over a measure that would extend key provisions of the 2001 Patriot Act that are set to expire on December 31. The act expanded the power of law enforcement to track suspected terrorists.

VIEW FROM CAPITOL HILL

A group of senators -- most of them Democrats joined by a few Republicans -- on Friday blocked renewal of the provisions as they demanded more safeguards for civil liberties. Bush said the roadblock was irresponsible and could endanger lives.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said, "We're working all angles" to extend expiring provisions, and voiced optimism that they would succeed.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, again urged a three-month extension of the provisions to allow time to resolve the differences. Congressional Republican leaders and the White House have so far rejected such a move.

But one congressional leadership aide put it, "No one one wants to see this expire," so a temporary extension was a looming possibility.

The New York Times said the presidential order allowed the National Security Agency to track international telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without the court approval normally required for domestic spying.

Bush said the disclosure was improper. "Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country," he said.

He insisted his role as commander-in-chief gave him the authority to allow the surveillance. He said the program was constitutional, was reviewed by legal authorities and that leaders in Congress were aware of it.

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record) of Wisconsin said he was shocked by the program and disagreed with Bush on its legality.

"The president believes that he has the power to override the laws that Congress has passed. This is not how our democratic system of government works," Feingold said. "He is a president, not a king.


................
yah no kidding!
we know he't not a king
but according to his momy he is The King
and according to all those freaking rabic chick hawls republicans he is their king!
lets see how Faux news and all the morons on the right spin this one!
god what is going threw the Bubble Boys little head!
is he really this freaking stupid!

Posted by: wundermaus Dec 17 2005, 09:43 PM

Shrub is a fascist. He is a little man with big friends and he is prancing around shouting out that he is protecting us from those bad ol' terrorists while he is sticking his nose up our privates. We have a problem here in America... it's apathy, it's media opiates, its the dumbing and the outsourcing of American brain and brawn. It is a sick little man with pathological henchmen breaking the legs of anyone that stands up to their thuggery. It is the Brown shirts and the Black shirts resurrected.

- Merry Christmas

Posted by: Pkemp22402 Dec 17 2005, 09:45 PM

??? Don't know what this means? Please explain.

Posted by: wundermaus Dec 17 2005, 09:49 PM

Sorry Didn't mean to jump in ... I am just so livid about BushCo and his antics...
Please wake me up from this nightmare!

here are links to what I was referring to regarding blk and brn shirts...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Shirts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

Posted by: Dyan Dec 17 2005, 09:50 PM

Nooooo I don't think so. I seem to remember Bush declaring victory and the Iraqi army being defeated. What we are doing now is rebuilding Iraq.



THAT is the problem with buying into the mindset that we are engaged in a war without a declared enemy and declared end point. It never ends and things never do return to normal. Just ask Bush; he's willing to say it ........... things will never be "normal" again because this is a "new" era.

That's why we can't keep accepting his logic and spin. If we do, then we are doomed to a never ending state of war in which the enemy and end point constantly changes to keep us perputually at war.



It was not necessary THEN! If his lawyers weren't aware of the laws on the books at the time of 9/11, then they are more incompentant than any first year law student in this country or any other country. But the reality is that they WERE aware, but they wanted to push the argument that the President had unlimited authority in times of war ......... ohhhh there's that word again. They wanted the position that if we're at war, Bush gets to do what he wants. Even if laws exist to let him do it legally and even if he was faced with a Congress that was giving him everything he asked for. He wanted more.

AND he STILL wants more. That is what enrages me tonight. If this was a short-term action, then your arguments might make sense. But this is not what Bush and his Repubican cohorts are saying. He's not defending action that was short-lived and only taken in the heat of the moment. THEY WANT TO KEEP THE POWER THAT THEY GRABBED IN THE AFTERMATH OF A NATIONAL CRISIS. It's not just that they were afraid that Congress might not allow them what they saw as necessary power, it's that even at his height of power BUSH NEVER TRIED TO MAKE THIS ACTION LEGAL!!! He simply took power and now he's fighting to keep it.

And by the way, that is the nature of power. People who have it, do not willingly give it up. It wouldn't matter if it was Ted Kennedy or John Kerry (as examples of vocal liberals), NO ONE gives up power once they have it.

Posted by: Pkemp22402 Dec 17 2005, 09:53 PM

That is okay, it's an easy topic to get livid about!! Thanks for the info.

Posted by: Istoodforu Dec 17 2005, 09:58 PM

The fourth amendment of The Bill of Rights:

Amendment IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This is part of the US Constitution that Bush has sworn twice a solemn oath to defend. He has betrayed the trust of Americans and arrogantly claimed some bogus entitlement to continue violating these fundamental human rights to "fight fhe war on terror.

He needs to resign or be impeached, How serious does it have to get to be a "high crime or misdemeanor?"

Posted by: Istoodforu Dec 17 2005, 10:05 PM

Well said!

Posted by: Pkemp22402 Dec 17 2005, 10:22 PM

I know he declared victory, however, I never believed it, did you? I feel strongly history will judge this conflict with the insurgents as another war, I just assume it now rather than later. Similarly we are beginning to look at WWI and WWII as the same conflict, in the future, it will more than likely be viewed as one in the same.



I didn't know untill recently that the Patriot Act was simply an expansion of laws that had been enacted in 1996 by the Clinton administration. I agree with you that his lawyers should have been more aware and considerate of this fact.

.

Yes, they are trying desparately to hang on to the power that was grabbed right after 9/11. I am not sure I want the actions he has taken put into law, its too hard to strike them from the books once this is done.

I think that jeeseaw had a good idea to censure any illegal actions he is still trying to take if they are unwarranted by security needs. This may be a necessary step if we do not begin to progress forward. Power corrupts, once you have it, you think you deserved it all along. Nothing a little humility couldn't cure. I wish these guys could get that at least!!

Posted by: wundermaus Dec 17 2005, 10:23 PM

http://irregulartimes.com/stupid2.html


http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/King_George_Bush.htm

Posted by: shah269 Dec 17 2005, 10:32 PM

no he isn't stupid, its us, the american people who are stupid.
a war that has claimed god know howmany lives.
oure president acting like a bafoon
jobs leaving the country.
and what are people worried about!

Wal-Mart Confronted on 'Happy Holidays'
AP - 7 minutes ago
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A group of religious protesters demonstrated outside a Wal-Mart superstore Saturday, hoping to turn away customers by calling attention to the retailer's decision to use "happy holidays" rather than "merry Christmas" in its seasonal advertising

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051218/ap_on_re_us/wal_mart_holidays;_ylt=Ahy6qEUKN.DREXquPHvftVMDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMJVRPUCUl

Posted by: JasonATexan Dec 17 2005, 10:33 PM

shah269, you might want to have them merge this one with the other post

Posted by: wundermaus Dec 17 2005, 10:36 PM

distraction, diversion, substitution, lies and deceit... whatever keeps us busy and off target... that's the BushCo game plan.

Posted by: Dyan Dec 17 2005, 10:42 PM

That IS the point. If we keep accepting the mindset, then we will always be at war. Bush declared victory and the Iraqi government and army fell. If that's not an end to "war", then what will be??? There will always be "insurgents" and those who act to create what they want or to restore what they want. So by that logic, this "war" never ends and Bush never has to surrender his unlimited power.

And Bush is using the insurgents there to expand the power here. Our government declared a small group of quakers in Florida as "threats" because they oppose the war. Are we at war with them too? Are quakers our new home-grown insurgency? Before you scoff and lecture me for taking things to extremes that aren't realistic remember this ................. the Pentagon spied on them AND decided as a result they were threats. This is not a group that advocated violence or had ties to Al Queda. But they were watched, spied upon, communications were monitored and ultimately they were judged "threats".

You think it can't happen to you?

Posted by: shah269 Dec 17 2005, 10:45 PM

Look we can blame The Comander in Chimp but honestly I blame our fellow citizens for being so dam stupid! Remember stupidity is not an excuse. Like sheep! I bet half of all republicans would love to burn the bill of rights and the constitution all except for their damed second ammendment!
thake their freadom of speach away
take away their jobs
take away their food
take away their health care
but don't you be a dam commy bastard don't take away their second freaking amendment!
like i said
republicans go for the three G's
God
Guns
and
Gays.
they really don't caer about any thing else!
and they constitute 51% of our god dam population!

Posted by: david sobien Dec 17 2005, 10:49 PM

The issue is not about war or terror. The issue is wether the president is above the law as enacted by Congress. We are a nation of laws as often expressed by Bush. Then he proceeds to brake them. That is not tolorable to lots of people including me.

Posted by: wundermaus Dec 17 2005, 10:52 PM

49% counted as 51% makes a big difference.
The Germans aren't stupid and look at the fine piece of fearless leader crapsmanship that ran it into the ground and almost destroyed civilization? It takes two to tango... the abuser and the enabler... so here we are, again. Now, what are we going to do about it? Burn in the ovens or kick his a$$ out of office and into jail where he and his buddies belong?

Posted by: Pkemp22402 Dec 17 2005, 11:05 PM

Well, I think the problem came in with the ending of the war because of what happened in the the first Iraq war. We left too soon, and many innocent people were killed by the government we thought we had defeated. My impression is that they are trying to avoid this during this war, this time it has taken the form of an insurgency. Maybe that's the whole strategy in this particular conflict, they let us think that we win and then they attack in this fashion instead as they seem to be more capable of waging more destruction this way.




I am not lecturing you, I thought I was having a discussion with you. Quakers as threats seem pretty ridiculus. Catholics are often treated in the same way because of their views on war and involvement in the Pro-Life movement. I am sure this can happen to anybody, and I know for a fact that the Pentagon is very aggressive when it comes to those it views as threats. My father was in a military intelligence unit , he probably knows more about our government than the people running it do right now. The truth of the matter is we were even more aggressive when he was in the military during the cold war, and it can and does get much worse than where we are right now. Not that accusing a bunch of Quakers isn't wrong, I would like to more about what happened in that situation. Do you happen to have any more information, or can you direct me to an article about it?

Posted by: Just Thinking Dec 17 2005, 11:18 PM

[
Unfortunately, J.Q. Republican and a lot of others as well, will turn a blind eye until it is too late. Just as the Germans did. All Bushie has to do is thump on the bible as he screems "Remember 9/11." He learned how to control the masses from the experts.

Posted by: JasonATexan Dec 17 2005, 11:42 PM

Bush broke the law

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_atrios_archive.html#113486383788554537

Bob Barr on illegal spying:


BOB BARR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, it's bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order.

...

BARR: Well, the fact of the matter is that the Constitution is the Constitution, and I took an oath to abide by it. My good friend, my former colleague, Dana Rohrabacher, did and the president did. And I don't really care very much whether or not it can be justified based on some hypothetical. The fact of the matter is that, if you have any government official who deliberately orders that federal law be violated despite the best of motives, that certainly ought to be of concern to us.


...

ROHRABACHER: And by the way, how do we know who wasn't deterred from blowing up other targets. The fact is --

BARR: Well, gee, I guess then the president should be able to ignore whatever provision in the Constitution as long as there's something after the fact that justifies it.

BARR: Bob, during wartime, you give some powers to the presidency you wouldn't give in peace time. BARR: Do we have a declaration of war, Dana?

ROHRABACHER: You don't have to do that.

BARR: We don't? That makes it even much easier for a president.

...

BARR: Here again, this is absolutely a bizarre conversation where you have a member of Congress saying that it's okay for the president of the United States to ignore U.S. law, to ignore the Constitution, simply because we are in an undeclared war.

The fact of the matter is the law prohibits -- specifically prohibits -- what apparently was done in this case, and for a member of Congress to say, oh, that doesn't matter, I'm proud that the president violated the law is absolutely astounding, Wolf.

ROHRABACHER: Not only proud, we can be grateful to this president. You know, I'll have to tell you, if it was up to Mr. Schumer, Senator Schumer, they probably would have blown up the Brooklyn Bridge. The bottom line is this: in wartime we expect our leaders, yes, to exercise more authority.

Now, I have led the fight to making sure there were sunset provisions in the Patriot Act, for example. So after the war, we go back to recognizing the limits of government. But we want to put the full authority that we have and our technology to use immediately to try to thwart terrorists who are going to -- how about have a nuclear weapon in our cities?

BARR: And the Constitution be damned, Dana?

ROHRABACHER: Well, I'll tell you something, if a nuclear weapon goes off in Washington, DC, or New York or Los Angeles, it'll burn the Constitution as it does. So I'm very happy we have a president that's going to wiretap people's communication with people overseas to make sure that they're not plotting to blow up one of our cities.

BLITZER: We're out of time, but Bob Barr, I'll give you the last word.

BARR: Well, first of all, or last of all, this so-called plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge was bogus because it had to do with a group of idiots who were planning to dismantle it with blow torches.

Posted by: Dyan Dec 17 2005, 11:46 PM

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-cspy15dec15,0,86463.story?track=mostemailedlink

Call me cynical, but I believe that there were a LOT more people like this that were spied on than there were real terrorists trying to harm us. Bush saw threats everywhere. Even in law abiding citizens doing lawful activities. But we'll never know if we continue to let Bush and his bunch through up a wall of "national security" around their activities because he's convienced us that we're "at war".

Posted by: david sobien Dec 17 2005, 11:52 PM

I say impeach now. We have a president who brakes the law and says he will continue to brake it. Case closed!

Posted by: dggfwtx Dec 17 2005, 11:59 PM

The Bush administration is easily the most paranoid and contemptible of the law since the Nixon administration.

The Nixon administration, at least in this area, was worse than Bush. I have a friend who used to work in NSA, and he says that in 1970 Nixon came *THIS CLOSE* to getting us into a nuclear war with East Germany. Late in his presidency, the military decided to ignore White House directives because Nixon had become so paranoid and delusional.

And, of course, the Nixon administration also spied intensively and illegally on U.S. citizens.

Posted by: Dyan Dec 18 2005, 12:05 AM

I realize that I keep coming back to this, but it just eats at me. They didn't just check the quakers to make sure that they weren't terrorist. Ohhhh no. The government didn't check to be sure things were okay, see that this was a peaceful group engaged in lawful activity and leave. NO! They made the determination that this group represented a threat to our national security.

This is the danger to simply saying 'if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear' and accepting that this type of behavior on the part of our government is ever okay under any circumstance. When the government spies, they aren't simply going to leave when it's found that the citizens are peaceful and law abiding. This group opposed the war and planned a protest (even though we have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to do that), and therefore the government saw them as a threat.

Guys, America cannot allow this to stand.

Posted by: JasonATexan Dec 18 2005, 12:20 AM

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/17/233929/95

Operation Flabbergasted: Let's Watergate Bush
by smintheus [Subscribe]
Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 09:39:29 PM PDT

This cannot stand. In ordering the NSA to spy secretly on America, George Bush has overturned United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18, which prohibits domestic spying by NSA; violated the federal act which created the FISA court to oversee covert domestic investigations; and trampled upon the Fourth Amendment guarantee against warrantless searches. It cannot stand for a day, much less a month while Congress is in recess.

Friday, when Sen. Specter said he'd make investigating the allegations a top priority in January, it was barely possible to pretend that they might be false. But by Saturday's radio address, when Bush defended his policy and insisted it would continue, we had entered a full-blown constitutional crisis. George Bush would love for Congress to back down from a fight next week, to go home grumbling "Wait until next year."

Operation Flabbergasted We cannot let that happen. We have to ensure that by Monday, all hell has broken loose in D.C.

* smintheus's diary :: ::
*

Every Senator needs to know there'll be jolly hell back home if they don't demand Bush stop it now. The MSM needs to be discussing the `constitutional crisis.' There has to be a plan immediately to make this happen. I've got one.

We know that domestic spying by the NSA is Orwellian. We don't need to wait for panels of experts to declare the obvious, that Bush's policies violate the Fourth Amendment in the most fundamental way. Further, it is clear that the White House is panicking over the implications of this leak, very much as the Reagan White House panicked when the Iran Contra story broke and they thought impeachment might be looming. Bush's radio address manages to be both offensive and defensive at one and the same time (it reminds one of the cornered Richard Nixon).

We also know that significant numbers of Senators and journalists are utterly fed up with the Bush administration's record on civil liberties. Some are positively spoiling for a fight (if you don't believe me, check out the grilling Terry Moran gave Alberto Gonzales about torture on Nightline Thursday). So we also know that it's entirely possible for us, at this moment, to drive this issue home once and for all, if we can mount a worthy campaign.

The only campaign that would be worthy of this issue, in my opinion, will be one that produces the biggest fire-storm that Washington has ever seen. If we do not attempt to take back our country now, then when?

We need both coherent goals and effective methods to make this happen. There is little time to lose. Fortunately, as we've shown in the past with internet-based campaigns, things can be organized extremely quickly if people are willing to do their part.

GOALS

As far as possible, our declared goals must be as clear, straightforward, plausible, and uncontroversial as possible. I have no illusions that it will be easy to achieve these goals; George Bush and friends stonewall almost as a matter of course. But our declared goals must throw into stark relief the illegality of the administration's policies and the nature of the constitutional crisis.

I propose that we ask each U.S. Senator to demand that President Bush:

* immediately reverse this directive on domestic spying

* promise to desist in the future from warrantless spying on Americans

* cooperate fully with a bi-partisan investigation of the policy

* release the texts of the directives along with the legal opinions they were based on

* identify to the Senate all residents of the US who were targets of unconstitutional spying

METHODS

The most important things that need to be done are to

* build an ad hoc network to promote this campaign, to include blogs, activist groups, grassroot organizations, local and state Democratic Party organizations, and some media darlings like Randi Rhodes

* contact Senators to make the above requests

* contact journalists covering Washington to alert them to the campaign and to request full coverage of the constitutional crisis that the President has provoked

I've arranged them in the order that they need to be addressed. We will want to have the main outlines of a network in place by late Sunday, if we are to get the word out far and wide on Monday to inundate Senate offices with calls, emails, and faxes demanding action. We can wait until tomorrow to begin advancing along the second and third prongs of this strategy. I'll post another diary tomorrow on those subjects, once this one gets off the ground.

I'm dedicating this first diary to the issue of developing an internet-based network of support for this campaign. When I conceived my "Awaken the Mainstream Media" campaign back in May, it took me days of writing emails and phoning around to create such a network. It worked, but it took more time than we have in this instance. If Kosmopolitans want to see this work, then they'll have to step forward to volunteer to post about this on their own blogs, and to help to contact others who can be roped in to support us.

So who do you know? Who do you read, or listen to? Whose email lists are you on? What local mailing/phone lists can you enlist to get the word out to put pressure on the Senate? What part of this can you help to organize by Sunday?

Seem like a lot of work? It is. Now keep your eye on the prize.

Posted by: JasonATexan Dec 18 2005, 12:23 AM

Another one at dailykos on the subject. Just looking at similar stuff out there on this subject.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/17/122930/60

WARNING: They're Going After The NYT Leakers!
by Doctor Who [Subscribe]
Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 10:29:30 AM PDT

WARNING! They Are Attempting To Shift Focus!

I admit I didn't see this one coming, but Bush's friends in the MSM (namely Pat Buchanan on MSNBC this morning just after Bush's address) are trying to shift the focus away from investigating the President's crime onto investigating the crime of leaking the story to the NYT. Details Below.

* Doctor Who's diary :: ::
*

Pat on MSNBC tryed to portray the leaking of the President's crime to the NYT as the bigger crime and drew analogies to the Plame affair. He went on to advocate for another Fitz type Justice Dept. investigation of who leaked this classified information to the NYT and predicted subpeonas for a slew of NYT reporters. He tryed to draw analogies to the Plame investigation (Funny, I bet it won't take Bush long to finger the leakers of the Spy story, although here we are years later and he still claims he has no idea who the Plame leaker(s) is/are.

Pat said this would be the big story of 2006, all the while playing down or refusing to discuss anything about whether the President has committed legal and constitutional crimes.

Folks, we cannot allow this "switcher-roo" tactic to succeed. The Dem. on MSNBC did a shitty job of countering Pat's argument and the MSNBC News Bunny seemed to be buying it. We need to portray this for what it is, a diversion away from the real story that Bush has likely used and continues to use powers he does not have under the constitution, and therefore, has/is breaking his oath and the law period.

They want to string up those who witnessed and reported Bush's crime, while letting him skate claiming he abviously has the power to issue these secret (or now, not-so-secret) orders, while those who informed the press are the only real criminals. In other words, "Let's shoot the Messenger(s)!"

We need to stop this ded in its tracks! Spread the word!

Posted by: jesseaw Dec 18 2005, 12:28 AM

I agree. The actions against the Quakers by the current Bush administration smacks of gross abuse of power and the usurpation of the rights of Americans to peacefully demonstrate and dissent against the actions of the Bush administration.

It seems that the Bush administration makes a mockery of the term "democracy" when they actually mean to impose their will and to form a type of dictatorship in its stead. Thank God, Americans have a system of checks and balances to thwart any abuse of power. It's time the Congress acts responsibly and performs its duty to restore the checks and balances its citizens empowered them to do.

Sincerely,

Jesseaw

Posted by: wundermaus Dec 18 2005, 12:32 AM

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness: —That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, & to institute new Government, laying it's Foundation on such Principles, & organizing it's Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety & Happiness. Prudence indeed will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light & transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shown that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses & Usurpations and pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty to throw off such Government, & to provide new Guards for their future Security."

Posted by: Pkemp22402 Dec 18 2005, 12:33 AM

Thanks for the articles. Interesting to say the least.

I can actually think of a few reasons why this is a problem. First of all, this action is taking place at a public school and can involve other peoples kids. Secondly, the military has always traditionaly recruited from schools as this activity is between the military and the public school system, it has nothing to do with the activist group and they haven't been invited to be involved. Thirdly, they are interfering with an activity of the U.S. Military and are a group that seems to have some very strong religious ties. All of these factors in one, you do have a situation that can be monitored for security reasons at any time if I am not mistaken.

Also, the government always monitors any groups that try to influence teens in our schools, this is not a new practice at all.

IMO this group simply needs to find a different way to communicate their thoughts on the issue.

I talked to a Naval military recruiter for weeks about a year after high school. I don't remember how he got my name, but he called and called me. I liked the guy, he had a lot of good information, and we discussed a lot of things about where I was headed in life. However, after discussing it with my family I decided not to do it. I gave him a firm no, on about the 4th or 5th phone call and that was about it, he never called back. I probably would have gone in right before the first Iraq war if I had joined.

Just thinking about it, at that age, if I had been visited by a group of anti-military recruiting Quakers after speaking with him; I probably would have joined just out of total disdain for them trying to tell me what to do, after laughing them out of my front door.

On the other hand, listing this group as a "threat" seems a little stupid too. If they are going to monitor peace activist, then maybe they should just label them as peace activists and leave it at that. Duh!!!

Posted by: JasonATexan Dec 18 2005, 12:36 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/index.html

Bush says he signed NSA wiretap order
Adds he OK'd program more than 30 times, will continue to do so

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In acknowledging the message was true, President Bush took aim at the messenger Saturday, saying that a newspaper jeopardized national security by revealing that he authorized wiretaps on U.S. citizens after September 11.

After The New York Times reported, and CNN confirmed, a claim that Bush gave the National Security Agency license to eavesdrop on Americans communicating with people overseas, the president said that his actions were permissible, but that leaking the revelation to the media was illegal.

During an unusual live, on-camera version of his weekly radio address, Bush said such authorization is "fully consistent" with his "constitutional responsibilities and authorities." (Watch Bush explain why he 'authorized the National Security Agency ... to intercept' -- 4:29)

Bush added: "Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."

He acknowledged during the address that he allowed the NSA "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."

The highly classified program was crucial to national security and designed "to detect and prevent terrorist attacks," he added. (Transcript)

The NSA eavesdrops on billions of communications worldwide. Although the NSA is barred from domestic spying, it can get warrants issued with the permission of a special court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court.

The court is set up specifically to issue warrants allowing wiretapping on domestic soil.
'Sad day'

After hearing Bush's response, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, said there was no law allowing the president's actions and that "it's a sad day."

"He's trying to claim somehow that the authorization for the Afghanistan attack after 9/11 permitted this, and that's just absurd," Feingold said. "There's not a single senator or member of Congress who thought we were authorizing wiretaps."

He added that the law clearly lays out how to obtain permission for wiretaps.

"If he needs a wiretap, the authority is already there -- the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act," Feingold said. "They can ask for a warrant to do that, and even if there's an emergency situation, they can go for 72 hours as long as they give notice at the end of 72 hours."

Bush defended signing the order by saying that two of the September 11 hijackers who flew the plane into the Pentagon -- Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi -- "communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas, but we didn't know they were here until it was too late."

He said the authorizations have made it "more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time, and the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad."
Re-authorized 30 times

Sources with knowledge of the program told CNN on Friday that Bush signed the secret order in 2002. The sources refused to be identified because the program is classified.

Bush, however, said he authorized the program on several occasions since the September 11 attacks and that he plans on doing it again.

"I have re-authorized this program more than 30 times," he said. "I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."

The New York Times had not responded to Bush's allegations that the paper endangered national security as of Saturday afternoon.

But in a Friday statement, Executive Editor Bill Keller said the newspaper postponed publication of the article for a year at the White House's request, while editors pondered the national security issues surrounding the release of the information.

But after considering the legal and civil liberties aspects, and determining that the story could be written without jeopardizing intelligence operations, the paper ran the story, Keller said, emphasizing that information about many NSA eavesdropping operations is public record.

CNN has not confirmed the exact wording of the president's order.

The political ramifications of the newspaper's report were felt even before Bush acknowledged the report's veracity.

Senators contemplating a vote Friday on whether to renew some controversial portions of the Patriot Act used The New York Times' report as evidence that the government could not be trusted with the broad powers laid out in the act. (Read about the Patriot Act vote)

In particular, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said such behavior by the executive branch "can't be condoned," and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said the report swayed his decision on the Patriot Act proposal.

"Today's revelation that the government listened in on thousands of phone conversations without getting a warrant is shocking and has greatly influenced my vote," Schumer said. "Today's revelation makes it very clear that we have to be very careful -- very careful."

Specter, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, added Friday that his committee would immediately begin investigating the matter.

Posted by: Dyan Dec 18 2005, 01:09 AM

What??!!!???? The government does not get to come "monitor" anyone without a damned good reason and proof that a crime is being committed. We are supposed to be a free society. That means that I get to do whatever I want, so long as it is lawful, WITHOUT it being any business whatsoever of any governmental entity. If I go to a PUBLIC school, ask for and receive permission to distribute material, I get to do that and the government doesn't get to spy on me and keep records of what I'm doing! LOTS of people try to influence teens for many different reasons. As long as what they do is legal and they are not disrupting the school, the government has no business playing big brother.

Posted by: no retreat, no surrender Dec 18 2005, 02:59 AM

I don't agree with Bob Barr on much but Bob Barr and I do agree on a alot of issues that concern civil liberties because Bob Barr is from the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party.

Posted by: Snuffysmith Dec 18 2005, 03:13 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121701233_pf.html

Pushing the Limits Of Wartime Powers

By Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 18, 2005; A01



In his four-year campaign against al Qaeda, President Bush has turned the U.S. national security apparatus inward to secretly collect information on American citizens on a scale unmatched since the intelligence reforms of the 1970s.

The president's emphatic defense yesterday of warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens and residents marked the third time in as many months that the White House has been obliged to defend a departure from previous restraints on domestic surveillance. In each case, the Bush administration concealed the program's dimensions or existence from the public and from most members of Congress.

Since October, news accounts have disclosed a burgeoning Pentagon campaign for "detecting, identifying and engaging" internal enemies that included a database with information on peace protesters. A debate has roiled over the FBI's use of national security letters to obtain secret access to the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans. And now come revelations of the National Security Agency's interception of telephone calls and e-mails from the United States -- without notice to the federal court that has held jurisdiction over domestic spying since 1978.

Defiant in the face of criticism, the Bush administration has portrayed each surveillance initiative as a defense of American freedom. Bush said yesterday that his NSA eavesdropping directives were "critical to saving American lives" and "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." After years of portraying an offensive waged largely overseas, Bush justified the internal surveillance with new emphasis on "the home front" and the need to hunt down "terrorists here at home."

Bush's constitutional argument, in the eyes of some legal scholars and previous White House advisers, relies on extraordinary claims of presidential war-making power. Bush said yesterday that the lawfulness of his directives was affirmed by the attorney general and White House counsel, a list that omitted the legislative and judicial branches of government. On occasion the Bush administration has explicitly rejected the authority of courts and Congress to impose boundaries on the power of the commander in chief, describing the president's war-making powers in legal briefs as "plenary" -- a term defined as "full," "complete," and "absolute."

A high-ranking intelligence official with firsthand knowledge said in an interview yesterday that Vice President Cheney, then-Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet and Michael V. Hayden, then a lieutenant general and director of the National Security Agency, briefed four key members of Congress about the NSA's new domestic surveillance on Oct. 25, 2001, and Nov. 14, 2001, shortly after Bush signed a highly classified directive that eliminated some restrictions on eavesdropping against U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

In describing the briefings, administration officials made clear that Cheney was announcing a decision, not asking permission from Congress. How much the legislators learned is in dispute.

Former senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who chaired the Senate intelligence committee and is the only participant thus far to describe the meetings extensively and on the record, said in interviews Friday night and yesterday that he remembers "no discussion about expanding [NSA eavesdropping] to include conversations of U.S. citizens or conversations that originated or ended in the United States" -- and no mention of the president's intent to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

"I came out of the room with the full sense that we were dealing with a change in technology but not policy," Graham said, with new opportunities to intercept overseas calls that passed through U.S. switches. He believed eavesdropping would continue to be limited to "calls that initiated outside the United States, had a destination outside the United States but that transferred through a U.S.-based communications system."

Graham said the latest disclosures suggest that the president decided to go "beyond foreign communications to using this as a pretext for listening to U.S. citizens' communications. There was no discussion of anything like that in the meeting with Cheney."

The high-ranking intelligence official, who spoke with White House permission but said he was not authorized to be identified by name, said Graham is "misremembering the briefings," which in fact were "very, very comprehensive." The official declined to describe any of the substance of the meetings, but said they were intended "to make sure the Hill knows this program in its entirety, in order to never, ever be faced with the circumstance that someone says, 'I was briefed on this but I had no idea that -- ' and you can fill in the rest."

By Graham's account, the official said, "it appears that we held a briefing to say that nothing is different . . . . Why would we have a meeting in the vice president's office to talk about a change and then tell the members of Congress there is no change?"

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), who was also present as then ranking Democrat of the House intelligence panel, said in a statement yesterday evening that the briefing described "President Bush's decision to provide authority to the National Security Agency to conduct unspecified activities." She said she "expressed my strong concerns" but did not elaborate.

The NSA disclosures follow exposure of two other domestic surveillance initiatives that drew shocked reactions from Congress and some members of the public in recent months.

Beginning in October, The Washington Post published articles describing a three-year-old Pentagon agency, the size and budget of which are classified, with wide new authority to undertake domestic investigations and operations against potential threats from U.S. residents and organizations against military personnel and facilities. The Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA, began as a small policy-coordination office but has grown to encompass nine directorates and a staff exceeding 1,000. The agency's Talon database, collecting unconfirmed reports of suspicious activity from military bases and organizations around the country, has included "threat reports" of peaceful civilian protests and demonstrations.

CIFA has also been empowered with what the military calls "tasking authority" -- the ability to give operational orders -- over Army, Navy and Air Force units whose combined roster of investigators, about 4,000, is nearly as large as the number of FBI special agents assigned to counterterrorist squads. Pentagon officials said this month they had ordered a review of the program after disclosures, in The Post, NBC News and the washingtonpost.com Web log of William M. Arkin, that CIFA compiled information about U.S. citizens engaging in constitutionally protected political activity such as protests against military recruiting.

In November, The Post disclosed an exponentially growing practice of domestic surveillance under the USA Patriot Act, using FBI demands for information known as "national security letters." Created in the 1970s for espionage and terrorism investigations, the letters enabled secret FBI review of the private telephone and financial records of suspected foreign agents. The Bush administration's guidelines after the Patriot Act transformed those letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors who are not alleged to be terrorists or spies.

The Post reported that the FBI has issued tens of thousands of national security letters, extending the bureau's reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans. Most of the U.S. residents and citizens whose records were screened, the FBI acknowledged, were not suspected of wrongdoing.

The burgeoning use of national security letters coincided with an unannounced decision to deposit all the information they yield into government data banks -- and to share those private records widely, in the federal government and beyond. In late 2003, the Bush administration reversed a long-standing policy requiring agents to destroy their files on innocent American citizens, companies and residents when investigations closed.

Yesterday's acknowledgment of warrantless NSA eavesdropping brought the most forthright statement from the president that his war on terrorism is targeting not only "enemies across the world" but "terrorists here at home." In the "first war of the 21st century," he said, "one of the most critical battlefronts is the home front."

Bush sidestepped some of the implications by citing examples only of foreigners who infiltrated the United States -- Saudi citizens Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers. But the most fundamental changes undertaken in the Bush administration's surveillance policy are the ones that have broadened the powers of the NSA, FBI and Pentagon to spy on "U.S. persons" -- American citizens, permanent residents and corporations -- on American soil.

Roger Cressey, who was principal deputy to the White House counterterrorism chief when terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center and a wing of the Pentagon, said "the amount of domestic surveillance is an admission of fundamental gaps in our understanding of what is happening in our country."

Those anxieties about unknown threats have ebbed and flowed since World War I, according to a bipartisan government commission chaired by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. President Woodrow Wilson warned against "the poison of disloyalty" and another loyalty campaign created black lists of accused Communists in the 1950s. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Army and the NSA collected files and eavesdropped on thousands of anti-Vietnam War and civil rights activists.

Congress asserted itself in the 1970s, imposing oversight requirements and passing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said FISA "expressly made it a crime for government officials 'acting under color of law' to engage in electronic eavesdropping 'other than pursuant to statute.' " FISA described itself, along with the criminal wiretap statute, as "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted."

No president before Bush mounted a frontal challenge to Congress's authority to limit espionage against Americans. In a Sept. 25, 2002, brief signed by then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, the Justice Department asserted "the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority."

The brief made no distinction between suspected agents who are U.S. citizens and those who are not. Other Bush administration legal arguments have said the "war on terror" is global and indefinite in scope, effectively removing traditional limits of wartime authority to the times and places of imminent or actual battle.

"There is a lot of discussion out there that we shouldn't be dividing Americans and foreigners, but terrorists and non-terrorists," said Gordon Oehler, a former chief of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center who served on last year's special commission assessing U.S. intelligence.

By law, according to University of Chicago scholar Geoffrey Stone, the differences are fundamental: Americans have constitutional protections that are enforceable in court whether their conversations are domestic or international.

Bush's assertion that eavesdropping takes place only on U.S. calls to overseas phones, Stone said, "is no different, as far as the law is concerned, from saying we only do it on Tuesdays."

Michael J. Woods, who was chief of the FBI's national security law unit when Bush signed the NSA directive, described the ongoing program as "very dangerous." In the immediate aftermath of a devastating attack, he said, the decision was a justifiable emergency response. In 2006, "we ought to be past the time of emergency responses. We ought to have more considered views now. . . . We have time to debate a legal regime and what's appropriate."

Staff writers Charles Lane and Walter Pincus and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.


© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Posted by: Snuffysmith Dec 18 2005, 03:17 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 18, 2005
In Address, Bush Says He Ordered Domestic Spying
By DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 - President Bush acknowledged on Saturday that he had ordered the National Security Agency to conduct an electronic eavesdropping program in the United States without first obtaining warrants, and said he would continue the highly classified program because it was "a vital tool in our war against the terrorists."

In an unusual step, Mr. Bush delivered a live weekly radio address from the White House in which he defended his action as "fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities."

He also lashed out at senators, both Democrats and Republicans, who voted on Friday to block the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, which expanded the president's power to conduct surveillance, with warrants, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The revelation that Mr. Bush had secretly instructed the security agency to intercept the communications of Americans and terrorist suspects inside the United States, without first obtaining warrants from a secret court that oversees intelligence matters, was cited by several senators as a reason for their vote.

"In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment," Mr. Bush said forcefully from behind a lectern in the Roosevelt Room, next to the Oval Office. The White House invited cameras in, guaranteeing television coverage.

He said the Senate's action "endangers the lives of our citizens," and added that "the terrorist threat to our country will not expire in two weeks," a reference to the approaching deadline of Dec. 31, when critical provisions of the current law will end.

His statement came just a day before he was scheduled to make a rare Oval Office address to the nation, at 9 p.m. Eastern time on Sunday, celebrating the Iraqi elections and describing what his press secretary on Saturday called the "path forward."

Mr. Bush's public confirmation on Saturday of the existence of one of the country's most secret intelligence programs, which had been known to only a select number of his aides, was a rare moment in his presidency. Few presidents have publicly confirmed the existence of heavily classified intelligence programs like this one.

His admission was reminiscent of Dwight Eisenhower's in 1960 that he had authorized U-2 flights over the Soviet Union after Francis Gary Powers was shot down on a reconnaissance mission. At the time, President Eisenhower declared that "no one wants another Pearl Harbor," an argument Mr. Bush echoed on Saturday in defending his program as a critical component of antiterrorism efforts.

But the revelation of the domestic spying program, which the administration temporarily suspended last year because of concerns about its legality, came in a leak. Mr. Bush said the information had been "improperly provided to news organizations."

As a result of the report, he said, "our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies and endangers our country."

As recently as Friday, when he was interviewed by Jim Lehrer of PBS, Mr. Bush refused to confirm the report the previous evening in The New York Times that in 2002 he authorized the spying operation by the security agency, which is usually barred from intercepting domestic communications. While not denying the report, he called it "speculation" and said he did not "talk about ongoing intelligence operations."

But as the clamor over the revelation rose and Vice President Dick Cheney and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, went to Capitol Hill on Friday to answer charges that the program was an illegal assumption of presidential powers, even in a time of war, Mr. Bush and his senior aides decided to abandon that approach.

"There was an interest in saying more about it, but everyone recognized its highly classified nature," one senior administration official said, speaking on background because, he said, the White House wanted the president to be the only voice on the issue. "This is directly taking on the critics. The Democrats are now in the position of supporting our efforts to protect Americans, or defend positions that could weaken our nation's security."

Democrats saw the issue differently. "Our government must follow the laws and respect the Constitution while it protects Americans' security and liberty," said Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and the Senate's leading critic of the Patriot Act.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has said he would conduct hearings on why Mr. Bush took the action.

"In addition to what the president said today," Mr. Specter said, "the Judiciary Committee will be interested in its oversight capacity to learn from the attorney general or others in the Department of Justice the statutory or other legal basis for the electronic surveillance, whether there was any judicial review involved, what was the scope of the domestic intercepts, what standards were used to identify Al Qaeda or other terrorist callers, and what was done with this information."

In a statement, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, said she was advised of the president's decision shortly after he made it and had "been provided with updates on several occasions."

"The Bush administration considered these briefings to be notification, not a request for approval," Ms. Pelosi said. "As is my practice whenever I am notified about such intelligence activities, I expressed my strong concerns during these briefings."

In his statement on Saturday, Mr. Bush did not address the main question directed at him by some members of Congress on Friday: why he felt it necessary to circumvent the system established under current law, which allows the president to seek emergency warrants, in secret, from the court that oversees intelligence operations. His critics said that under that law, the administration could have obtained the same information.

The president said on Saturday that he acted in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks because the United States had failed to detect communications that might have tipped them off to the plot. He said that two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, "communicated while they were in the United States to other members of Al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late."

As a result, "I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations," Mr. Bush said. "This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security."

Mr. Bush said that every 45 days the program was reviewed, based on "a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland."

"I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from Al Qaeda and related groups," Mr. Bush said. He said Congressional leaders had been repeatedly briefed on the program, and that intelligence officials "receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization."

The Patriot Act vote in the Senate, a day after Mr. Bush was forced to accept an amendment sponsored by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, that places limits on interrogation techniques that can be used by C.I.A. officers and other nonmilitary personnel, was a setback to the president's assertion of broad powers. In both cases, he lost a number of Republicans along with almost all Democrats.

"This reflects a complete transformation of the debate in America over torture," said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director of Human Rights Watch. "After the attacks, no politician was heard expressing any questions about the executive branch's treatment of captured terrorists."

Mr. Bush's unusual radio address is part of a broader effort this weekend to regain the initiative, after weeks in which the political ground has shifted under his feet. The Oval Office speech on Sunday, a formal setting that he usually tries to avoid, is his first there since March 2003, when he informed the world that he had ordered the Iraq invasion.

White House aides say they intend for this speech to be a bookmark in the Iraq experience: As part of the planned address, Mr. Bush appears ready to at least hint at reductions in troop levels.

There are roughly 160,000 American troops in Iraq, a number that was intended to keep order for Thursday's parliamentary elections.

The American troop level was already scheduled to decline to 138,000 - what the military calls its "baseline" level - after the election.

But on Friday, as the debate in Washington swirled over the president's order, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top American commander in Iraq, hinted that further reductions may be on the way.

"We're doing our assessment, and I'll make some recommendations in the coming weeks about whether I think it's prudent to go below the baseline," General Casey told reporters in Baghdad.



Copyright 2005The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top

Posted by: Snuffysmith Dec 18 2005, 03:19 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 18, 2005
Eavesdropping Effort Began Soon After Sept. 11 Attacks
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN
WASHINGTON - The National Security Agency first began to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on telephone calls and e-mail messages between the United States and Afghanistan months before President Bush officially authorized a broader version of the agency's special domestic collection program, according to current and former government officials.

The security agency surveillance of telecommunications between the United States and Afghanistan began in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, the officials said.

The agency operation included eavesdropping on communications between Americans and other individuals in the United States and people in Afghanistan without the court-approved search warrants that are normally required for such domestic intelligence activities.

On Saturday, President Bush confirmed the existence of the security agency's domestic intelligence collection program and defended it, saying it had been instrumental in disrupting terrorist cells in America.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration and senior American intelligence officials quickly decided that existing laws and regulations restricting the government's ability to monitor American communications were too rigid to permit quick and flexible access to international calls and e-mail traffic involving terrorism suspects. Bush administration officials also believed that the intelligence community, including the Central Intelligence Agency and the N.S.A., had been too risk-averse before the attacks and had missed opportunities to prevent them.

In the days after the attacks, the C.I.A. determined that Al Qaeda, which had found a haven in Afghanistan, was responsible. Congress quickly passed a resolution authorizing the president to conduct a war on terrorism, and the security agency was secretly ordered to begin conducting comprehensive coverage of all communications into and out of Afghanistan, including those to and from the United States, current and former officials said.

It could not be learned whether Mr. Bush issued a formal written order authorizing the early surveillance of communications between the United States and Afghanistan that was later superseded by the broader order. A White House spokeswoman, Maria Tamburri, declined to comment Saturday on the Afghanistan monitoring, saying she could not go beyond Mr. Bush's speech.

Current and former American intelligence and law enforcement officials who discussed the matter were granted anonymity because the intelligence-gathering program is highly classified. Some had direct knowledge of the program.

The disclosure of the security agency's warrantless eavesdropping on calls between the United States and Afghanistan sheds light on the origins of the agency's larger surveillance activities, which officials say have included monitoring the communications of as many as 500 Americans and other people inside the United States without search warrants at any one time. Several current and former officials have said that they believe the security agency operation began virtually on the fly in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The early, narrow focus on communications in and out of Afghanistan reflected the ad hoc nature of the government's initial approach to counterterrorism policies in the days after Sept. 11 attacks.

But after the United States-led invasion of Afghanistan succeeded in overthrowing the Taliban government in late 2001, Al Qaeda lost its sanctuary, and Osama bin Laden and other Qaeda leaders scattered to Pakistan, Iran and other countries. As counterterrorism operations grew, the Bush administration wanted the security agency secretly to expand its surveillance as well. By 2002, Mr. Bush gave the agency broader surveillance authority.

In the early years of the operation, there were few, if any, controls placed on the activity by anyone outside the security agency, officials say. It was not until 2004, when several officials raised concerns about its legality, that the Justice Department conducted its first audit of the operation. Security agency officials had been given the power to select the people they would single out for eavesdropping inside the United States without getting approval for each case from the White House or the Justice Department, the officials said.

While the monitoring program was conducted without court-approved warrants, senior Bush administration officials said the far-reaching decision to move ahead with the program was justified by the pressing need to identify whether any remaining "sleeper cells" were still operating within the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks and whether they were planning "follow-on attacks."

Mr. Bush, in his speech on Saturday, cited the disruptions of "terrorist cells" since Sept. 11 in New York, Oregon, Virginia, California, Texas and Ohio as evidence of a very real threat. And he pointed to overseas communications by two of the Sept. 11 hijackers who were living in the San Diego area as evidence that the security agency needed the power and flexibility to track international communications.

The two men "communicated to other members of Al Qaeda who were overseas," Mr. Bush said