Re: Bush and his eavesdropping…
UTD, for God’s sake stop trying to make it a big deal…ever heard of a project called ECHELON? Once you know what it is, you will stop the bickering.
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping...
UTD,
I assume everytime that I am on a cell phone or a wireless phone in my own house that someone, anyone, could be listening. Now please explain to me why it is OK for Clinton And Carter to go ahead with searches and electronic surveillance with NO COURT ORDER, and yet you excoriate Bush for essentially the same thing.
This sounds very much like one of those things that American Presidents have done for ages, under special circumstances, but when the NYT comes out with an article it thoughly neglects to mention past practice. Why would that be?
Frankly we are talking about programs so secret that neither one of us has much information to operate on. As far as Al-Qaedda is concered, my personal theory is that the gloves come off. This is certainly one of those times. There are very few other ways that enemies hiding among us can be caught.
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping...
OG, you are championing policies that put us on a slippery slope toward a facist state. There are oversight procedures that are in place that Bush can use that will not tie his hands in his fight to protect the American people. In his zeal to expand federal and presidential powers, he is making decisions on his own without the check and balance that our Constitution requires. Because of the deceit, mismanagement and arrogance this administration has already shown, I do not trust them to be making these unilateral decisions
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping...
Lets not be breathlessly screaming Facist State, when essentially Carter and Clinton made similar decisions under similar circumstances pertaining to national security.
I worry more about how Al-Qaedda can take advantage of a free and open society, than the collapse of the free and open society. Big brother does not have the time to check out who is sunbathing naked in their back yards, you are far more likely to attract the attention of the neighbors teenage boy.....
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping...
OG, I'm not sure what you aren't grasping. Clinton stayed under the oversight of the FISA court. Meaning there was oversight, a check and balance. Bush did not, no check and balance, big difference, do you understand this? It's what our country was founded on.
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping...
I'm not screaming facist state, but I don't want it to get to that point. It is a slippery slope when rights start eroding and government gets unrestricted access to spy on its people. This administration has demonstrated deceit, arrogance, secrecy, croneyism and a desire to expand presidential powers that scares the crap out of me.
I don't know enough of the limited info posted by Drudge to protect his buddies to know if Clinton and Carter ordered similar illegal spying. Bush obviously bypassed systems in place that are working when making this order
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping...
Guys, here is the deal....really if they wanted to they can listen to any phone conversation they wanted....we have the technology to do that.....do you really think that the next president regardless of the part affiliation will stop this....
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping...
Why does every time a government policy gets criticized Bush supporters automatically cry "Bush hater" or assume it is because he belongs to the 'other party'. Another indicator of facism is the blind loyalty to the party in power.
I wouldn't want a president of any party to overstep the oversight. While technology allows for unlimited spying, this is as good as place as any to question it and if not stop it, slow it down and make it publicy known these practices exist.
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping...
Semi, that is the whole point...why dont you critcize all the dems who actually partiipated in these activities?
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping...
Great, who are they? I will write them a letter.
What ever happened to the days of honest, responsible leadership when the President was willing to say "The buck stops here"?
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping…
Yes it’s possible and there is a legal way to do it. If caught doing it illegally then there are consequences.
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping…
Oversite my Hairy White Butt. Read the precise Executive order Clinton signed authorizing physical searches for Intelligence purposes with NO court order.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949
- - - - - - -
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (“Act”) (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.
Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.
Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:
(a) Secretary of State;
(b) Secretary of Defense;
(c) Director of Central Intelligence;
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;
(e) Deputy Secretary of State;
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995.
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping...
OG that order is for surveillance without a warrant on foreigners, not U.S. citizens.
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping...
UTD, please point out where that executive order says that. It does not. It says for the purpose of collecting Foreign Intelligence. Period.
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping...
Come on UTD, spin spin spin ....you need sometime to look up some of the dems website to refute OG's claim...go ahead
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping…
Better yet, here is a column by Clintons Associate Attorney General:
President had legal authority to OK taps
By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005
President Bush’s post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.
In the Supreme Court’s 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president’s authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that “All the … courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence … We take for granted that the president does have that authority.”
The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an “agent of a foreign power,” which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law’s procedures.
But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, “FISA could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power.”
Every president since FISA’s passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act’s terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that “the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.”
FISA contains a provision making it illegal to “engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.” The term “electronic surveillance” is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication “sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person” (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by “intentionally targeting that United States person.” The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act’s prohibition on electronic surveillance.
The administration has offered the further defense that FISA’s reference to surveillance “authorized by statute” is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to “use all necessary and appropriate force” to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.
But even if the NSA activity is “electronic surveillance” and the Sept. 11 resolution is not “statutory authorization” within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, “encroach upon the president’s constitutional power.”
FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.
Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.
But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.
John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.
(and, a fine place to start maybe 1-800-HAT-EUSA, ask for Lajawab, wiretap that…)
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping…
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping...
So Far I have not posted any links or articles supporting the Taps, because I sincerely feel that it is more of a National Security issue than a Privacy Issue.
I would rather be Safe and Alive with my family, rather than be live and grieving for my family. or be dead and have my family in shambles.
Does that make any sense.
Hence those opposing the taps can you please tell us your views from a national security point of view, and yakin maaniye once the nation is secure from those terrorists, we can all get together and fight for privacy, its just the case of having our priorities right.
Aejaz.
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping...
Ahh PA, read your supposed debunking. All it says is that Carter and Clintons' Attorneys General had to provide a certification for the searches. That is essentially what Gonzales said that Bush did. Neither Carter nor Clinton nor Bush felt it necessary to get a court order to protect the National Security. And, for the record, I printed out the entire Clinton EO, to which UTD still has not replied as to where it specifically says that the search will be soley applicable to Foreign Agents.
Re: Bush and his eavesdropping...
Questions:
Do you suppose previous administrations have used this type of surveillance
in the past without warrant and/or Attorney General certification?If you think the answer is yes, do you consider the circumstances under which
those were executed more or less dire in terms of immediate or short-term
national security?
I think we can expect that this type of thing has gone on for years. Not an excuse, but a reality. At the same time, I can think of no instance in the history of this nation, where the danger to thousands of civilians is so well embedded and hidden
amongst the general population. We have never faced the same type of enemy: combining stealth, multiple modes of communication, potential access to WMD and fanatic motivation.
Does the president deserve a pass? Not entirely. But turning it into a blatantly political attack just reinforces how deep, unabiding and hysterical is the blind opposition to this Administration. The surveillance was most certainly motivated by a desire to protect American lives. You may not like the man and his method, but you have to be a total douchebag not to realize why he felt it was necessary.
regards.