Bush Admits to Authorizing Wiretaps

[Solid Fro]

You think it's scary that the government is not technically allowed to monitor us as closely any more? Idiotic. Plus it's not like it's going to stop them anyways, it's been going on for years.

Yes.

The CIA or any other agency always has to obtain a warrant before monitoring domestic telephone conversations of American citizens. If an Al-Qaeda terrorist was communicating with a terrorist cell inside the US, the CIA had to wait to obtain a warrant, that could take months, before they could listen in.

Do you not see the problem with that? As seen on the 11th of September, it only took 30 minutes to fly airliners through buildings. The Patriot Act was supposed to remove restrictions like that relating to terrorism, not snooping on innocent Americans.

The CIA doesn't care about who calls 900 numbers at 1AM.

 

[James2097]

I'd be annoyed if my government DIDN'T wiretap me. I'd like to feel important enough that they care what I say! (which is totally not the case - unless I start buying fertilizer by the truckload and convert to islam. )

/only jk

Oh NO! My right to privacy is screwweed!! But honestly, who cares if they wiretap you if you stand a much better chance of not being BLOWN UP?! The only people that should be worried about being wiretapped ARE THOSE PLANNING TO BLOW STUFF UP!!

 

[niky]

Actually, wiretapping bothers any politician who is not in the inner circle. Please, refer to my previous post: Helloooo.... WATERGATE...

And I'm serious, if a warrant is badly needed, it doesn't take all that long to get one.

 

[Zardoz]

Very good story on this:

"Testing the limits of wartime powers"

To me, its a matter of degree and urgency. How critical is each instance, how quickly must action be taken, and whether or not obtaining the warrant would hinder the operation.

Tough calls at times, I'm sure, but, like most of us, I'm wondering if every case of his "departing from previous restraints on domestic surveillance" is justified.

He's done it a lot, hasn't he? I certainly think the concerns we have are justified.

 

[Famine]

I'm not worried at all if the government wants to listen in on anything I am doing. Why are you worried, Danoff?

What an inane comment.

The price of eternal vigilance is indeed freedom.

 

[ledhed]

show me just one instance where the wire taps were either illegal or unwarranted .
Why is this a story ? because he did the right thing again ?

 

[Danoff]

show me just one instance where the wire taps were either illegal or unwarranted .
Why is this a story ? because he did the right thing again ?

He's being accused of breaking the law - that's why this is a story.

I'm not worried at all if the government wants to listen in on anything I am doing. Why are you worried, Danoff?

I don't care if you aren't bothered if the government wants to listen in on anything you're doing. I don't have anything to hide either - that doesn't mean that the government should be able to do it. This is about freedom. This is about the very core fundamental principle of America - that the people are in control of the government and NOT the other way around. Statements like yours show just how far we've fallen from the ideals that the founders of this country set out to acheive.

 

[ledhed]

He has not been accused of breaking anything...except liberal balls . Its been hinted at and winked at and speculated upon BUT since absolutely no law was even BENT never mind broken ...and if ONE was was ...well thats the point ...SHOW HOW AND WHEN . All we have is this stupid speculation inuendo crap fest. As usual , I might addd .
A law was broken ? State the law and the instance . Its that simple .

 

[Swift]

He has not been accused of breaking anything...except liberal balls . Its been hinted at and winked at and speculated upon BUT since absolutely no law was even BENT never mind broken ...and if ONE was was ...well thats the point ...SHOW HOW AND WHEN . All we have is this stupid speculation inuendo crap fest. As usual , I might addd .
A law was broken ? State the law and the instance . Its that simple .

Seriously!

The more I hear about this the more it sounds like a media story to try and crucify Bush.

 

[Kylehnat]

He's being accused of breaking the law - that's why this is a story.

Bingo.

It's another case of GWB being dishonest to the American public, and disregarding the law while he's at it.

How much more of this are we supposed to take?

 

[Swift]

Bingo.

It's another case of GWB being dishonest to the American public, and disregarding the law while he's at it.

How much more of this are we supposed to take?

Some proof that he did infact break the law for starters.

 

[Kylehnat]

Wiretapping and surveillance without a warrant of some kind is illegal (not to mention unconstitutional).

If a person is really suspicious, getting such a warrant takes the President and CIA about 10 seconds.

 

[Swift]

Wiretapping and surveillance without a warrant of some kind is illegal (not to mention unconstitutional).

If a person is really suspicious, getting such a warrant takes the President and CIA about 10 seconds.

Actually, there are courts that take care of this kind of thing and can give blanket warrants and things like that. But I still maintain that you haven't offered proof that Bush broke, bent or sidestepped the law.

 

[Danoff]

Bingo.

It's another case of GWB being dishonest to the American public, and disregarding the law while he's at it.

How much more of this are we supposed to take?

You're jumping the gun by saying that this is one case (let alone ANOTHER case) of him being dishonest. To back this statement up you'd need proof... and that's what this thread is about. To bring to light any proof that is out there and discuss the investigation as it unfolds.

Our president has been accused of illegally, unconstitutionally, overstepping the authority of his office and bypassing the checks and balances present in our system by wiretapping US citizens without a court order. He stands accused of breaking the law.

What's more is that the response from the White House has not been entirely coherent. They claim that no law has been broken, but that message has not been entirely consistent or clear.

"Where there's smoke there's fire."

^^ It isn't always true, but it is true a lot of times. I'm waiting to see what happens with this case. But as I said at the outset of this thread - if it is true that our president signed an order to perform wire tapping on American citizens without the proper court order, he is guilty of a crime and should quite possibly be removed from office.

I'm waiting to see if he is cleared or guilty.

 

[Danoff]

Ok,

It appears that Bush has admitted to authorizing wiretaps and will continue to do so in the future. The only question left is whether he has the legal authority to do so, or if he's breaking the law.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush/index.html

He's obviously not using the Patriot Act to justify this since that hasn't been renewed by congress - but he plans to continue the wiretaps. I don't think he has the authority to do this and it appears more and more likely that he's gotten himself into a mess.

This is a big deal. He has compromised the civil rights of American citizens and it has to stop. There has to be a clear signal from the judicial branch that this is unacceptable and must stop immediately. Whatever the difficulty is with getting authorization for wiretaps can certainly be fixed. I'm confident that we can develop a system that works to protect judicial review and civil liberties while making it possible to protect the US from terrorist attacks. This kind of short-cutting short changes everyone in this country and erodes the values that America was founded upon. Bush should be ashamed of himself for this. The president of the US should never place American ideals after safety.

 

[Zardoz]

...This kind of short-cutting short changes everyone in this country and erodes the values that America was founded upon...

Yes, and I'll repeat: It's a victory for terrorism. This is exactly the sort of thing they want us to do. By their actions, they cause us to make profoundly important changes to the way we do things.

They're undoubtedly high-fiving each other.

 

[FoolKiller]

The only question left is whether he has the legal authority to do so, or if he's breaking the law.

Seeing as how he met with members of Congress of both parties and they agreed to it I don't see anything legal issues being brought up because if it were found unconstitutional and worthy of something like impeachment it would take a few others out too.

Of course, checking with Congress might be all it took to clear checks and balances and make it legal, the constitutionality of it may have to be determined by the courts and then all that would happen is that it would stop happening. I definitely don't see much coming of this other than fingerpointing and bad PR.

He's obviously not using the Patriot Act to justify this since that hasn't been renewed by congress

Parts of the Patriot Act weren't renewed because only parts of it expire in January. Some of the Patriot Act was made permanent immediately while other parts were made temporary with the possibility of becoming permanent.

That said, I don't know what parts, if any, this would fall under.

 

[Danoff]

Seeing as how he met with members of Congress of both parties and they agreed to it I don't see anything legal issues being brought up because if it were found unconstitutional and worthy of something like impeachment it would take a few others out too.

That's entirely possible

Of course, checking with Congress might be all it took to clear checks and balances and make it legal, the constitutionality of it may have to be determined by the courts and then all that would happen is that it would stop happening. I definitely don't see much coming of this other than fingerpointing and bad PR.

Checking with Congress to make sure he has the authority to authorize this isn't really any kind of a check on his power. Wiretaps need to be reviewed by a judge - who can determine whether the evidence used to identify the person is sufficient to invade his privacy.

Parts of the Patriot Act weren't renewed because only parts of it expire in January. Some of the Patriot Act was made permanent immediately while other parts were made temporary with the possibility of becoming permanent.

I was unaware that any of the Patriot Act survived. Since this is the case, he may be able to claim authority to do this under parts of the patriot act that are still present (and are likely in need of reform).

To give the president this kind of authority is unamerican. It's not something that we should be playing with. If there are problems getting the necessary review - we should work those problems, not simply erase the judicial review which was put in place for a reason.

...and I hate this "ends justify the means" argument. It was a bad argument with Iraq, and it's a bad argument here as well. The ends never justify the means. The beginnings justify the means.

 

[s0nny80y]

It's almost like making Watergate legal.

 

[Zardoz]

Oh, my:

Spy court judge quits in protest

"A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

"U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

"Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work."

 

[niky]

It's almost like making Watergate legal.

 

[FoolKiller]

Checking with Congress to make sure he has the authority to authorize this isn't really any kind of a check on his power. Wiretaps need to be reviewed by a judge - who can determine whether the evidence used to identify the person is sufficient to invade his privacy.

That is why I said "might." I don't know enough about this kind of issue to say what clears checks and balances, but with the right people in Congress agreeing with him I have a feeling that only a lawsuit by an individual or group claiming this to be unconstitutional will be the only action to stop this. I see the ACLU stepping up on this.

To give the president this kind of authority is unamerican. It's not something that we should be playing with. If there are problems getting the necessary review - we should work those problems, not simply erase the judicial review which was put in place for a reason.

I agree 100%. 👍

 

[Zardoz]

Robert Reich broadcasted this on NPR this morning:

Business And The Rule Of Law

American business should be deeply concerned about the claims by the President to authority for whatever action is necessary to secure the nation, even if that means stretching or ignoring the law.

From its infancy, modern capitalism depended on liberty and predictability, and business leaders fought for the rule of law. The idea that a head of state must be bound by law emerged from the struggles of the 17th and 18th centuries with monarchs who claimed to have divine right to do as they pleased. A rising class of European merchants insisted that rulers do only what they were authorized by law to do.

These business leaders understood that economic liberties could not be separated from civil liberties. If a king or emperor could arrest or detain or search or torture anyone for whatever reason, there was nothing to stop him from taking private property, interfering in private contracts, commandeering private resources.

Now we have a President who asserts the power to spy on Americans without the approval of a court, even though a law enacted more than a quarter century ago prohibits this practice. He claims authority to secretly monitor the actions of private groups advocating environmental protection or peace. He and his administration assert the prerogative to call any American an "enemy combatant" and keep him in jail without counsel for as long as they wish.

This is the same Administration that flouts international law by detaining foreigners indefinitely, by holding some in secret prisons, and by using torture as an instrument to gain information. It’s the same Administration that pays off journalists here and abroad to write favorable stories about it, also in defiance of law.

The President says all this is justified because he is the nation’s Commander-in-Chief, responsible for guarding the nation’s security in a time of war. But if the end of keeping Americans secure justifies all means -- including a disregard of law -- then no one is secure.

If civil liberties can be sacrificed at the whim of the president -- without deliberation by Congress, and absent the normal procedures involved in making law -- economic liberties are equally at risk. How far are we from the specter of no-bid government contracts to politically well-connected suppliers who agree with the President’s assertions about the war? Of selective prosecution of antitrust laws or health and safety regulations, depending on support for the President’s war agenda? Of pressure on the media to provide favorable coverage of the war, in return for regulatory favors?

When a president or a king is unaccountable to law, it’s impossible to predict where or how he will act in pursuit of his aims.

The perils for American business reach beyond our shores. When America is viewed less as a beacon of law and democracy than as a lawless bully, the nation cannot claim world economic leadership. The so-called Washington Consensus of the 1990s, embracing free trade, free capital flows, and responsible fiscal policies, is unraveling. The Doha Round of trade talks has practically ground to a halt. We’re getting nowhere on international agreements over taxes and securities.

Economic freedom and civil liberty -- the two are inseparable. And both are threatened by unaccountable power that refuses to be confined by the rule of law. As they did centuries ago when confronting monarchs who claimed unbridled power to rule as they wished, business leaders must come to the defense of liberty.

 

[Solid Fro]

What will be the Liberal's excuse for attacking Bush next week?

ANWR?

The Patriot Act?

What Bush got for Christmas?



Powerline pretty much sums it up for me:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012606.php
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012625.php

 

[FoolKiller]

Before I start:

Disclaimer: I do NOT agree with this action by President Bush. I am a staunch supporter of privacy rights.

That said:

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.

I have seen many arguments saying that the use of the term "unreasonable" and "probable cause" here allows for this order to be legal. Supposedly people contacting suspected terrorist groups or terror contacts overseas create probable cause and since these are usually a matter of needing a wiretap within minutes-hours, as opposed to days, weeks, or months in criminal cases, it is no longer unreasonable to move forward without a warrant. I can't say that makes complete sense to me but I never studied law outside of telecommunications law and regulations. I can tell you all about the FCC.

And Brit Hume of Fox News has reported that this is not the first time in recent years, or decades even, that a president has issued an order like this. Apparently it only made big news with this president. That doesn't surprise me.

We told you earlier that President Clinton had defended his executive authority to perform wiretaps and searches of American citizens without a warrant and in fact, in February of 1995, authorized the attorney general "to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information."

Now it turns out that presidents going back to Jimmy Carter have authorized such actions. An executive order signed by President Carter in May of 1979 reads, "The attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

So, it appears there is no legal or even Constitutional issue here, however, I do not like that the president has the executive authority to do this.

 

[Danoff]

Before I start:

Disclaimer: I do NOT agree with this action by President Bush. I am a staunch supporter of privacy rights.

That said:


I have seen many arguments saying that the use of the term "unreasonable" and "probable cause" here allows for this order to be legal. Supposedly people contacting suspected terrorist groups or terror contacts overseas create probable cause and since these are usually a matter of needing a wiretap within minutes-hours, as opposed to days, weeks, or months in criminal cases, it is no longer unreasonable to move forward without a warrant. I can't say that makes complete sense to me but I never studied law outside of telecommunications law and regulations. I can tell you all about the FCC.

And Brit Hume of Fox News has reported that this is not the first time in recent years, or decades even, that a president has issued an order like this. Apparently it only made big news with this president. That doesn't surprise me.



So, it appears there is no legal or even Constitutional issue here, however, I do not like that the president has the executive authority to do this.

He doesn't have the authority. "Unreasonable" or "probable cause" has to be determined by a court.

 

[FoolKiller]

He doesn't have the authority. "Unreasonable" or "probable cause" has to be determined by a court.

If I understand thgem correctly they are trying to use it in the same sense that if a cop smells pot smoke or hears a scream they can enter your home without a warrant because of probable cause. In this case they are saying that they see a call going out to a suspected terrorist then they have probable cause to tap in and listen. It would only be considered unreasonable if they just tapped all your calls.


I don't agree with this thought process because just calling someone with ties to terrorism does not mean you are supporting their actions in anyway or that you are even aware that they are linked with terrorism.

But since this appears to be common practice I doubt that anything will come of this. Since President Bush doesn't have another term only his short-term PR will be affected.

 

[ledhed]

Blah..........blah.....blah.bla ba da bla...etc. .....etc. .eetc,,,


The bottom line ..mr. BUSH ...our President..decided to help protect our country and it people by...allowing the NSA to intercept messages by those from inside or outside the US frome those inside or outside the US ..without a warrant ...because to wait might cause OUR enemy ...who I might add we are at WAR with ...time to complete plans to kill us ..before we spent our 72 hours or whatever ....to get a warrant ... hmmm ...I wonder how this guy got elected ...over the asswipes who complain...??????????

 

[OGLE B]

Amen to that ledhed. I support our president's actions 100%. Catch and kill the terrorists!
Imagine how the liberals will complain that Bush didn't do enough, if another attack happens. You don't have any "civil rights" if you are dead.

 

[Tornado]

The bottom line ..mr. BUSH ...our President..decided to help protect our country and it people by...allowing the NSA to intercept messages by those from inside or outside the US frome those inside or outside the US ..without a warrant ...because to wait might cause OUR enemy ...who I might add we are at WAR with ...time to complete plans to kill us ..

Since when did the American people become our enemy? And who exactly is this enemy that we are at war with? I see no war. I see a bunch of soldiers getting wiped out by people that are just plain clothes civilians with Ak's and RPG's. That is not a war. It's a shooting gallery were the targets take out the shooters.

He has not been accused of breaking anything...except liberal balls . Its been hinted at and winked at and speculated upon BUT since absolutely no law was even BENT never mind broken ...and if ONE was was ...well thats the point ...SHOW HOW AND WHEN . All we have is this stupid speculation inuendo crap fest. As usual , I might addd .
A law was broken ? State the law and the instance . Its that simple.

Heres on for you. How about when he was elected a government official undemocratically? Or maybe when he refused to fire Karl Rove instantly when he was accused of treason (which, in case you don't know, makes Bush an accomplice to a capital crime)? Or maybe when he appointed a judge to the Supreme Court (Miers) who basically got the job because they were friends? Or maybe, just maybe, when he invaded the country of Iraq without probable cause of anything?