Bush acknowledges allowing eavesdropping

[gldstwmn]

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

Order 'consistent' with 'constitutional responsibilities'

Saturday, December 17, 2005; Posted: 2:55 p.m. EST (19:55 GMT)

President Bush arrives to deliver his live radio address in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on Saturday.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush acknowledged on Saturday that he authorized the National Security Agency "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations" and said leaks to the media about the program were illegal.

Sources have told CNN that Bush signed a secret order in 2002 allowing the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans and others in the United States who are communicating with people overseas. The story was first reported Friday in The New York Times.

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."

"This is highly classified program crucial to our national security" and "its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks," Bush said.

"The existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports after being improperly given to news organizations," Bush said. "Unauthorized disclosure damages our national security and puts our nation at risk.

"Revealing this information is illegal."

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'
Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said Saturday: "There's not a single senator or member of Congress who thought we were authorizing 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."

Feingold said "it's a sad day" in light of what he heard Bush say.

"He authorized these wiretaps even though there was no specific law allowing it," Feingold said. "He's trying to claim somehow that the authorization for the Afghanistan attack after 9/11 permitted this and that's just absurd."

Bush said two of the September 11 hijackers -- Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi -- who flew the plane into the Pentagon "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."

"I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times" since the September 11, 2001, attacks and "I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups," he said.

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.

During an interview Friday for PBS' "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," Bush said he understood that people want him to confirm or deny the Times report, but he couldn't discuss specifics because "it would compromise our ability to protect the people," according to a transcript of the program.

The New York Times report said the NSA has monitored international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants during the past three years as part of its war on terror.

Bill Keller, the Times' executive editor, said in a statement that the newspaper postponed publication of the article for a year at the White House's request as 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.

"What is new is that the NSA has for the past three years had the authority to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without a warrant," Keller said. "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."

CNN has not confirmed the exact wording of the president's order.

Effect on Patriot Act vote
However, 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.

In particular, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said he had been unsure the night before how he would vote.

"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," he said. "Today's revelation makes it very clear that we have to be very careful -- very careful."

One of Schumer's GOP colleagues, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, seemed troubled by Friday's news and said that the revelation, if true, was "very problemsome, if not devastating" to getting the Patriot Act renewed.

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman added that his committee would immediately begin investigating the matter and that such behavior "can't be condoned."

Stansfield Turner, a retired Navy admiral who headed the Central Intelligence Agency from 1977 to 1981 under President Jimmy Carter, concurred with Schumer, saying, "Presidents have to conform to the law. All of the agencies of the government have to conform to the law."

[The Chain]

Pretty much the same thing :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10505574/

"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.



Does this man not realize how contradicting his statment (above) is, to what he is actually doing? Invading privacy is not protecting civil liberties, it is the exact opposite. We've still got 2 more years with this asshole.

[dissention]

Ah, the lovely weekend newsdump. This will be nothing but a mere footnote in Monday's news and will be forgotten about by Tuesday.

[Rickypt]

It's time for the Dems to start calling for impeachment.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

It's time for the Dems to start calling for impeachment.

well I have been calling for it for oh, about 5 years........

[snowman]

I think impeachment is alittle extreme don'tcha think? I'm not a Bush fan, but this isn't something unique to the current administration. At the time of 9/11, I think we all were very paranoid. Funny how the passage of a few years softens our collective memories...

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by snowman

I think impeachment is alittle extreme don'tcha think? I'm not a Bush fan, but this isn't something unique to the current administration. At the time of 9/11, I think we all were very paranoid. Funny how the passage of a few years softens our collective memories...

not extreme to me when he hijacked the election in 2000.....my disgust with him predates 9/11. no softening of memory on MY part thank you very much.

[Rickypt]

Many experts (and some Dems in Congress) are calling this action illegal. If it is, then impeachment proceedings are warranted. I say go for it; if Clinton can be impeached for lying about getting his lollipop polished, then I think Dems have a case.

[snowman]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

not extreme to me when he hijacked the election in 2000.....my disgust with him predates 9/11. no softening of memory on MY part thank you very much.

I agree- we have gotten the royal scam from the beginning. The 00' election and the "WAR" are blatant. My opinion is that these types of covert operations have taken place regardless of who is in office.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" ... as someone once said.

[Rickypt]

Originally Posted by snowman

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" ... as someone once said.

Wasn't that Hedwig?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by snowman

I think impeachment is alittle extreme don'tcha think?

Nope. He violated the oath of office by doing this. He swore to uphold The Constitution. The man wipes his ass with it. If the president is not accountable by law, then why have any law at all?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Nope. He violated the oath of office by doing this. He swore to uphold The Constitution. The man wipes his ass with it. If the president is not accountable by law, then why have any law at all?

Yes he did and you are correct.

I get that just about every administration has done this in some way. But, two wrongs do not make a right and to my knowledge, W signed an official document allowing it as opposed to some branch of some Agency doing it without the knowledge of the Oval Office, which I submit was how it may have happened in the past. This is a huge thing that should horrify every American. W is not King George; he is the President and the law applies to all, even him. As I read it, the law said a warrant was needed and he just ignored that. Whatever respect I may have had for him years ago is now further supplanted with disgust.

Is it an impeachable offense? Under the standard mostly bent to apply to Clinton, yes it is and he who lives by the sword . . . .

So much for restoring dignity to the White House

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Yes he did and you are correct.

I get that just about every administration has done this in some way. But, two wrongs do not make a right and to my knowledge, W signed an official document allowing it as opposed to some branch of some Agency doing it without the knowledge of the Oval Office, which I submit was how it may have happened in the past. This is a huge thing that should horrify every American. W is not King George; he is the President and the law applies to all, even him. As I read it, the law said a warrant was needed and he just ignored that. Whatever respect I may have had for him years ago is now further supplanted with disgust.

Is it an impeachable offense? Under the standard mostly bent to apply to Clinton, yes it is and he who lives by the sword . . . .

So much for restoring dignity to the White House

Well, he's been able to pretty much do whatever he wants, so why should this be any different. Arrogance of power at its finest.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

Well, he's been able to pretty much do whatever he wants, so why should this be any different. Arrogance of power at its finest.

His other things have been within the law in a manner of speaking. For example, the war in Iraq had broad mutual suport from bith sides and Clinton killed in the name of the same idea (though W did worse). This is very different from a legal vantage point. The spying broke a law that, as I read it, is clear on its face as opposed to this WMD intelligence that the D's were on record as believeing. We shall see what happens, which I suspect will be nothing and that saddens me.

[dissention]

Watch this video of Bob Barr eviscerating Bush.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/17.html#a6367

And then watch Minute Rice spin right where she sits on Meet the Press.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/18.html#a6372