Bush acknowledges allowing eavesdropping

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.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.

:eek: :distress: :mad:

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.:distress:

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Wasn't that Hedwig?

[gldstwmn]

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]

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 :mad:

[DavidMn]

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 :mad: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.:mad:

[strandinthewind]

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.:mad:

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

[wondergirl9847]

I shouldn't have called bin Laden last week to discuss our plan to take over the world. :distress:

I'd better say goodbye now, Ledgies. They are probably gonna be knockin' on my door, right about......

[irishgrl]

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 :mad:

Exactamundo. Lets use the standard the Republicans applied to Clinton and break out the tar and feathers while we're at it. One wonders what he'll do if left alone...and the prospect is S.C.A.R.Y...............

Jason, I like this: W is not King George. Im gonna hijack it ok? too late!

[dissention]

Joe Biden fully supports what Bush did. This whole thing? Is hysterical.

[DavidMn]

Joe Biden fully supports what Bush did. This whole thing? Is hysterical.Joe Biden?! That surprises me, but it probably shouldnt. I heard Barbara Boxer today say this IS an impeachable offense. This should be VERY interesting.

[dissention]

Joe Biden?! That surprises me, but it probably shouldnt.

"I'm the guy that drafted the FISA act, twenty five years ago on the judiciary committee--it's a secret court, allowing the President to wiretap anybody, intercept anything for up to 72 hours-----he already has the authority under the FISA court."

He's a buffoon, always has been. He went positively gaga over Shrub's last speech. And Chris Matthews said Bush should be made a part of Mt. Rushmore.

I heard Barbara Boxer today say this IS an impeachable offense. This should be VERY interesting.

I love her. She's got brass balls.

[DavidMn]

"I'm the guy that drafted the FISA act, twenty five years ago on the judiciary committee--it's a secret court, allowing the President to wiretap anybody, intercept anything for up to 72 hours-----he already has the authority under the FISA court."

He's a buffoon, always has been. He went positively gaga over Shrub's last speech. And Chris Matthews said Bush should be made a part of Mt. Rushmore.



I love her. She's got brass balls.And the thing I like about her is when she said this today, she wasnt pounding gavels or shouting, but speaking in very calm measured tones. It definitely got my attention.:nod:

[irishgrl]

Bush: spying program to continue By Adam Entous


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush said on Monday he broke no laws in authorizing spying on Americans with suspected ties to terrorism and declared he would continue the practice despite concern that it infringes on civil liberties.


Bush, facing a barrage of questions over the program at an end-of-year news conference, said he believed an investigation was under way by the Justice Department into who committed the "shameful act" of revealing the covert program to the press.
He rejected any suggestion he was exercising "unchecked power" when he decided after the September 11 2001 attacks to authorize eavesdropping on international telephone calls by Americans with suspected links to terrorism.

"Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely," said Bush, who is struggling with low approval ratings and wide public discontent with the Iraq war.

"I've reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill our American citizens," he said.

Bush also said it was "inexcusable" that a group of U.S. senators were blocking renewal of the Patriot Act, a centerpiece of his war on terrorism which includes provisions critics also say infringe on Americans' individual liberties.

Bush said the eavesdropping program, first disclosed by the New York Times on Friday, had been effective in disrupting terrorist acts, but he gave no details.

Several Republican and Democratic lawmakers back plans by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, to hold a hearing on the issue. Many question whether spying on Americans violates the Constitution.

West Virginia Democratic Sen. John Rockefeller (news, bio, voting record), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on Monday he had expressed serious concerns about the program after he first learned about it in July 2003. In a hand-written letter to Vice President Dick Cheney, Rockefeller wrote that the activities raised "profound oversight issues."

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and his predecessor, Tom Daschle, said they were briefed by the administration about the program but said key details were omitted.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act made it illegal to spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without getting a court order. Bush gave the National Security Agency authority to intercept communications without such approval.

ABOVE THE LAW?

"No administration should believe it is above the law. We need to restore checks and balances in this country," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bush said he wanted to assure the American people that the program "is a necessary part of my job to protect you, and (that) we're guarding your civil liberties."

"As president of the United States and commander in chief I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country," he said.

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said earlier on Monday the Congress' authorization of military force after September 11 also gave Bush the right to order the eavesdropping.

The New York Times said it had been asked by the White House not to publish an article about the program, arguing it could jeopardize investigations. The newspaper said it delayed publication for a year and omitted some information that officials argued could be useful to terrorists.

Bush defended his Iraq strategy, which is costing $6 billion a month and in which more than 2,100 U.S. troops have died. But he conceded that pre-war intelligence failures made it harder to make the case that countries like Iran pose a threat.

"Where it is going to be most difficult to make the case is in the public arena. People will say, you know, if we're trying to make the case on Iran, you know, 'Well, the intelligence failed in Iraq; therefore, how can we can trust the intelligence in Iran?"' Bush said.

(Additional reporting by Patricia Wilson)

[dissention]

Senator says she's asked for opinions on Bush impeachment
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senator_says_shes_asked_for_opinions_1219.html

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has become the first in the Senate to raise consideration of impeachment of President George W. Bush for authorizing spying on Americans without warrants, RAW STORY has learned.

In a release issued this evening, Boxer said she's asked "four presidential scholars" for their opinion on impeachment after former White Housel counsel John Dean -- made famous by his role in revealing the Watergate tapes -- asserted that President Bush had 'admitted' to an 'impeachable offense.'

Boxer isn't the first congressmember today to float the word. Earlier today, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) said Bush should be impeached if he broke the law in the spying program. The liberal California senator has tangled with Bush before -- earlier this year, she challenged the president's Ohio electoral votes.

BOXER ASKS PRESIDENTIAL SCHOLARS ABOUT FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENT THAT BUSH ADMITTED TO AN ‘IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE’

Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean’s statement that President Bush admitted to an “impeachable offense” when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

Boxer said, “I take very seriously Mr. Dean’s comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future.”

Boxer’s letter is as follows:

On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.

On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon’s counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.” Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.

This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.

Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean’s statement.

Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

[irishgrl]

OHO! Go Barbara!!!!!

somebody get a dang ROPE!!

ps: Thanks Diss!!

[gldstwmn]

There we go. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

There we go. :nod:

I am unsure where W is getting the authority to do these taps, et al. The law guiding this procedure is very clear that the warrant from the secret court must first be obtained. Also, if memory serves me correctly, that secret court has denied like 20 out of 14,000 requests over the last few years - so little evidence apparently is required. So, it makes no sense that W and, more importantly, Rove would not have put the ones at issue in front of that court and then sign an Executive Order allowing the taps to take place. This just makes no sense, but it clearly was illegal - at least according to anything I have read and though I have not read it all.

[gldstwmn]

I am unsure where W is getting the authority to do these taps, et al. The law guiding this procedure is very clear that the warrant from the secret court must first be obtained. Also, if memory serves me correctly, that secret court has denied like 20 out of 14,000 requests over the last few years - so little evidence apparently is required. So, it makes no sense that W and, more importantly, Rove would not have put the ones at issue in front of that court and then sign an Executive Order allowing the taps to take place. This just makes no sense, but it clearly was illegal - at least according to anything I have read and though I have not read it all.

I can't see how anyone would think it's not blatantly illegal. I'm most curious to know who he was actually wiretapping.
I sat there and watched Jeffrey Toobin on CNN yesterday dance around the subject and never really answer Paula Zahn's question of whether it was illegal or not. Maybe he's afraid of being wiretapped. :lol:

[strandinthewind]

I can't see how anyone would think it's not blatantly illegal. I'm most curious to know who he was actually wiretapping.
I sat there and watched Jeffrey Toobin on CNN yesterday dance around the subject and never really answer Paula Zahn's question of whether it was illegal or not. Maybe he's afraid of being wiretapped. :lol:

I also am unsure of how anyone would ever sue to stop it. Certainly, the terrorists they are watching will not - though that would be an interesting case because the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine dictates that any evidence obtained in an illegal search cannot be admissable at trial. Also, you would have to know you are being tapped and I am unsure how you would go about doing that. Other than the person being tapped, who would have the required standing as an injured party to stop the tapping. I guess the DOJ or Congress could do some broad legal action to stop it though - but those are both controlled by W :shrug:

Finally, they could have apparently just gone to the secret court afterward and obtained a warrant in hindsight. Why did they not just do that.

The whole thing is strange.

[gldstwmn]

I also am unsure of how anyone would ever sue to stop it. Certainly, the terrorists they are watching will not - though that would be an interesting case because the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine dictates that any evidence obtained in an illegal search cannot be admissable at trial. Also, you would have to know you are being tapped and I am unsure how you would go about doing that. Other than the person being tapped, who would have the required standing as an injured party to stop the tapping. I guess the DOJ or Congress could do some broad legal action to stop it though - but those are both controlled by W :shrug:

Finally, they could have apparently just gone to the secret court afterward and obtained a warrant in hindsight. Why did they not just do that.

The whole thing is strange.

I agree. I'm sure they didn't secretly wiretap people just for the hell of it. Like I said, it would be most telling to see who was tapped. Ashcroft's true reasons for resignation are becoming clearer to me by the day. Even for him, this kind of stuff must have been beyond the pale.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000685.html

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.

Robertson, who was appointed to the federal bench in Washington by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday.

Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans yesterday joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.

Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.

"There's going to be a great national debate on this subject," Specter told reporters yesterday, while emphasizing concerns over the White House's legal arguments in support of the program.

The hearings, possibly in several committees, would take place at the beginning of a midterm election year during which the prosecution of the Iraq war is also likely to figure prominently in key House and Senate races.

Hagel and Snowe joined three Democratic colleagues -- Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) -- in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate's Judiciary and Intelligence panels into the classified program.


Click the link for the full article.

[heyjupiter678]

Hmm . . .

"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." -- George W. Bush - April 20, 2004

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Listen to the audio here: http://dailydissent.org/audio/bushrovingwiretapapril202004.mp3