Bush ordered domestic spying

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/politics/18bush.html

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.

I'm only kind of kidding with the Anti-Flag lyrics in the previous post.

Former Congressman Bob Barr on CNN:

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.

some cities on the east coast are already getting, which are for all intents and purposes, secret police. ITS OVER SON, THE BALL HAS DROPPED.

same old same old..just inflate/remind/scare with the spectre of homeland terror and invoke national security.

the way they interpret executive privilege is sweet.

sz? that you?

allo bob.

I like how Bush can pretend America's at war, without having declared war on another country.

Every one get ready for thier micro-chip.

the last time america declared war was during ww2 so its not only bush

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

James Madison

congress did vote to go to war with iraq. remember, a democratic controlled congress gave bush the blank check?

but CACASHREFUND is right, it is no longer necessary to actually declare war. this is another power congress forfeited. "police actions" are what they are now. truman and korea, vietnam and LBJ, the clinton wars, etc etc.

student visited by agents over his interlibrary loan request for a mao book while

writing a paper on communism:

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05...05/a09lo650.htm

so authorizing domestic surveillance without a court order is a crime

under the federal communications act...so bush has admitted to a crime.

i'm guessing this is yet another impeachable offense.

President's only get impeached for getting blowjobs.

Originally posted by SF1@Dec 18 2005, 07:07 PM

President's only get impeached for getting blowjobs.

Quoted post

I really am amazed that impeachment hasn't come up yet for this fool.

I thought you were a Bush fan?

Bush Vows Domestic Surveillance to Continue

 

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent 1 hour, 53 minutes ago

 

WASHINGTON -

President Bush, brushing aside bipartisan criticism in Congress, said Monday he approved spying on suspected terrorists without court orders because it was "a necessary part of my job to protect" Americans from attack.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

The president said he would continue the program "for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens," and added it included safeguards to protect civil liberties.

 

Bush bristled at a year-end news conference when asked whether there are any limits on presidential power in wartime.

 

"I just described limits on this particular program, and that's what's important for the American people to understand," Bush said.

 

Raising his voice, Bush challenged Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Democratic Sen.

Hillary Rodham Clinton — without naming them — to allow a final vote on legislation renewing the anti-terror Patriot Act. "I want senators from New York or Los Angeles or Las Vegas to go home and explain why these cities are safer" without the extension, he said.

 

Reid represents Nevada; Clinton is a New York senator, and both helped block passage of the legislation in the Senate last week.

 

"In a war on terror we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment," Bush said.

 

Reid fired back quickly. "The president and the Republican leadership should stop playing politics with the Patriot Act," he said in a statement that added he and other Democrats favor a three-month extension of the expiring law to allow time for a long-term compromise.

 

The legislation has cleared the House but Senate Democrats have blocked final passage and its prospects are uncertain in the final days of the congressional session.

 

On another issue, Bush acknowledged that a pre-war failure of American intelligence — claiming that

Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction — has complicated the United States' ability to confront other potential emerging threats such as

Iran.

 

"Where it is going to be most difficult to make the case is in the public arena," Bush said. "People will say, if we're trying to make the case on Iran, `Well, if the intelligence failed in

Iraq, therefore, how can we trust the intelligence on Iran?'"

 

The news conference ran just shy of an hour. It was the latest in a series of events — appearances outside Washington, meetings with members of Congress and an Oval Office address on Sunday night — in which the president has sought to quell criticism of the war in Iraq and reverse his months-long slide in the polls.

 

In opening news conference remarks, Bush said the warrantless spying, conducted by the National Security Agency, was an essential element in the war on terror.

 

"It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy," he said.

 

On Capitol Hill, Democrats rejected Bush's rationale and said he had abused his authority.

 

"Where does he find in the Constitution the authority to tap the wires and the phones of American citizens without any court oversight?" said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich.

 

Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., said, "We will not tolerate a president who believes that he is the sole decision-maker when it comes to the policies that this country should have in the war against terror and the policies we should have to protect the rights of completely innocent Americans."

 

"He is the president, not a king," Feingold said.

 

The existence of the program was disclosed last week, triggering an outpouring of criticism in Congress, but an unflinching defense from Bush and senior officials of his administration.

 

The president spoke not long after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Congress had given Bush authority to spy on suspected terrorists in this country in legislation passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

 

Bush and other officials have said the program involved monitoring phone calls and e-mails of individuals in this country believed to be plotting with terrorists overseas.

 

Normally, no wiretapping is permitted in the United States without a court warrant. But Bush said he approved the action without such orders "because it enables us to move faster and quicker. We've got to be fast on our feet.

 

"It is legal to do so. I swore to uphold the laws. Legal authority is derived from the Constitution," he added.

 

Domestic issues were scarcely mentioned during the news conference.

 

But at one point, Bush responded to criticism of his record on racial issues, exacerbated by the images of thousands of blacks stranded in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

 

"One of the most hurtful things I can hear is, you know, Bush doesn't care about African-Americans," he said. "First of all, it's not true. And secondly, I am — I believe that — obviously, I've got to do a better job of communicating, I guess, to certain folks." He urged Congress to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and promised to sign it.

 

The session was dominated by national security issues — principally the newly disclosed spying program by the NSA.

 

Bush emphasized that only international calls were monitored without court order — those placed from within the United States and going overseas, or those placed from other countries to individuals living in this country.

 

He stressed that calls placed and received within the United States would be monitored as has long been the case, after an order is granted by a secret court under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

source

"Where does he find in the Constitution the authority to tap the wires and the phones of American citizens without any court oversight?" said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich.

QUOTE

Bush Vows Domestic Surveillance to Continue

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent 1 hour, 53 minutes ago

WASHINGTON -

President Bush, brushing aside bipartisan criticism in Congress, said Monday he approved spying on suspected terrorists without court orders because it was "a necessary part of my job to protect" Americans from attack.

ADVERTISEMENT

The president said he would continue the program "for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens," and added it included safeguards to protect civil liberties.

Bush bristled at a year-end news conference when asked whether there are any limits on presidential power in wartime.

"I just described limits on this particular program, and that's what's important for the American people to understand," Bush said.

Raising his voice, Bush challenged Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Democratic Sen.

Hillary Rodham Clinton — without naming them — to allow a final vote on legislation renewing the anti-terror Patriot Act. "I want senators from New York or Los Angeles or Las Vegas to go home and explain why these cities are safer" without the extension, he said.

Reid represents Nevada; Clinton is a New York senator, and both helped block passage of the legislation in the Senate last week.

"In a war on terror we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment," Bush said.

Reid fired back quickly. "The president and the Republican leadership should stop playing politics with the Patriot Act," he said in a statement that added he and other Democrats favor a three-month extension of the expiring law to allow time for a long-term compromise.

The legislation has cleared the House but Senate Democrats have blocked final passage and its prospects are uncertain in the final days of the congressional session.

On another issue, Bush acknowledged that a pre-war failure of American intelligence — claiming that

Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction — has complicated the United States' ability to confront other potential emerging threats such as

Iran.

"Where it is going to be most difficult to make the case is in the public arena," Bush said. "People will say, if we're trying to make the case on Iran, `Well, if the intelligence failed in

Iraq, therefore, how can we trust the intelligence on Iran?'"

The news conference ran just shy of an hour. It was the latest in a series of events — appearances outside Washington, meetings with members of Congress and an Oval Office address on Sunday night — in which the president has sought to quell criticism of the war in Iraq and reverse his months-long slide in the polls.

In opening news conference remarks, Bush said the warrantless spying, conducted by the National Security Agency, was an essential element in the war on terror.

"It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy," he said.

On Capitol Hill, Democrats rejected Bush's rationale and said he had abused his authority.

"Where does he find in the Constitution the authority to tap the wires and the phones of American citizens without any court oversight?" said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich.

Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., said, "We will not tolerate a president who believes that he is the sole decision-maker when it comes to the policies that this country should have in the war against terror and the policies we should have to protect the rights of completely innocent Americans."

"He is the president, not a king," Feingold said.

Who are you stereotype? why are you so in favor of the actions of the united states government?

i cant believe hes still saying "war on terror" every other sentance.

well, maybe i can.

Blah, blah, blah. The war on terror, yakkity yak. They don't need the Patriot Act and never did. If they want to kill you, they just kill you, and they're not dumb enough to post pics of it on the internet. In fact, they don't even leave a body. One day you're a thorn in their side, the next day you're sleeping with the fishes.

A Ruger Mark II .22 with a silencer and a vinyl body bag, and you are substantially less of a problem than you used to be.

The Patriot Act is smoke and mirrors for the more-or-less law abiding citizens. The real bad guys get a double tap to the head and a dirt nap. If they really want to disappear somebody, they run them through a sausage factory. "Bon appetite."

hahaha! the world gets funnier and funnier every day!

You ever be reading some AOL news article and out of boredom click onto where it says chat? All these people chating about the latest news stories and chiming in opinions and shit. There's always the one douchbag Bush fan screaming "go Bush" and attempting to throw insults at everyone else that argues like he's getting payed to just sit on there all day like a cheerleader. Their arguements are usually so bad that you can tell they don't even beleive the shit that comes out of their mouth.

Yeah, Stereotype is the 12oz version.

Or maybe he's just retarded.

anyone who even suggests that bush is anywhere near good is the latter. it's not their fault they're retarded.

Originally posted by Stereotype V.001+Dec 19 2005, 10:09 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Stereotype V.001 - Dec 19 2005, 10:09 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-SF1@Dec 19 2005, 01:32 AM

No, he is Kabar. He is Krakabar. You are the cop.

Just for the sake of argument, don't forget how directly after 9-11 everyone was bewildered that our government didn't do more to prevent it. If they did, it would have been domestic spying, since dem dere a-rabz were all here legally.... most of which had citizenship. But sometimes its fun to block out logic.

[/b]

.....Or by doing more to prevent it that couldve meant looking into the leads their other intelligence organizations had, instead of fishing into everyone's personal business without court approval. But hey, all the looking into everyones library records has put a lot of terrorists behind bars!...Wait.......

Oh, and logic also serves to realize that yes, the "a-rabz" were here legally - but what does that have to do with spying on american-born citizens, not people here on visas?

Originally posted by PushbuttonWarfare@Dec 21 2005, 02:16 PM

.....Or by doing more to prevent it that couldve meant looking into the leads their other intelligence organizations had, instead of fishing into everyone's personal business without court approval. But hey, all the looking into everyones library records has put a lot of terrorists behind bars!...Wait.......

Oh, and logic also serves to realize that yes, the "a-rabz" were here legally - but what does that have to do with spying on american-born citizens, not people here on visas?

Quoted post

First, to clear a few things up- just because someone is not born in America does not prevent them from becoming a citizen. And if you read slightly to the right of the sentence you were referencing, I said some of the hi-jackers did have full fledged citizenship. And even if they all had visas it would still be considered domestic spying. Visas grant temporary citizenship, so even though it is not permanent the time they are allowed here they are granted the full rights of any other citizen. So just what did you mean by "looking into the leads"? Because anything other than politely asking "Hi, are you planning on blowing some shit up in the near future" would be considered domestic spying.

I'm assuming the leads you are talking about were from the Army intel group that had Atta on their threat list. He was one of many middle eastern nationals who visited Afghanistan recently who was considered a possible threat. The lack of dialogue between law enforcement, the CIA and mil groups didn't allow show and tell. Also, domestic spying restrictions prevented them from delving further. But don't take my word for it, I am a dis-information agent!!

SF- Are you sure I'm "retarded" and not "retarted" anymore? Did something change that I'm not aware of?

I love how all of a sudden so called "patriots" are all for Communist Soviet style Big-Brother policeing of our own citizens. And their reasons for it are exactly the same as why the "Commies" were into it, the guise of protection from some hypothetical enemy.

So why is communism wrong again? I forget. Was it something about their oppression of freedom or something? Oh yeah, who needs that?

good lord, make the patriot act go away...

haha, yea well, i think sf redeemed himself a little bit with those last three

sentences. i'm still waiting for the engagement announcement between

sf and stereotype.