Bush Authorizing Domestic Spying
anasarcasm
365 Posts
Has this already been discussed? It's mind blowing that this idea was "authorized" in the first place, by his own admission over 30 times since 2001. Bush is now pointing fingers at the media for compromising national security in outting details of the Spy Act. At least he's consistent? 
Bush Authorized Domestic SpyingPost-9/11 Order Bypassed Special CourtBy Dan EggenWashington Post Staff WriterFriday, December 16, 2005; Page A01President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, the New York Times disclosed last night.The aim of the program was to rapidly monitor the phone calls and other communications of people in the United States believed to have contact with suspected associates of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups overseas, according to two former senior administration officials. Authorities, including a former NSA director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, were worried that vital information could be lost in the time it took to secure a warrant from a special surveillance court, sources said.But the program's ramifications also prompted concerns from some quarters, including Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, and the presiding judge of the surveillance court, which oversees lawful domestic spying, according to the Times.The Times said it held off on publishing its story about the NSA program for a year after administration officials said its disclosure would harm national security.The White House made no comment last night. A senior official reached by telephone said the issue was too sensitive to talk about. None of several press officers responded to telephone or e-mail messages.Congressional sources familiar with limited aspects of the program would not discuss any classified details but made it clear there were serious questions about the legality of the NSA actions. The sources, who demanded anonymity, said there were conditions under which it would be possible to gather and retain information on Americans if the surveillance were part of an investigation into foreign intelligence.But those cases are supposed to be minimized. The sources said the actual work of the NSA is so closely held that it is difficult to determine whether it is acting within the law.The revelations come amid a fierce congressional debate over reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Patriot Act granted the FBI new powers to conduct secret searches and surveillance in the United States.Most of the powers covered under that law are overseen by a secret court that meets at Justice Department headquarters and must approve applications for wiretaps, searches and other operations. The NSA's operation is outside that court's purview, and according to the Times report, the Justice Department may have sought to limit how much that court was made aware of NSA activities.Public disclosure of the NSA program also comes at a time of mounting concerns about civil liberties over the domestic intelligence operations of the U.S. military, which have also expanded dramatically after the Sept. 11 attacks.For more than four years, the NSA tasked other military intelligence agencies to assist its broad-based surveillance effort directed at people inside the country suspected of having terrorist connections, even before Bush signed the 2002 order that authorized the NSA program, according to an informed U.S. official.The effort, which began within days after the attacks, has consisted partly of monitoring domestic telephone conversations, e-mail and even fax communications of individuals identified by the NSA as having some connection to al Qaeda events or figures, or to potential terrorism-related activities in the United States, the official said.It has also involved teams of Defense Intelligence Agency personnel stationed in major U.S. cities conducting the type of surveillance typically performed by the FBI: monitoring the movements and activities -- through high-tech equipment -- of individuals and vehicles, the official said.The involvement of military personnel in such tasks was provoked by grave anxiety among senior intelligence officials after the 2001 suicide attacks that additional terrorist cells were present within U.S. borders and could only be discovered with the military's help, said the official, who had direct knowledge of the events.Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity.The law governing clandestine surveillance in the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, prohibits conducting electronic surveillance not authorized by statute. A government agent can try to avoid prosecution if he can show he was "engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction," according to the law."This is as shocking a revelation as we have ever seen from the Bush administration," said Martin, who has been sharply critical of the administration's surveillance and detention policies. "It is, I believe, the first time a president has authorized government agencies to violate a specific criminal prohibition and eavesdrop on Americans."Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she is "dismayed" by the report."It's clear that the administration has been very willing to sacrifice civil liberties in its effort to exercise its authority on terrorism, to the extent that it authorizes criminal activity," Fredrickson said.The NSA activities were justified by a classified Justice Department legal opinion authored by John C. Yoo, a former deputy in the Office of Legal Counsel who argued that congressional approval of the war on al Qaeda gave broad authority to the president, according to the Times.That legal argument was similar to another 2002 memo authored primarily by Yoo, which outlined an extremely narrow definition of torture. That opinion, which was signed by another Justice official, was formally disavowed after it was disclosed by the Washington Post.Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos would not comment on the report last night.Staff writers Dafna Linzer and Peter Baker contributed to this report.
Bush Authorized Domestic SpyingPost-9/11 Order Bypassed Special CourtBy Dan EggenWashington Post Staff WriterFriday, December 16, 2005; Page A01President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, the New York Times disclosed last night.The aim of the program was to rapidly monitor the phone calls and other communications of people in the United States believed to have contact with suspected associates of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups overseas, according to two former senior administration officials. Authorities, including a former NSA director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, were worried that vital information could be lost in the time it took to secure a warrant from a special surveillance court, sources said.But the program's ramifications also prompted concerns from some quarters, including Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, and the presiding judge of the surveillance court, which oversees lawful domestic spying, according to the Times.The Times said it held off on publishing its story about the NSA program for a year after administration officials said its disclosure would harm national security.The White House made no comment last night. A senior official reached by telephone said the issue was too sensitive to talk about. None of several press officers responded to telephone or e-mail messages.Congressional sources familiar with limited aspects of the program would not discuss any classified details but made it clear there were serious questions about the legality of the NSA actions. The sources, who demanded anonymity, said there were conditions under which it would be possible to gather and retain information on Americans if the surveillance were part of an investigation into foreign intelligence.But those cases are supposed to be minimized. The sources said the actual work of the NSA is so closely held that it is difficult to determine whether it is acting within the law.The revelations come amid a fierce congressional debate over reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Patriot Act granted the FBI new powers to conduct secret searches and surveillance in the United States.Most of the powers covered under that law are overseen by a secret court that meets at Justice Department headquarters and must approve applications for wiretaps, searches and other operations. The NSA's operation is outside that court's purview, and according to the Times report, the Justice Department may have sought to limit how much that court was made aware of NSA activities.Public disclosure of the NSA program also comes at a time of mounting concerns about civil liberties over the domestic intelligence operations of the U.S. military, which have also expanded dramatically after the Sept. 11 attacks.For more than four years, the NSA tasked other military intelligence agencies to assist its broad-based surveillance effort directed at people inside the country suspected of having terrorist connections, even before Bush signed the 2002 order that authorized the NSA program, according to an informed U.S. official.The effort, which began within days after the attacks, has consisted partly of monitoring domestic telephone conversations, e-mail and even fax communications of individuals identified by the NSA as having some connection to al Qaeda events or figures, or to potential terrorism-related activities in the United States, the official said.It has also involved teams of Defense Intelligence Agency personnel stationed in major U.S. cities conducting the type of surveillance typically performed by the FBI: monitoring the movements and activities -- through high-tech equipment -- of individuals and vehicles, the official said.The involvement of military personnel in such tasks was provoked by grave anxiety among senior intelligence officials after the 2001 suicide attacks that additional terrorist cells were present within U.S. borders and could only be discovered with the military's help, said the official, who had direct knowledge of the events.Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity.The law governing clandestine surveillance in the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, prohibits conducting electronic surveillance not authorized by statute. A government agent can try to avoid prosecution if he can show he was "engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction," according to the law."This is as shocking a revelation as we have ever seen from the Bush administration," said Martin, who has been sharply critical of the administration's surveillance and detention policies. "It is, I believe, the first time a president has authorized government agencies to violate a specific criminal prohibition and eavesdrop on Americans."Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she is "dismayed" by the report."It's clear that the administration has been very willing to sacrifice civil liberties in its effort to exercise its authority on terrorism, to the extent that it authorizes criminal activity," Fredrickson said.The NSA activities were justified by a classified Justice Department legal opinion authored by John C. Yoo, a former deputy in the Office of Legal Counsel who argued that congressional approval of the war on al Qaeda gave broad authority to the president, according to the Times.That legal argument was similar to another 2002 memo authored primarily by Yoo, which outlined an extremely narrow definition of torture. That opinion, which was signed by another Justice official, was formally disavowed after it was disclosed by the Washington Post.Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos would not comment on the report last night.Staff writers Dafna Linzer and Peter Baker contributed to this report.
Comments
The NSA is suppose to not conduct any kind of domestic spying operations as that is the duty of the FBI. I think it's written into its charter that it cannot spy on American citizens within the U.S. There's also a special National Security court that the government's suppose to go to in these special cases of spying on Americans about terrorism and espionage and I think I read that the Bush administration skipped them as well. Plus it just goes to show you that the Bush administration has been about "the ends justify the means" from the get go in this war on terrorism. They're willing to abrogate one of the basic rights of privacy of the accused and due process by skipping the court system and not asking for warrants for surveillance. They originally argued that this was in the strained days immiediately after 9/11 when the government thought it was under attack itself, but the operation has continued into the present day.
What also makes me mad is that the New York Times knew about this a year ago, but sat on the story because the administration asked them to for national security reasons.
It was pretty clear to me and a bunch of others I'm sure that Sept 12th 2001 was when these plans all got set in motion, including the CIA torture centers.
In 20 years maybe Goldhagen can write a book about Bush's Willing Torturers, Spies, and Executioners, and the folks who voted for them. Hi!
However it's the definition of
How 'bout that patriot act getting defeated in the senate?
There are just under 300 million people in the U.S. and this article claims that since 2002 there have been "100's and possibly 1,000's of people" who have been "spyed" on.....there were more million dollar lottery winners during that same period.
This VERY SELECT AND EXTREMELY SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE were not picked at random, nor were they your typical, everyday average citizen. These were folks who had a history of terrorist ties, were people who supported terrorism either economically or politically and spying on them would potentially/theoretically help the U.S. prevent further terrorism within it's borders.
I support this 100% and I am also willing to give up some of my own civil liberties in the name of stopping violence and saving lives. You wanna listen to my phone calls....have at it. You wanna see if I frequent websites that promote terrorism and bombmaking....go for it.
Not only do I support spying on people who are potential threats to innocent lives around the world, I support deporting anyone who is suspected of such violence to their native land.
How many of you have read about "Able Danger"....the truth is that the FBI KNEW ABOUT THE SLEEPER CELL THAT ATTACKED US ON 9/11....but our government lawyers, in fear of infringing on their "civil rights" refused to take action. They could have prevented 9/11 and subsequently Bush's excuse to attack Iraq but were afraid to because of civil liberties. This has to change!!
Seriously, what effect do you think this "spying" will have on you?? Think maybe Karl Rove wants to see who bought Leo Sayer records over the last year??
As long as this is done in the spirit of stopping attacks and deaths of innocent humans I'm all for it. If somehow, someday it expands to something beyond that scope I'll have to re-evaluate.
If you take away every single tool our governemnt has to protect you, don't bitch when they can't.
Rich
In any case, I hear what you're saying but me thinks you're a bit too trusting of the gov't (and you probably think most of us are too paranoid).
It's not a question of statistics: abuse of power in measured by the mere fact of its existance, not by incrimental degree. If a governor was embezzling millions from his state's treasury, would we weigh his crime based on the % of what he stole vs. how rich his state was? Or to go back to the death penalty, if one innocent person gets executed compared to 1,000 guilty people, does that make the concern any less grave?
With regards to domestic spying, a few simple points:
1) If you want to put surveillance of people, there's a simple thing called "due process" which gov't and/or law officials can follow to gain approval. Circumventing that process, especially via someone as clueless as the president, seems reminiscent of J. Edgar Hoover's enthusiastic spying on ANYONE he considered potentially suspect, including thousands of people who clearly were not.
2) On the other hand, I don't quite get what the big deal is here: is anyone remotely surprised the NSA is spying on folks without court approval?
3) And as a subset of that point: the fact that this even got out just shows that even the most "secret" of policies are not so-secret from those who want to find things out. Which should give you pause when thinking about what it takes to secure anything in this country, including our safety.
4) Just to repeat an oft-made talking point but if you're really talking about keeping America (or its allies) safe from harm: invading Iraq hasn't really proven a great way to do it, has it?
You think Sept 11th happened because of lawyers?
Why is it that all the "realistic" and "level-headed" independent thinking types who always tell the left they have no clue, are really just the biggest bunch of reactionary, take it up the butt from Uncle Sam lemmings that ever walked the earth? Why do you trust the state so much when the history of this nation is screaming not to? Machiavelli thinks you guys are hilarious, so does De Tocqueville. And so does Cheney.
This is my opinion....I have to trust our government to a certain degree.
Do I trust them blindly....NO
Do I trust them 100%....NO
Do I trust them more than I trust Al Quaeda....YES
Who do you guys trust???
Oh the Either/Or conundrum! How sophisticated.
Bring it On!
You think Sept 11th happened because of lawyers?
Go read Kurt Weldon's investigation into Able Danger and tell me what conclusion YOU come to??
I don't think the snooping threatens me at all; but I would ask you, do you have many Muslim friends? Because I do, and they are almost all related to someone who does business with someone who banks with a person who works for a company that donated to an organization that at one point made a payment to Hamas. Or have a cousin who hung out with a guy who owned a deli that employed a man who attended a training camp in Pakistan. Do they deserve to be spied on, without heed to the process already established?
We have to live up to our laws, or else what are they for. The President, in all his incompetence, is certainly not better than the law of the land and more importantly does not have the public confidence to pull off such a move. I don't trust this administration to act in my best interests, so I am not at all comfortable with their constant power grabs.
While I agree with some of your points, the problem with this is - what is the definition of a terrorist or terrorist organization? Are groups that protest WTO terrorists?
The definition according to the head puto in charge is "if you're not with us, you're a terrorist". And with things like Echelon running and recording billions of transmissions and emails every second[/b], I wouldn't be surprised if even this thread gets flagged.
It's a pandoras box and the fact that fucking Arlen Specter (sp?) changed his mind about the Patriot Act over this speaks volumes.
OK...If you personally could have prevented 9/11 by circumventing the "governmental beauracracy" would you have??
I vote Yes
Dude, c'mon. You have to be able to step up with something better than this.
XACKTLEE
OLD NEWS
The most important person in t he whole wide world is you and you hardley even know you .....you're the most important per-sonnnnn.
Wrongful imprisonment and torture of innocent civilians?
Go read Kurt Weldon's investigation into Able Danger and tell me what conclusion YOU come to??
If people want some more background on what RD is speak on, here's a quick and dirty summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger
However, I'd caution anyone from drawing easy or glib conclusions on "the causes of 9/11." Were there moments of potential prevention? Of course there were: that exists in any situation. And I don't doubt that 9/11 PARTIALLY was able to happen on account of failures in law enforcement and intelligence to intervene earlier.
But just as a layman, I also think the idea to hijack planes and fly them into buildings was, for lack of a better word, novel and something that most of us, including most gov't officials, were not prepared to anticipate (though I'm sure there were some who had theorized the danger). I, for one, am not ready to blame Bush for 9/11 per se. But everything since then? Yeah, that's on him.
its a camera just like that that put that scumbag who kidnapped and murdered that little girl in Florida on death row. Without it, he might be picking up your little sister, or your daughter right now. Or, in the alternate, someone claims that they were brought back to a friends apartment and raped because her parents caught her coming home late and she had to make an excuse, but the camera shows her walking into the building holding hands and kissing the guy.
And herein lies the question of what's more important, privacy or protection and that is the crux of this whole thread.
I think it can be done, but I sure as hell don't want this administration doing it.
Especially people like myself and many others on this board, who are activists and are endaged in activities which contradict the mind set of the current administration and can therefore be deemed "terrorists" (owing to its lose definition). These people, who also have honest intentions of making change for the betterment of "the people" do not deserve to have their civil liberties revoked. Period.
And herein lies the question of what's more important, privacy or protection and that is the crux of this whole thread.
I think it can be done, but I sure as hell don't want this administration doing it.
Word - I mean, we could just implant subdermal tracking chips into all of us so that law enforcement can keep tabs on all of us, at any time but I don't imagine people would be so into that, even under the auspices of security.
And herein lies the question of what's more important, privacy or protection and that is the crux of this whole thread.
I think it can be done, but I sure as hell don't want this administration doing it.
Word - I mean, we could just implant subdermal tracking chips into all of us so that law enforcement can keep tabs on all of us, at any time but I don't imagine people would be so into that, even under the auspices of security.
I think we've all gone through our "Behold A Pale Horse" phase by now, but they were honestly considering doing that after 9/11.
A company called Digital Angel (read into that all you like) that markets a wristband that keeps tabs on children and the elderly, also created a subdermal implant that they proposed be used to track "terrorists" and criminals after 9/11. I don't know whatever became of it, but believe me the technology is here and I'm sure the only thing preventing it from being implimented is that whole pesky "mark of the beast" stigma and the fact that most people wouldn't want to be tracked 24/7.
I believe ALL of these things - The Patriot Act, surveilling U.S. citizens, Echelon - are laying the groundwork little by little for the above to become a reality in the future under the auspices of saftey and convenience.
One that lacks murder, rape, greed, etc., etc.....
One where every country treats their citizens and each other with respect.
If you believe that we COULD have this if not for the evil Bush empire you are wrong.
We live in a country that allows organizations like NAMBLA and Al Quaeda to exist.
We do our best to protect everyone's civil rights.
But at some point, when it harms innocent people, drastic measures have to be taken.
We infringe on people's right to smoke because it could harm others, yet we allow orginizations to print "How To" books on molesting children.
We're far from Utopia.
And Anarchy is not the answer
Uh, I'm pretty sure Al Quaeda is not a legal organization in America. And I'm not sure what they have to do with NAMBLA. Both offend people but for completely different reasons. I think the NRA is offensive but I wouldn't compare them with either other organization.
I'm pretty sure it's your right as an American citizen to be a member of Al Quaeda...that's why the Able Danger scandal is taking place...they knew these guys were Al Quaeda but could not get the authority to do anything to stop them from potential attacks. I mentioned NAMBLA just to show we do uphold the civil rights of every type of offensive organisation and it's members.
Both of the above groups encourage, promote and participate in illegal actions...while I'm no expert on the NRA, I don't think they do??