From the President's speech at Kansas State University (1/23/06):

"Let me talk about one other program -- and then I promise to answer questions -- something that you've been reading about in the news lately. It's what I would call a terrorist surveillance program. After the enemy attacked us, and after I realized that we were not protected by oceans, I asked people that work for you -- work for me, how best can we use information to protect the American people? You might remember there was hijackers here that had made calls outside the country to somebody else, prior to the September the 11th attacks. And I said, is there anything more we can do within the law, within the Constitution, to protect the American people. And they came back with a program, designed a program that I want to describe to you. And I want people here to clearly understand why I made the decision I made.

First, I made the decision to do the following things because there's an enemy that still wants to harm the American people. What I'm talking about is the intercept of certain communications emanating between somebody inside the United States and outside the United States; and one of the numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an al Qaeda link or affiliate. In other words, we have ways to determine whether or not someone can be an al Qaeda affiliate or al Qaeda. And if they're making a phone call in the United States, it seems like to me we want to know why.

This is a -- I repeat to you, even though you hear words, "domestic spying," these are not phone calls within the United States. It's a phone call of an al Qaeda, known al Qaeda suspect, making a phone call into the United States. I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all kinds of lawyers review the process. We briefed members of the United States Congress, one of whom was Senator Pat Roberts, about this program. You know, it's amazing, when people say to me, well, he was just breaking the law -- if I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress? (Laughter and applause.)

Federal courts have consistently ruled that a President has authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance against our enemies. Predecessors of mine have used that same constitutional authority. Recently there was a Supreme Court case called the Hamdi case. It ruled the authorization for the use of military force passed by the Congress in 2001 -- in other words, Congress passed this piece of legislation. And the Court ruled, the Supreme Court ruled that it gave the President additional authority to use what it called "the fundamental incidents of waging war" against al Qaeda.

I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell you what it means. It means Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people, but it didn't prescribe the tactics. It's an -- you've got the power to protect us, but we're not going to tell you how. And one of the ways to protect the American people is to understand the intentions of the enemy. I told you it's a different kind of war with a different kind of enemy. If they're making phone calls into the United States, we need to know why -- to protect you."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060123-4.html

Now it's called the 'terrorist surveillance program'.

What I want to know is this, is the intelligence on who is an Al Qaeda member or affilliate as reliable as the information on weapons of mass destruction? Also, if we know that certain phone numbers belong to Al Qaeda members, why aren't we going to that location and either killing or taking into custody those individuals?

His Royal Majesty King George's argument is nothing but bullshit.

He has the power to tap anybody he wants - in the country or out of the country so long as he asks a judge in secret session to approve it. He can even do the wiretap & then ask permission upto 3 days later, which means he can tap anybody.

The issue is oversight, he does not even discuss that - he just trys to justify a power he already has so long as he accepts judicial oversight, which is something he fundamentally can not and has no constitutional right to discard as he sees fit.

What Bush has done is say - "I don't need oversight" - even though that oversight would not in any shape or form hinder his ability to do what he has been doing. On only 4 occasions has a judge said no. With such a nebulous issue as the 'war on terror' - we need oversight more than ever because such concepts can easily be used to subvert the constiution in the name of some holy grail subject that nobody dare question.

So, his argument holds no water at all - whether he is breaking the law or not (I think quite clearly he is) requires examination, but he is certainly breaking the spirit of the law and when you take the fact that there is absolutely no need for him to do it this way - then you have to question the motives - what are the real motives here? because if they were exactly as he is describing then he would be following the existing process that is constitutional and has zero drawbacks in the "war on terrorism" and in no way diminshes his ability to protect the American people.

Maybe we need a "war on trying to bullshit the American people"

so much for connecting the dots

Originally posted by Travh20
so much for connecting the dots

huh?

after 9-11 the criticism was that bush's government never "connected the dots", now that they are trying to do that all they get is shit. Its a classic case of damned if you do, damned if you dont.

Originally posted by Travh20
after 9-11 the criticism was that bush's government never "connected the dots", now that they are trying to do that all they get is shit. Its a classic case of damned if you do, damned if you dont. There's an easy and legal way to connect the dots that was available for the President to use. He chose an illegal way to connect the dots when he didn't have to. No one is saying 'don't connect the dots'. The President is counting on people like you being sucked in by facile arguments like this.

so you would feel much better if he went through the rubber stamp court? somehow the security of another layer of red tape makes everything OK?

Trav - you are missing the point by 1000 miles.

Nobody is suggesting that Bush should not be able to tap phones and do all that is required to protect American citizens.

The issue is nothing to do with tapping phones per say - the issue is how that tapping is being done. It's being done without oversight. There are processes in place that do not incur any slow down or hinderance on the ability to tap phones - yet they are being ignored.

To answer your question "so you would feel much better if he went through the rubber stamp court?" - YES - ABSOLUTELY, you should feel better about it also. Remember you are the one who preaches about slippery slopes and this is one of them - the executive branch must have oversight - it's fundamental to our way of life and everything that the US is. I can't comprehend why you do not think that is important.

Originally posted by Travh20
so you would feel much better if he went through the rubber stamp court? somehow the security of another layer of red tape makes everything OK? It doesn't make everything 'OK', but some judicial oversight is better than none. It is also required by the Fourth Amendment. You know, that pesky Constitution thang.

fine, fine, send it through the rubber stamp court, jus tdont say it shouldnt be happening at all

Nobody has ever said that it shouldn't be happening - except maybe some crazy liberals. Clearly Bush has to have the ability to wiretap - that has never been the issue. The only person trying to make that the issue is Bush. He's purposely playing off the ignorance of Americans on the issue and attempting to change the focus off what the issue is - oversight.

why do you think bush intentionally didnt get judicial approva? is there some grand scheme to grab complete power? I just think there are enough lawyers and the AG around Bush to elt him do something blatently illegal.

The issue is oversight, he does not even discuss that - he just trys to justify a power he already has so long as he accepts judicial oversight, which is something he fundamentally can not and has no constitutional right to discard as he sees fit.

Maybe you can reconcile the above statement with the one below.

You know, it's amazing, when people say to me, well, he was just breaking the law -- if I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress? (Laughter and applause.)

Originally posted by Travh20
why do you think bush intentionally didnt get judicial approva? is there some grand scheme to grab complete power?

I think Bush doesn't like the fact that he has to get approval, and I think he'd go to great lengths to go around the law if he could. I also think that he would do something illegal if he thought it would protect the citizens of this country.

To be frank, I think Bush rankles at the thought of being supervised. He considers himself a "wartime" president and I think he likes it that way. I think he would prefer to have no oversight at all because he believes he knows what's best for this country.


I just think there are enough lawyers and the AG around Bush to elt him do something blatently illegal.

I don't think this is a matter of a "blatant" violation of the law. Some interpretation of the law is required to apply it cases like these, but I don't think the courts are going to back him up.

good answer pagan, and I can see that from W

Originally posted by waldo
Maybe you can reconcile the above statement with the one below.

It's easy to reconcile the two statements. Oversight is not having a few senators in for coffee in the oval office!

The right to privacy is constitutional - senators being casually informed is not constitutional oversight. That oversight is provided by a judicial process already setup by congress to ensure that no red tape gets in the way of necessary action in this area.

I have no clue why Bush circumvented an existing process that provides everything he needs in this area - I doubt he was using this activity for anything other than legitimate actions, but that isn't the point. The 3 branch system we have is designed for checks & balances, for good reason.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I think Bush doesn't like the fact that he has to get approval, and I think he'd go to great lengths to go around the law if he could.

I agree completely.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I also think that he would do something illegal if he thought it would protect the citizens of this country.

I do not think that Bush cares one iota about protecting the *People* of this country.

I believe his only real concern is protecting and enhancing the interests of the powerful Corporate class that put him in office.

Every available source, every shred of data confirms that his efforts to "fight a war on terror" have increased the number of terrorist acts around the wolrd, not decreased them.........yet he continues blindly on the same wrongheaded path.

He cares ZERO about his actions having increased the likelyhood of another terrorist attack on the US........he and his wealthy cronies care about reaping billions from the war in Iraq. Period.

After Iraq.........probably Iran.

Then on to Syria.

The forever war........ad infinitum.

Perpetual war, perpetual massive costs to the taxpayers, perpetual deaths of young American soldiers.......but most importantly, perpetual Corporate profits.

Bush is very much interested in protecting the American people. His methods are up for debate but to say he doesn't care one Iota is just another example of your extremism. It doesn't hold any water - take your head out of the sand.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I do not think that Bush cares one iota about protecting the *People* of this country.

I believe his only real concern is protecting and enhancing the interests of the powerful Corporate class that put him in office.

I think Bush believes that those two things go hand-in-hand.


Every available source, every shred of data confirms that his efforts to "fight a war on terror" have increased the number of terrorist acts around the wolrd, not decreased them.........yet he continues blindly on the same wrongheaded path.

He cares ZERO about his actions having increased the likelyhood of another terrorist attack on the US........he and his wealthy cronies care about reaping billions from the war in Iraq. Period.

After Iraq.........probably Iran.

Then on to Syria.

The forever war........ad infinitum.

Perpetual war, perpetual massive costs to the taxpayers, perpetual deaths of young American soldiers.......but most importantly, perpetual Corporate profits.

FT, I wish I could see one post of yours that has substance, and doesn't contain the Corporate/Fascist/Reaper comments....it would be most refreshing. :)

after I realized that we were not protected by oceans Wow Bushie is a real genius there...
and so I had all kinds of lawyers review the process. But not judges as required by law...
Federal courts have consistently ruled that a President has authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance against our enemies. Too bad it wasn't foreign...and I guess that depends on who he considers an enemy...Quakers, Mothers of the military, Protesters... It means Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force Intelligence gathering is not a force...
If they're making phone calls into the United States, we need to know why -- to protect you." which could all be done legally even 72 hours AFTER the tap was placed...

You know, it's amazing, when people say to me, well, he was just breaking the law -- if I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress? (Laughter and applause.) Because congress members were afraid of being thrown into jail for breaking "national security". It also provides a nice fallback when they do finally get tired of putting up with the bullshit...

Bush is very much interested in protecting the American people. His methods are up for debate but to say he doesn't care one Iota is just another example of your extremism. It doesn't hold any water - take your head out of the sand. Wrong Drew...Bush doesn't give a shit about Americans. He only cares about those who agree with him on everything.

Congressional agency says wiretaps illegal

WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 (UPI) -- For the second time this month, a U.S. congressional research agency has disputed President George W. Bush's authority to use domestic wiretaps.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20060119-10431800-bc-us-surveillance.xml

Guerilla, I love your post about President Bush not caring about people, and then your signature quotes a president who put Americans in concentration camps and sent a shipload of jewish refugees back to Germany.

(I know, I changed the subject and didn't confront the subject of the thread. But that's funny!)

By saying that Bush doesn't care less about people - it just highlights how irrelevant Freethinkers comments are. If only he could dose his frenzied views with a bit of reality & common sense then they would hold much more value.

Originally posted by DrewM
It's easy to reconcile the two statements. Oversight is not having a few senators in for coffee in the oval office!

The right to privacy is constitutional - senators being casually informed is not constitutional oversight. That oversight is provided by a judicial process already setup by congress to ensure that no red tape gets in the way of necessary action in this area.

I have no clue why Bush circumvented an existing process that provides everything he needs in this area - I doubt he was using this activity for anything other than legitimate actions, but that isn't the point. The 3 branch system we have is designed for checks & balances, for good reason.

Characterizing regular information meetings with the relevant members of senate where both lawyers and the technical people were involved as casual seems a tad understated.

The fact that they went to DOJ to NSA to get the rulings seems they wanted to cross there i's and dot the t's.

To date i have yet to hear anyone call for an end to the program. Which leads me to beleive that no one is really opposed to it and everyone thinks it's worthwhile and necessary. It's merely another political football.

Hayden's comments to the National Press Club were very interesting. Well worth the read.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/hayden012306.pdf

Yes but those meetings do not constitiute oversight.

I have heard many many people call for an end to it - people are quite literally outraged.

Where the democrats fall down everytime is they never present issues in a way people can understand. They always miss the boat - the republicans are a mile better at communication than the democrats, hence the President successfully making this an issue of national security instead of an issue of constitutional boundaries.

The coskidz are certainly outraged. (There was an absolutely hilarious rationalization of why bush proceeded with it.) But all the polls i've seen show support for the admins position.

There may have been a Senator or Rep but i haven't heard of him/her.

Who'd be on that list?

the administration are facing 2 lawsuits at the present time.

I'm sure the polls support it because the republicans have done a great job of making the issue the actual wire tapping instead of the real issue - executive actions without oversight.

Originally posted by waldo
The fact that they went to DOJ to NSA to get the rulings seems they wanted to cross there i's and dot the t's.

Right, but what was their goal in dotting and crossing? I'd suggest it was so they could cover their ass, not because they wanted to make sure they were doing the right thing. It's not the NSA's job to determine right and wrong, and the DOJ works for the President and most likely was asked to provide an opinion supporting their position, which is different from providing an unbiased analysis of the issue.

Originally posted by waldo
Hayden's comments to the National Press Club were very interesting. Well worth the read.Absolutely!

Here's the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Here's General Hayden:

QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But the --

GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --

GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause." And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place in probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?

GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order. Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.

HTML link: http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_012306.html

It's chock full of goodies.

Straight out of kozkidz. Why are we not surprised.

Not much in the way of analysis tho is there. Just an inference and giddyap horsie.

Originally posted by sedan
GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order. Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.

Yikes.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Right, but what was their goal in dotting and crossing? I'd suggest it was so they could cover their ass, not because they wanted to make sure they were doing the right thing. It's not the NSA's job to determine right and wrong, and the DOJ works for the President and most likely was asked to provide an opinion supporting their position, which is different from providing an unbiased analysis of the issue.

Now you're speaking to motive. And your knowledge of motive is just a guess.

One of the things i found most intersting was haydens comment early on. QUESTION: Yes, Wayne Madsen, syndicated columnist. General, how do you explain the fact that there were several rare spectacles of whistleblowers coming forward at NSA,
especially after 9/11, something that hasn't really happened in the past, who have
complained about violations of FISA and United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18,
which implements the law at the agency?
GEN. HAYDEN: I talked to the NSA staff on Friday. The NSA inspector general reports to
me, as of last Friday, from the inception of this program through last Friday night, not a
single employee of the National Security Agency has addressed a concern about this
program to the NSA IG. I should also add that no member of the NSA workforce who has
been asked to be included in this program has responded to that request with anything
except enthusiasm. I don't know what you're talking about.

Read this interview...very telling (feel free to skip the intro)

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/03/1435201

RUSSELL TICE: Well, that's probably a good thing to know. But that's why we have a FISA court and FISA laws. The FISA court – it’s not very difficult to get something through a FISA court. I kinda liken the FISA court to a monkey with a rubber stamp. The monkey sees a name, the monkey sees a word justification with a block of information. It can't read the block, but it just stamps “affirmed” on the block, and a banana chip rolls out, and then the next paper rolls in front of the monkey. When you have like 20,000 requests and only, I think, four were turned down, you can't look at the FISA court as anything different.

So, you have to ask yourself the question: Why would someone want to go around the FISA court in something like this? I would think the answer could be that this thing is a lot bigger than even the President has been told it is, and that ultimately a vacuum cleaner approach may have been used, in which case you don't get names, and that's ultimately why you wouldn't go to the FISA court. And I think that’s something Congress needs to address. They need to find out exactly how this system was operated and ultimately determine whether this was indeed a very focused effort or whether this was a vacuum cleaner-type scenario.

Originally posted by waldo
Straight out of kozkidz.I don't know what 'kozkidz' are. Do they work at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence?Why are we not surprised.The imperial 'we' suits you very well: pompous, arrogant, and ignorant.Not much in the way of analysis tho is there.A normal person with average or better critical thinking skills wouldn't need any analysis to see the obvious. For you, however, an explanation is necessary. General Hayden claims to know and understand what the Fourth Amendment says. This exchange with the reporter shows that he does not.Just an inference and giddyap horsie.I'm guessing you mean 'implication'. The writer 'implies', the reader 'infers'. But, of course, you knew that.

No, it's "Terrorist surveillance." The focus groups must've bought into it.
The real tragedy here is that it doesn't matter what we think. The gov't is going to do what it wants when it wants, no matter which party is in charge.
I thought the GOP was in favor of smaller, more limited gov't and less federal control. Aren't they always bleating about the "founders' intent" when it comes to interpreting the constitution? The founding fathers never intended for the central gov't to have this much unbridled and unchecked power.
Show me where it says anything about how the commander-in-chief is authorized to conduct warrantless searches. I can't find it.
If you think they are only monitoring "terrorist chatter" with this program, consider this: Are the airport inspectors forcing merely suspicious-looking characters to remove their shoes and unpack their bags?
No. Everyone gets the same rectal exam treatment. As far as the FAA is concerned, everyone with a ticket is a potential threat. And that's where we're headed with this domestic spying business if we aren't already there. What if someone is casually talking on the phone and says, "Boy, I hate that Bush. What a blundering boob." and the NSA gets wind of it?
"Oh, you hate our president, do you? Hate him enough to...we'd better nail whoever said that!"
Why don't we just let Al-Quada take over? Osama is still out there, and it seems like they've already won.

are the left wingers trying to hard to make this phone listening into something the magnitude of Lincoln suspending habeas corpus or Rosevelt interning hundreds of thousands of Japanese?

Maybe numb nuts here will understand this:
+++++++++++++++++

'Temporary' presidential powers may become permanent problem

It will be unfortunate for America if the controversy over warrantless wiretapping turns into yet another partisan wrangle, with Republicans closing ranks behind the president and Democrats rushing to the attack.

The question at the root of this issue goes beyond personalities, and should concern Republicans and Democrats equally: How much power can we let one person have before we undermine our democracy?

To justify a wiretapping program that appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the administration has put forward a sweeping claim of presidential power: In wartime the president can ignore a law if he feels it interferes with his ability to defeat the enemy.

On the surface this makes a certain amount of sense, because nobody wants Congress micro-managing the battlefield. But the administration's position has two dangerous flaws. First, the power the president claims is unchecked. He and he alone gets to decide which laws he will obey or disobey. Second, the war on terror is not like other wars. Almost by definition, it will never end. Capturing Kabul or Baghdad or Saddam Hussein didn't end it. Capturing Bin Laden wouldn't end it, either. It's hard to imagine what would.

Consequently, any "temporary" powers that we give the president to fight this war are actually permanent changes in our system of government. The issue isn't whether or not you trust President Bush. If his claims are upheld, all future presidents will have the power to ignore laws.

Republicans and Democrats alike should be able to agree on this: We have had unscrupulous presidents in the past, and some day we will have another one. If that president can ignore laws, what won't he (or she) be able to do? Perhaps he will decide that democracy itself interferes with his ability to defeat the enemy.

The Founders gave us a government of laws and not of men. If we want to keep it, we must insist that even the president obey the law.

http://www.nhbroadcaster.com/ci_3444287