What had long been understood to be protocol in the event that the NSA spied on average Americans was that the agency would black out the identities of those individuals or immediately destroy the information.
But according to people who worked at the NSA as encryption specialists during this time, that’s not what happened. On orders from Defense Department officials and President Bush, the agency kept a running list of the names of Americans in its system and made it readily available to a number of senior officials in the Bush administration, these sources said, which in essence meant the NSA was conducting a covert domestic surveillance operation in violation of the law.
« Community organization and religious movements
» Smell this. It’s awful.
« Community organization and religious movements
» Smell this. It’s awful.
» Smell this. It’s awful.
bush, impeach, nsa, spying, terrorism, war-on-terror, wiretap
Bush was spying even before 9/11
01.14.06 | 14 Comments
14 Comments
« Community organization and religious movements
» Smell this. It’s awful.
I wish he had started before 911. Interesting NO ONE is suggesting he now stop. Check the Bull Moose on being Hamiltonian and Intelligence Design,
After hearing the various arguments pro and con on the controversial program, the Moose only wishes President Bush and other Presidents had earlier ignored FISA and had extensively and aggressively tapped into electronic data of terrorist suspects’ communications to the United States. Of course, prior to 9/11 there was no great imperative to sidestep FISA.
It is interesting that no prominent opponent of the program has called for its elimination. Some objectors are playing with the “I” word, but even they are not suggesting that we shut down this nefarious threat to our freedoms.
more, from the Moose, which pretty much sums it up. I’m Hamiltonian too.
There will never be a Democratic President until the American people believe that the donkey will be as or more forceful than the Republicans in combating the Jihadists. And when that arrives, a Democratic President may rue the day when his party sought to tie the hands of the Chief Executive. Some Democratic Senators who aspire to that office should keep that in mind as they grill Sam Alito over the next couple of weeks.
The Moose is a Hamiltonian mammal and is comforted that there was energy in the Executive on this one.
I’m with Ben Franklin on it. Losing our rights just isn’t worth it, no matter the cost. And in case no one else has said it (I believe the Bull Moose is mistaken here), the program should stop immediately.
And lest anyone think this is abstract for me, I am from Oklahoma City.
The President is not above the law, no matter who are enemies are.
What right did you lose exactly? If you get phone calls from suspected terrorists expect them to be recorded by the Gov.
It’s ok to launch a missle at 17 suspected terrorists but not take untapped phone calls from them?
It’s not okay to tape me taking an overseas phone call without a warrant. It’s illegal, and it’s a violation of my right to privacy—unlawful search and seizure in this case.
All is not permissible in a constitutional republic, not even in wartime. Bush could have easily gotten warrants for his wire tapping, up to seventy-two hours after the fact. Not doing so is an egregious flaunting of the law.
It’s perfectly Legal Chutney. Always has been.
We’re not dealing with the “all” here. We’re dealing with very specific actions by the excecutive. In this case intercepts of incoming calls from suspected terrorists. It’s very legal which is exactly why one reason no senator is willing to ask it be stopped.
Hugh Hewitt’s comment on Rockefellers memo-for-record on NSA spying,
Whatever Rockefeller was told (and three other senior Congressional leaders) the fact is clear that the Bush Administration was very candid with them and others, and that because the war was very real to them at the time, the Democratic Congressional leadership did nothing to attempt to end the surveillance. Rockefeller’s “feeble” note, as one lefty put it, is a great symbol of the entire Democratic Party’s approach to the war. These are not the people you want running it, or even close to the controls.
Hewitt linked to my post on Rockefeller and the spying here and how it made long time Democrats link myself feel foolish for having voted for such small people.
It seems pretty cut and dry that Bush broke the law here, and did more than tapping into phone calls from terrorists. I’m willing to change my mind about this, but I’ve yet to see evidence that contradicts my conclusion.
I don’t really care what Senators are saying about it at this point—that they’re not saying anything right now merely tells me what they believe to be politically expedient for the moment. I’ve never really relied on Senators to tell me what’s right and wrong.
If its “always been legal” then why did Congress pass the FISA courts to begin with? And then why was it signed into law? Bushie broke that law pretty clearly by not getting the reactive warrants. He could have gone to the secret FISA courts for three days after the call was snooped on…and yet didn’t. There is no good reason for that.
Senators *are* saying something’s fishy…which is why the Judiciary Committee is organizing those hearings. Couldn’t do it before due to the Alito case.
…and just because you tell senators that you are breaking the law doesn’t mean that its still permissible. And why not mention the House as well…seems rather clear Pelosi was vhemently against it. But what could they do? It was so secret that they couldn’t get help from their aids, much less go to the Post.
And Bill, its a matter of who defines “terrorist” and what definition they use. Eventually the administration could define “terrorist” as encompassing anyone they disagree with, with no checks. Would you have been willing to grant Clinton that authority?
I just saw Republican Arlen Specter on This Week with George Steph saying that impeachment may be in order.
NSA does warrentless surviallance same reason FDA and OSHA do. Read Buck on it,
Anyway, now that so many people are complaining about the NSA’s scrutiny of overseas phone calls related to terrorist groups, it would be interesting if they could do one of two things: 1) Demonstrate their logical consistency by arguing that all agencies of the federal government — including OSHA, FDA, etc., and not just the NSA — should have to get a warrant and prove probable cause before performing inspections; or 2) Explain why the inspection of liquor stores or junkyards is so much more important than catching al Qaeda. Otherwise, the criticism of the NSA appears to be nothing more than partisan opportunism.
Spector or Democrats want to impeach they should. It will help keep the House Republican in 2006 for sure.
Liquor stores and junkyards are not American citizens, last time I checked.
I can see you’ve never undergone a suprize OSHA inspection for a worksite your responsible for… wish the Federal Inspectors had done a surprize warrentless inspection of that Mine in WV where those miners were lost.
Aldrich Ames is the only person I know of you was subject to warrentless search of his Home. Clinton Administration did not get a warrent from the FISA court.
I would suggest you or perhapes UUA file a suit on his behalf claiming Ames Fourth Amendment rights were violated.
This is a constitutional issue between the White House and Congress and ultimately the Courts would decide although their loath to get in the middle of these kinds of conflicts and prefer to see them resolved politically.
As in the elections coming this year.
Otherwise, sort hoisting Ames flag and advocating his case because besides surviallance, the feds went in and searched his home.
No one, including Ames lawyers, constested the legality of that for many years. But maybe things have changed.
Bill, you keep pointing everywhere else except to what I posted about. I didn’t post about OSHA, or the FDA, or Aldrich Ames, or Clinton, the UUA, Rockefeller, the Republicans or the Democrats.
To remind you, I posted a link to a story that said Bush had authorized illegal spying on American citizens even before 9/11.
Since I posted that story, Arlen Specter has said that impeachment would be appropriate if his hearings show that Bush did, in fact, break the law. Al Gore has called this a grave Constitutional crisis, drawing parallel’s between Bush’s current domestic spying and Hoover’s during the Civil Rights Era.
And the New York Times has reported that the NSA’s domestic spying program has not helped us fight terrorism at all.
In response to all of this, you have pointed to a blogger. You have compared domestic spying on American citizens to OSHA inspections. You have said that the upcoming hearings are either partisan or political. You have implied that the UUA and myself are hypocritical for not filing suit for an isolated illegal search and seizure I hardly remember now.
In summary, you have not shown how Bush’s actions are not illegal—you have just asserted that they are not. You have, instead, blown smoke.
Therefore, I’m ending this discussion, Bill.