Defiant Bush admits breaking law

[Balta1701]

Ok, so I didn't post any specific thread on the NYT's "big scoop" yesterday...that the Bush Administration had repeatedly authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on U.S. citizens repeatedly over the last 4 years. After today, I think this deserves it's own thread, just because I think it's clearly one of the biggest abuses of power I've seen by the executive branch in my admittedly short lifetime, and moreso, the President proudly admits it.

 

During his radio address this morning, Mr. Bush admitted that every single element of that story was true .

WASHINGTON Dec 17, 2005 -- President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and he lashed out at those involved in publicly revealing the program.

...

"This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States," Bush said.

...

Appearing angry at times during his eight-minute address, Bush left no doubt that he will continue authorizing the program.

 

"I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups," he said.

Now, bear with me, we're going to go a bit into the actual law in question here, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA

). Section 1809a of that law makes it a crime to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." In other words, until another law is passed, it is illegal to engage in domestic surveillance without a warrant.

 

Now, the natural response to this is going to be "what if we need an emergency wiretap, and we don't have time to go through the courts?" Say you know an Al Qaeda operative will be making a phone call in 10 minutes, you don't have time to get a warrant. Remarkably, the FISA allows for that as well. In the event of an emergency, a wiretap can be obtained without a warrant, as long as the Attorney General applies for a FISA warrant within 72 hours of the tap. So, there is absolutely no logical reason why violating the FISA is important to our national security.

 

Furthermore, the FISA court is also a secret court. We have no idea what goes on there, and therefore, anything which is presented to that court is probably even more secure than information in the hands of Karl Rove. From the information we do have, it is notoriously easy to obtain warrants for wiretaps through that court, including ones obtained after the fact, as is outlined in the law.

 

There is no rational or logical reason why the President cannot follow this law. It gives the Attorney General incredibly wide latitude, including the ability to obtain wiretaps without immediately seeking a warrant in emergency situations. The time taken up by the courts is no excuse. The only justification for this sort of behavior is that the President has decided that he does not need to follow the law.

 

On that note, it is also worth remembering that article 2 of the Constitution says that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

 

On a couple final, cleanup notes...in the NYT article cited above, the NYT admits that they held onto this story for at least 1 year at the request of the executive branch, despite the fact that they had multiple sources corroborating it. Let's just remember 1 thing that happened 13 months ago..that's right, the NYT had this story either just before or just after the election. If they had this story before the election, and did not run it, then they may very well have assisted George W. Bush in staying in office. The fact that the President is openly violating the law may have not sat well with enough voters to swing that election.

 

It's also worth noting that Republican Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter also finds it inappropriate that the President has decided he is the law, and is promising hearings.

 

    “There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,” declared Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He promised hearings early next year.

 

Finally, I'll leave that topic with this quote from Russ Feingold, which I believe sums up the facts very well...

"We have a president, not a king, and that's the way he's talking," Feingold said in an interview with CNN. "What he's doing, I believe, is illegal. And it's really quite a shocking moment in the history of our country."

Based on what the President himself has admitted...he gave an executive order to violate the law, with no rational justification other than "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges".

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

If Clinton would have done this, Congress would have tried to impeach him for it!

[southsideirish71]

If Clinton would have done this, Congress would have tried to impeach him for it!

 

 

God forbid if right after 9/11 a few phones were tapped with calls going outside the us. Now the liberals want him investigated. Good grief.

 

Now on the other hand I guess you can sell out your countries security for the next 20 years and get a few campaign donations and you are hailed as a hero by the left.

 

Chips for the Chinese

[LowerCaseRepublican]

God forbid if right after 9/11 a few phones were tapped with calls going outside the us.  Now the liberals want him investigated.  Good grief. 

 

Now on the other hand I guess you can sell out your countries security for the next 20 years and get a few campaign donations and you are hailed as a hero by the left.

 

Chips for the Chinese

Or you can just stop being a political hack and realize that Bush gave the 4th Amendment a Cleveland Steamer.

 

And we don't know exactly who is being spied on because whomever IS getting spied on can't tell anybody including a defense attorney (thanks Patriot Act!)

 

And let's not forget the case ex parte Milligan

Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors, for even these provisions, expressed in such plain English words that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now, after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper, and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false, for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence, as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.

[Texsox]

yes, to preserve our rights, we need to give them up. Let's give up search and seizure, privacy, due process, probable cause, and anything else. At least if it is a conservative doing it.

[Mercy!]

Remember, this is the same on-the-case government that’s been kicking gay language specialists out of the military because us awful queers are so dangerous, right? I’m thinking these idiots wouldn’t have enough bodies to be able to translate all the wiretaps they’re amassing if they worked on ‘em from now to Juvember. So just speak one of them there foreign languages when you’re on the phone to be safe from George W. Stalin's illegal snooping.

[maggliopipe]

Brilliant insight from Texas Sen. John Cornyn:

 

"At least two senators that I heard with my own ears cited this as a reason why they decided to vote to not allow a bipartisan majority to reauthorize the Patriot Act," said Republican Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record) of Texas. "Well, as it turns out the author of this article turned in a book three months ago and the paper, The New York Times, failed to reveal that the urgent story was tied to a book release and its sale by its author."

 

 

Gimme a f***ing break. It SHOULD be a reason to vote against reauthorization of the act. It would have still been a reason had the info been released 6 weeks ago. or 6 months ago.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051218/ap_on_go_co/cornyn_times

[WilliamTell]

If George W. Bush would've had an affair and lied about it, he'd be the most hated man in America..........oh wait, it seems that people hate him already. They DON'T want another 9/11 to happen. He's not acting like a king, he's doing what he believes is protecting America. He's who the majority of the people voted for, let him do his job. I'd rather be safe than sorry when it comes to phone tapping.

Edited December 18, 2005 by WilliamTell

[EvilMonkey]

When will the investigation on who leaked this info begin?

[Texsox]

Some people will give up any rights, freely, if the government asks them to. How sad and dangerous. Search and seizure? If the cops started knocking on doors in the middle of the night, without search warrants, and demanding entrance to search, would you be in favor?

 

Probable cause is an important right we have and to give that away, is a terrible loss to our freedom.

 

What the government is saying, by these illegal wiretaps, is you, I, and every American are terrorists unless proven innocent. That is not the America we brag about and not the America I want to live in.

[southsider2k5]

If Clinton would have done this, Congress would have tried to impeach him for it!

 

If Clinton had done this, he would have just lied about it anyway...

[S720]

If Clinton had done this, he would have just lied about it anyway...

 

And how the HECK that you know for sure southsider2k5?

[whitesoxfan101]

I don't think anybody has an issue with our President doing what he can to protect America in a terrorist world. The issue is him making himself God and breaking whatever laws he thinks he should for "the good of the country" and expecting nobody to care. Laws are laws, even for our President, and need to be followed. But of course, the far righties will support Bush here and say "at least he's not Clinton!" so this is a moot point.

 

I just wish people would look past party lines and use common sense in looking at the occurances of individual situations. And mind you, this is a moderate republican talking.

[Rex Kickass]

When will the investigation on who leaked this info begin?   

 

Whoever it is won't get fired I'm sure, so whats the point? I believe - if I'm not mistaken - the NY Times sat on this article for a year at the request of the Bush administration.

[Texsox]

If Clinton had done this, he would have just lied about it anyway...

A conservatives would have applauded because he was protecting America

[Balta1701]

When will the investigation on who leaked this info begin?   

You know, given that this action seems to be clearly against the law, I'm betting there would be some sort of whistleblower protection which would apply to whoever did this leaking.

[Balta1701]

Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr (Ga) 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.

[Balta1701]

A few interesting notes from Think Progress...basically, if you believe the President's attempted defense from yesterday, his speech today jeopardized national security. (Of course it didn't, just as the NYT's disclosure didn't.)

 

President Bush, 12/16/05

 

    I know that people are anxious to know the details of operations, they– people want me to comment about the veracity of the story. It’s the policy of this government, just not going do it, and the reason why is that because it would compromise our ability to protect the people.

 

Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 12/16/05:

 

    This relates to intelligence activities and ongoing intelligence operations that are aimed at saving lives. And there’s a reason why we don’t get into discussing ongoing intelligence activities, because it could compromise our efforts to prevent attacks from happening.

 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, 12/16/05:

 

    Well, I’m, again, not going to comment on intelligence activities because intelligence activities, by their very nature, are activities that are sensitive and that should not be compromised.

 

This morning, President Bush not only confirmed the existence of the program but provided details about how it worked.

 

This demonstrates that the administration’s initial refusal to comment was not motivated by security concerns. If that was the case Bush still wouldn’t have been able to comment this morning. Rather, the refusal to comment was a public relations strategy. When they decided it wasn’t working, they scrapped it and tried something else.

[BHAMBARONS]

What is troubling here is the President could have still got the wiretaps as long as the Attorney General filed for the FISA warrant within 72 hours so this begs the question why did Bush still feel the need to violate the constitution which he swore to uphold twice for that matter. This matter will have to be investigated because of the constitutional violations.

[Balta1701]

God forbid if right after 9/11 a few phones were tapped with calls going outside the us.  Now the liberals want him investigated.  Good grief. 

Dude, that is not the problem in any way, shape, or form. The U.S. government, by the law above, has the full legal right to tap phones of people remotely suspected of any sort of activity. All they have to do is follow procedure. They just have to follow the law, and in virtually every case, the request of the DOJ is accepted without question.

 

They have every ability to do these wiretaps legally. They deliberately chose not to. The problem is not the spying. The problem is the ignoring of the law.

[Dick Allen]

If Clinton had done this, he would have just lied about it anyway...

George W. Bush has never lied about anything since he was defeated into office back in 2000.

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Dude, that is not the problem in any way, shape, or form.  The U.S. government, by the law above, has the full legal right to tap phones of people remotely suspected of any sort of activity.  All they have to do is follow procedure.  They just have to follow the law, and in virtually every case, the request of the DOJ is accepted without question.

 

They have every ability to do these wiretaps legally.  They deliberately chose not to.  The problem is not the spying.  The problem is the ignoring of the law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess the only argument (to play Devil's advocate) is...if you have nothing to hide, why worry about your phone being tapped?

 

:banghead

[Texsox]

I guess the only argument (to play Devil's advocate) is...if you have nothing to hide, why worry about your phone being tapped?

 

:banghead

 

And if you have nothing to hide, you wouldn't mind the police dropping in at 2:30 am to search your house, to listen and record your every move, to follow behind you and track what movies you watch and what books you read. You wouldn't mind not speaking your mind.

 

All the rights we could give up because we are innocent and want to prove it. Guilty until proven innocent? What a crock in these dangerous times. We all are guilty, now prove your innocence if you have nothing to hide.

 

When we voluntarily give up our freedoms and rights, then the terrorists can't win

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

And if you have nothing to hide, you wouldn't mind the police dropping in at 2:30 am to search your house, to listen and record your every move, to follow behind you and track what movies you watch and what books you read. You wouldn't mind not speaking your mind.

 

All the rights we could give up because we are innocent and want to prove it.  Guilty until proven innocent? What a crock in these dangerous times. We all are guilty, now prove your innocence if you have nothing to hide.

 

When we voluntarily give up our freedoms and rights, then the terrorists can't win

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you.

 

But I do agree that we need a National ID Card, though. I don't see that as an invasion of privacy, (as does the ACLU).

[Texsox]

I agree with you.

 

But I do agree that we need a National ID Card, though. I don't see that as an invasion of privacy, (as does the ACLU).

 

I assumed your post should have been in green for sarcasm.