Posted on 12/16/2005 6:37:23 AM PST by End Times Sentinel
President 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
important to note that NYT will fully support president clinton when it turns out she did this stuff to domestic groups opposed to her, and FR people will be screaming.
Report by anonymous former staff members.
Apparently this was also reviewed by the Senate Intelligence committee, which includes Kerry, yet it is just getting leaked a year after it happened during the debate over the partiot act.
Sounds like we're getting part of the story.
Didn't Echilon go on-line under Clinton?
Damn that Constitution, always getting in the way...
With outfits like the NYT in our country you can see why it is necessary. Very good decision.
FDR and Truman monitored many US citizens. FDR jailed several hundred thousand for the duration. Hoover monitored many during the 60s. If Bush pulled a Gorelik on this and we had been hit again, the DUmmies would have excoriated him for not conducting domestic surveillance.
What's missing is any indication of whether or not these additional surveillance efforts were extremely urgent (such that the time getting a warrant was an undue risk) or not. If its the latter, it seems to me like these sorts of operations would clearly be unconstitutional. THAT would be a HUGE problem for the prez...
It's latest incarnation... a new name for a old game. ;o)
One can only imagine the orgy of idealogy taking place right now over at the Double-DUmmie Ranch....
R3
Whoah there.... "It is implied by the fact they were carried out that they were."???? There are plenty of examples throughout history where governments have used searches (like surveillance) to oppress those who disagree. That is exactly why the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures without warrants supported by oath and probable cause. Leeway has been provided where the delay for a warrant (which is a generally speedy process) could be an issue. That's what would be necessary for this alleged surveillance without warrants. If thats the case, it is entirely justifiable. Not getting a warrant, though, would be a total violation of 4th amendment rights.
Justifying it by saying that the fact that the surveillance was carried out implied that it was necessary is dangerous. That allows for justification of actions such as those the KGB routinely used in the USSR and which routinely occurs in many countries today (China, North Korea, etc)...
Buh Bye
No wonder we've not had any more terrorist attacks in the US.
Are these newspapers suggesting that a country at war should not spy on her enemies within her border? Maybe we should just round 'em all up and put them in concentration camps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.