Bush Authorized Domestic Spying

The Washington Post ^ | December 16, 2005 | Dan Eggen

[ActionNewsBill]

Yep!

Maybe I should have used a "sarcasm" disclaimer.

[Baby Driver]

Dissent is one thing, actively working against the security and interests of the United States and it's Peoples, especially in time of war, rates *AT* *LEAST* aggressive
surveiliance.

[griswold3]

FYI, during the peace talks at Wright Patterson AFB, a friend of a friend made an off handed remark about an assassination attempt on Bill Clinton, on the phone...The next day a Secret Service Agent was parked in her living room all afternoon and returned again the next week for another extended visit.
Now, how did that happen? The NSA monitors all communications in the US. Sometimes certain phrases or words trigger attention. Has always happened and will always happen.

[Baby Driver]

I got you sarcasm, and I raise you a
righteous outrage.

But then, you knew i was only being half serious,
otherwise you wouldn't have deleted my :o) face.

[jw777]

Whatever is necessary to protect the citizens of our Country, I am for. Some stupid 49er season ticket holders are suing the NFL for the searches that they have to go through to get into Candlestick Park for the games. THey feel it's an invasion of their privacy.

Libs are filth. I have to say it. I just despise them for their Treason and NON tolerance and diversity.

[Dr. Free Market]

This is much ado about nothing, except for the NYT tipping off terrorists by publishing illegal leaks from anti-Bush sources within our gov't...AGAIN. Then hypocritically railing for years about someone "outing" some CIA deskjockey. Sheeesh!

Let the hangings commence!

OH. And by the way...

...James Risen's article is only one of many "explosive newsbreaking" stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book!

The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release.

http://drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm

[airborne]

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.

Done with the knowledge and approval of Jay Rockafeller, other Congressional leaders and at least one federal judge.

[VRing]

"What's wrong with this picture?"

This

"If I deposit $15,000 cash in my checking account, it gets reported to the government"

[conserv13]

If they weren't doing this, and an attack came, the NYT would be the first to say, "Why didn't the president do more to prevent this?"

I agree with you there. Still, I really don't like the idea of no warrant searches or investigations.

[conserv13]

Are these newspapers suggesting that a country at war should not spy on her enemies within her border?

I am saying that. Without a warrant, searches are illegal.

[xzins]

I heard this on a radio broadcast this morning and the lady reporter said "possibly illegal" authorization of eavesdropping. In other words, the media didn't necessarily think it was illegal.

Even this article reports that some eavesdropping is perfectly legal. NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals

Then there is the Patriot Act which expanded the ability to track possible terrorists through multiple phone service changes.

This is trumped up.

I want my president able to track terrorists who use American nationals to weave and hide their way across America using various phone numbers.

Otherwise we might as well pass the "Terrorist Free Communication in America" Act.

[eraser2005]

I'll agree that the fact that both parties knew about this before and didn't throw a fit makes it more likely that the surveillance was necessary. That doesn't make it legal, though. They can get a warrant without the info becoming public, and as they are required by law and the constitution to do so, they should have. All government officials, from both parties or neutral, who support surveillance such as wiretaps without getting warrants when it is feasible to do so, are in the wrong...

[reagandemo]

Yep the RATS are so predictable. The Patriot act was up for a vote today and they were unsure about it's outcome. What to do..... Let print a story on how the Government spies on us and credit to unnamed sources and that should take care of the fence setters.

[petitfour]

Personally, I do not have a problem with spying on furriners within our borders.

[Eagles Talon IV]

"They can get a warrant without the info becoming public, and as they are required by law and the constitution to do so, they should have. All government officials, from both parties or neutral, who support surveillance such as wiretaps without getting warrants when it is feasible to do so, are in the wrong...

Any tool necessary must be used to defeat the animals. There was no secret and the necessary people were informed. Besides that there is not one single example of one person who has had any of their rights infringed upon. Not even one. The whole format of this story was designed to make the Admin look bad. If you can't see that then you have a serious problem. Does it matter to you that the author of the piece has a book coming out in 10 days that discusses this?

[eraser2005]

If the necessary people were informed, they would have a warrant. PERIOD.

[conserv13]

Personally, I do not have a problem with spying on furriners within our borders.

I don't either. I do have a VERY big problem spying on US citizens without a warrant.

[petitfour]

I wonder how many native-born Americans have actually had their phones tapped since President Bush signed this order.