Bush: Eavesdropping Helps Save U.S. Lives

AP ^ | 12/17/05 | JENNIFER LOVEN

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

I am developing a visceral hatred for some of these 8@stards.

[Rummyfan]

It's about time W stood his ground instead of backpeddling. These congressional leaders, who have apparently been advised of the whole thing, now have to try to convince the country that they are outraged about the whole thing, as usual.

Exactly! Most of the leadership knew about it, but once it's on the front page of the NYT they act all outraged!

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

It was a smart move to carry his speech live on the radio, the sheeple got it unfiltered and no spin doctors to immediately rebut it.

Also, unless mistaken his weekly address is carried on all radio outlets. The dems were in such shock when he spoke the truth, they were too rattled to put out their usual mantra they had planned.

[dufekin]

If I understand correctly, he had warrants for these wiretaps, but they will be null and void with the expiration of the Patriot Act. The Senate defeated by a majority vote (margin, negative five) any extension to the act, which enables effective interdiction of terrorists.

These calls, moreover, occur only over international wires, and tradition subjects international transfers of goods and services to inspection. The Constitution actually mentions customs inspections, and one could argue legitimately that international telephone calls and data transfers fall under such authority at least as much as transnational mails did in the earliest days of the Republic.

[injin]

Can you believe it ? We are at war ! We were attacked brutally in a sneak attack without any warning whatsoever, and a big percentage of our fellow US citizens is acting like it never happened , or that we are wrong to try to prevent it from ever happening again.
These mouthpieces for the far left and ultra liberal are almost equal enemies to those that set IED's by roadsides in Iraq. Cursed traitors ....

[TKDietz]

"The program has oversight from the three branches of govt."

Did this program have the oversight of the three branches of government? From what I'm reading it looks like "Congressional leaders" were briefed on the program a few times, whatever that means, but the Courts were kept entirely out of it. These were warrantless wiretaps.

[Jonah Johansen]

Isn't it scary to think that Pelosi is routinely trusted with national security information.

---

Can you imagine a scenario in which we had certain knowledge that North Korea was puting nucluer war heads on a dozen intemediate range missles and would be launching them against US bases in Japan and South Korea as soon as the arming was finished.
Imagine also our only hope of preventing this would be the element of surprise.
Imagine you had to share this knowledge with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, fully aware that both their staffs were full of Michael Moore/Gorge Soros loving move-on.org type individuals..

[Wolfhound777]

I'm watching Fox right now and even they are still getting this wrong. They're saying Bush authorized domestic eavesdropping. No mention of the fact that these "domestic" calls were to persons overseas.

No, they don't have it wrong. It doesn't matter if the calls or emails are overseas. You are still spying on American citizens without a warrant, which means no oversight, which means major potential for abuse.

[loneroofer]

I believe I may be in agreement with you. These "warrants" were signed by the agents, without oversight of a judge. Certainly they could not have been afraid that the judges would leak. That seems to be a Washington specialty. All it takes to get a warrant is a phone call. I am still amazed that most people can't see the breach here.

[oceanview]

take it up with Victoria Toensing, a person who actually worked on the structure of how the foreign intelligence rules work - she says otherwise.

[Wolfhound777]

Yes, it is truly amazing. The Dims aren't the only useful idiots it seems.

[Wolfhound777]

Oh really. So she says it and it's law?

[oceanview]

she knows alot more about it then you do. and so does Mark Levin. the "law" is always open to interpretation - does the white house have to consult with the ACLU and the Times to get their OK on it too? do we need the ACLU and the Times to agree, does that make it "legal"?

clearly, this program was "lawyered" up at every level - DOJ, NSA, revealed to congressional committes, periodically reviewed and re-authorized, etc. the fact that some parties might disagree with the legal advice DOES NOT MAKE THE PROGRAM ILLEGAL. Its just being done for political purposes.

[Wolfhound777]

yeah, I'm sure she does and they will self police themselves too right?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[sgtyork]

You know, I just read the law in question on line. It only took me about 15 minutes. If I can do this kind of work to be a better informed citizen, why can't you? How about you google USC Title 50, 1801 and do some reading before you post?

[Wolfhound777]

...clearly, this program was "lawyered" up at every level - DOJ, NSA, revealed to congressional committees, periodically reviewed and re-authorized, etc.

The above is laughable. Lawyered up by the ones that want unlimited power to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without oversight. The argument they used for this trampling of individual rights was that obtaining warrants was too time consuming and that they needed to move more quickly on matters of terrorism investigations. Granted, that's a problem. But the typical government solution is a much bigger problem. Rights be damned, just do away with them and we can act immediately. If timely consideration of warrants so that investigations can progress quickly as needed is the issue, then form a standing committee of judges "on call" and available 24/7 for just this purpose. Or figure out some other way to close the time gap. I don't have a problem with the government gathering intelligence to fight terrorism, but there has to be independent oversight when it comes to US citizens and there has to be accountability.

[sgtyork]

Perhaps you could read the law in question to see how the oversight is designed.

[Wolfhound777]

I didn't see the part where it authorizes the NSA to eavesdrop on US citizens just because they place an overseas call or send an email to an international email address. As a matter of fact, what you referenced has certain criteria that must be met and certified by the Attorney General of the United States and must meet the minimization standards. What the NSA was doing definitely did not meet those minimization standards.

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that - (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at - (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, (Pat II) from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (Next Changes->) (Next Patriot II Changes->) (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801(h) of this title;

[Rapscallion]

These mouthpieces for the far left and ultra liberal are almost equal enemies to those that set IED's by roadsides in Iraq. Cursed traitors ....

Democrat dislyalty will lead to more deaths of more Americans. The democrats need to wear turbans so we can see at a glance who/what they are.