Fit to Print? The Bush admin. nor the NSA broke the law, so why did the NYT break the story?

Weekly Standard ^ | Dec. 21, 2005 | Edward Morrissey

[conservativecorner]

THE REVELATION by the New York Times of an NSA program to review international communications could only cause surprise among those unfamiliar with the history and mission of the agency. The National Security Agency descended from various post-WWII military signal agencies, a centralized and civilianized intelligence service focused on one task: the exploitation of international communications to keep the United States from suffering another Pearl Harbor.

Given that we had suffered just that kind of attack on September 11, 2001 by allowing existing law to have the most negative interpretation possible for coordination between law enforcement and intelligence services--which would create a storm of criticism from the 9/11 Commission and Congress--the NSA understandably took center stage for the defense of the United States. Combined with the Patriot Act, the government took the position that a wartime administration not only needed to ensure greater cooperation and coordination between agencies, but to get better intelligence on which to act. The discovery that the al-Qaeda terrorists operated with impunity from the American homeland for months, openly communicating with Osama bin Laden's network from cell phones and email provided by American networks, showed the necessity of watching this front of the war much more carefully.

[Bosco]

NYT publishing what it did and how it did makes for treason in my book. It could demoralize the American people and in turn give aid and comfort to the enemy.

The NYT is a COPPERHEAD newspaper.

[cynicom]

We could do as Lincoln did, throw the miscreants in the slammer.

[beyond the sea]

The core of the issue is this: the NSA and the administration defined international communications as including those where one end--and one end only--occurs in the United States. Anything else still requires a warrant, as the Times acknowledges.

[Old Sarge]

so why did the NYT break the story?

Because they HATE GEORGE BUSH!

[Spiff]

Because they HATE GEORGE BUSH!

Because they love Al-Qaeda and desire to help them.

[Wuli]

Why should the NYSlimes be any more informed about the law than any leading Democrat in Congress; who by the way are repeating the same "unlawful" innanities about the "spying"?

[Raycpa]

The reason they released it was because Fitzgerald failed in his mission to indict Karl Rove as step one toward impeaching Bush.

Nothing could be more obvious.

[lugsoul]

Which would be sufficient grounds for the NSA to monitor all of their communications with their international offices, according to the Administration.

Jeez, when did self-described conservatism become so statist and paranoid?

[pfflier]

THE REVELATION by the New York Times of an NSA program to review international communications could only cause surprise among those unfamiliar with the history and mission of the agency

This explains Pelosi's response

[pfflier]

THE REVELATION by the New York Times of an NSA program to review international communications could only cause surprise among those unfamiliar with the history and mission of the agency

This explains Pelosi's response

[Redbob]

"...why did the NYT break the story?"

Must you ask?

[From One - Many]

if congress would declare war....things like this may continue to happen but those being made an example of would quickly cease and desist

[backhoe]

Some background:

The Legality of the NSA's Intercept Program--Well, there it goes as far as we're concerned. The left is still hanging onto it, tooth and nail--and talking impeachment. It's just plain sickening.

Power Line ^ | 12/20/05 | John Hinderaker

 

Victoria Toensing & James Bamford Discussing FISA on C-SPAN Now--This article explains fully how the president can legally wiretap US citizens without a warrant. It cites the law, something the left is loathe to actually do.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20621

 

“Bush Spying Story” Is Four Years Old--Somehow the geeky Wired News managed to scoop the vaunted New York Times by more than four years...

 

Why Bush Approved the Wiretaps (including FISA roadblock with Moussaoui)

--Has the DNC not been paying attention? Pelosi and Reid have ADMITTED publicly they were briefed. OMG

 Not to mention, they ALL voted on the Amendment to the FISA:

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004: “Lone Wolf” Amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

House Vote

This is getting too easy.

 

Echelon; Worldwide Conversations Being Received (Transcript of 60 Minutes)

 

Jimmy Carter Assumed Same Spy Power As Bush

[Wuli]

No my friend, the law, the very same law with provisions for a warrant also provides provisions for the NSA to be told to act without a warrant, and nothing in those provisions stipulates where either end of the conversation is located. Every President since Carter has invoked the "warrantless" provisions with Executive Orders of instructions to the Attorney General and the NSA. Prior court cases have upheld these types of actions.

[beyond the sea]

That was just bait.

;-)

I hear you.

[1Old Pro]

The NYTimes hates Reublicans and hates our country's underlining conservative pinnings. They work to promote a radical societal change to embrace the Left Wing

[cpdiii]

"THE REVELATION by the New York Times of an NSA program to review international communications could only cause surprise among those unfamiliar with the history and mission of the agency"

It did not cause surprise during the Carter and Clinton Presidency.

[Rapscallion]

Senators better be careful. If NSA is both legal and effective in preventing terrorist attacks inside the US, Senators WILL be held accountable if another attack DOES HAPPEN.

SENATORS: Be careful what you ask for.

[Rapscallion]

There have been no violations of any US citizens' civil liberties under the Patriot Act. But, six attacks have been prevented.