Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush defends surveillance program
AP on Yahoo ^ | 8/18/06 | Deb Reichman - ap

Posted on 08/18/2006 1:48:59 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

CAMP DAVID, Md. - President Bush on Friday criticized a federal court ruling that said his warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional, declaring that opponents "do not understand the nature of the world in which we live."

"I strongly disagree with that decision, strongly disagree," Bush said, striking his finger on a podium to underscore his point. "That's why I instructed the Justice Department to appeal immediately, and I believe our appeals will be upheld."

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit on Thursday was the first to find the National Security Agency surveillance program unconstitutional. The program involves monitoring international phone calls and e-mails to and from the United States involving people with suspected ties to terrorists.

"If al-Qaida is calling in to the United States, we want to know why they're calling," Bush said.

Critics say the surveillance program skirts the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court warrants for domestic eavesdropping. The administration has argued that obtaining warrants from a secret court set up under FISA is a time-consuming process unsuited for the government's fast-moving war on terror.

The judge said the government, in defending the program, appeared to be saying the president had the "inherent power" to violate laws of Congress.

"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control," Taylor wrote in a 43-page opinion. "... There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."

On other issues, Bush said it would take the world time to view the war between Israel and Hezbollah as a loss for the Islamic militant group.

"The first reaction, of course, of Hezbollah and its supporters is, declare victory," Bush said. "I guess I would have done the same thing if I were them, but sometimes it takes people a while to come to the sober realization of what forces create stability and which don't. Hezbollah is a force of instability."

Bush also expressed some disappointment with France's contribution to an expanded peacekeeping force in Lebanon.

France had been expected to make a significant new contribution that would form the backbone of the expanded force. But French President Jacques Chirac disappointed the United Nations and other countries by announcing France would contribute just 200 combat engineers to its current 200-member contingent in Lebanon.

"France has said they will send some troops," the president said. "We hope they'll send more."

Members of Bush's economic team stood alongside the president as he spoke under bright sunshine at the Camp David helipad. Among attendees were Vice President Dick Cheney, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, National Economic Council Director Allan Hubbard and White House budget chief Rob Portman.

The meeting came at a time when only 37 percent of Americans support Bush's handling of the economy, according to AP-Ipsos polling in early August. It's also just weeks before congressional midterm elections that will determine whether Republicans continue to control the House and the Senate.

Bush declared the economy solid and strong because of tax cuts his administration pushed through Congress. He rattled off a series of economic indicators, including the nation's 4.8 percent jobless rate in July and 4 percent annual economic growth rate through the first half of the year.

But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi took issue with Bush's upbeat comments on the economy, saying, "President Bush may think the economy is moving forward, but many hard working Americans are stuck living paycheck to paycheck.

"Under President Bush and the Republican Congress, the economic situation for too many Americans is going in the wrong direction," said the California Democrat. Since Bush took office, she said, "real median family income has dropped by $1,700 while families are paying $3,200 more in household costs."

Bush did not mention that the July unemployment rate had inched up from 4.6 percent in June, reflecting a slowdown in job creation that reflects weaker economic growth. And while the gross domestic product expanded at an annual rate of 5.6 percent in the first quarter, it slowed to just 2.5 percent in the April-June quarter.

On Friday, a University of Michigan survey showed consumer confidence fell sharply in early August to the lowest level in 10 months as Americans were rattled by new terrorism concerns and gasoline prices above $3 per gallon.

Bush did not mention the jump in gasoline prices, although he did discuss the need to invest in new energy technologies.

Paulson, speaking to reporters later, said the team spent much time talking about long-term challenges such as changing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in view of the pending retirement of 78 million baby boomers.

"We think it is quite possible to come up with a fix that is quite doable," Paulson said of reforming the government programs. "The question is whether we can get the support of Congress to get something done."

___

AP Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger contributed to this report.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: aclu; annadiggstaylor; bush; counterterrorism; defends; nsa; program; spying; surveillance; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-186 next last
To: GingisK
...I instructed the Justice Department to appeal immediately...
Ahem. George, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. All appeals stop there.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit on Thursday was the first to find the National Security Agency surveillance program unconstitutional. The program involves monitoring international phone calls and e-mails to and from the United States involving people with suspected ties to terrorists.
Ahem. GingisK, last time I checked, Carter appointee and clinton promotee Anna Diggs Taylor had been neither appointed nor confirmed to the Supreme Court.
21 posted on 08/18/2006 2:09:22 PM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GingisK

no that wacko judge is a michigan sup court judge PURPOSLEY picked by the aaclu due to the fact she was appoited by Carter.WE must make sure they dont take back over in nov cause with this ruling the RATS will immediatley start impeachment hearings.Imagine the president getting impeached because he was trying to do the BEST job possible trying to PROTECT AMERICA.If this happens this country will be F-ED UP for a long time.


22 posted on 08/18/2006 2:10:58 PM PDT by stickandpucknut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GingisK

Are you under the impression this ruling came from the USSC?


23 posted on 08/18/2006 2:19:09 PM PDT by Eagles Talon IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GingisK

Yeah. What the hell is wrong with FISA unless they want to spy on folks they can't get a warrant on? The FISA courts don't have a problem issuing warrants on anyone the administration says is a legitimate target.


24 posted on 08/18/2006 2:19:34 PM PDT by ktvaughn (I avoid cliches like the plague...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GingisK

So the FISA Court when it said Bush was within the law and followed the FISA COURT guid lines was incorrect?

And you get your information from.....?


25 posted on 08/18/2006 2:21:22 PM PDT by Eagles Talon IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GingisK

Ahem, this was a District judge, not the Supreme Court. I guess you missed that. Must have been while you were studying the Constitution.


26 posted on 08/18/2006 2:22:31 PM PDT by MPJackal ("If you are not with us, you are against us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GingisK
Is the country at war or not?
No, it is not. There has been no declaration of war, therefore there is not state of war. There are low-scale conflicts here and there.

War does not set aside the Constitution. War is waged to protect the Constitution. One cannot protect an instrument by disregarding it.


Even though we have not formally voted in Congress to declare war, there is a reason: we are not fighting against a country but a bunch of cowards who hide among women and children like little dogs afraid of the thunder, who revel in the death of their children and teach them to die instead of live, and who are instructed to lie to their enemies to take a tactical advantage over them. The radical Islamofacist you coddle today will cuddle up next to you with a suicide vest tomorrow.
You better wake up and start waging war to defend the Constitution because radical Islamofacists will burn it where it lies if they take over. Which by the way, could be within our lifetimes if you, the Democrats in Congress, and the kook fringe running the Democratic party continue on the same course at the same pace you are today.
27 posted on 08/18/2006 2:27:45 PM PDT by outloud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Eagles Talon IV

The Court of Review found -- and I quote now -- quote, "Simply no basis for the FISA court's reliance on FISA to limit criminal prosecutors' abilities to advise intelligence officials." Close quote. The court also found that the government may use FISA when it has a, quote, "measurable foreign intelligence purpose other than just criminal prosecution." Close quote. Further, the court ruled that so long as the government entertains a realistic option of dealing with the FISA target, other than through criminal prosecution, it satisfies the "significant purpose" test.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/11/ag111802.html

The court's opinion may be viewed in full at:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html


28 posted on 08/18/2006 2:28:54 PM PDT by lonestar67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ktvaughn
Yeah. What the hell is wrong with FISA unless they want to spy on folks they can't get a warrant on? The FISA courts don't have a problem issuing warrants on anyone the administration says is a legitimate target.

The FISA court has processed tens of thousands of applications over the years. The number they have rejected can be counted on the fingers of Klutzo Butterfingers the Retired Chainsaw Juggler.

The Administration seems to have been driven by an ideological agenda, not any real problem with following the existing procedures.

29 posted on 08/18/2006 2:29:28 PM PDT by steve-b ("Creation Science" is to the religous right what "Global Warming" is to the socialist left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
It should be enough that both the left and terrorists are happy with this decision.

The whites of their eyes are clearly visible, yet they stand.


30 posted on 08/18/2006 2:29:37 PM PDT by I see my hands (_8(|)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samadams2000
Wow, sam. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

There was nothing 'meek' about the President's response, and the idea that he is 'running out the clock' is almost too absurd to debate.

Could you try to actually think before you post next time??

31 posted on 08/18/2006 2:30:37 PM PDT by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraqi Liberation VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GingisK
I love it when mindless Bush bashers make utter fools of themselves.

Thanks, GingisK! :)

32 posted on 08/18/2006 2:32:09 PM PDT by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraqi Liberation VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
All of a sudden, these POS left-wing pukes suddenly care about the Constitution when the evil Republican is President. Clinton used the Constitution as toilet paper and "judges" such as Diggs were nowhere to be found.
33 posted on 08/18/2006 2:32:25 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (404 Page Error Found)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MPJackal
District judge, not the Supreme Court.

Yep, I missed that.

34 posted on 08/18/2006 2:38:48 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

Did you see Bush today? I have never seen him so down. His body language,his tone of voice,his state of distraction. And he was late for the presser to boot.It really alarmed me. Did anyone notice this?


35 posted on 08/18/2006 2:44:27 PM PDT by Alwayswatching
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GingisK

It happens to the best of us.


36 posted on 08/18/2006 2:44:38 PM PDT by MPJackal ("If you are not with us, you are against us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

I will be more careful, and hopeful. I am just fit to be tied about how passive we are fighting these koranimals.


37 posted on 08/18/2006 2:44:50 PM PDT by samadams2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan; GingisK

LOL!

Gingis.... Beyotch, you've been pwned!!!!!!!!!


38 posted on 08/18/2006 2:46:21 PM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: outloud
You better wake up and start waging war to defend the Constitution because radical Islamofacists will burn it where it lies if they take over.

I am doing just that. There are domestic enemies of the Constitution. Anyone who advocates setting it aside for any reason is one of those.

I did mistakingly assume that the Supreme Court had made this ruling.

There are plenty of tools already in place to fight terrorism. One does not have to set aside the Constitution or other laws of the land to protect the same. Common sense, if it prevailed, would suffice in most cases. It defies common sense to leave the southern border porous when it would be so easy for terrorists to infiltrate through there. It defies common sense to stop profiling people when they board airplanes. Many things done or not done by the government defy common sense.

As for me being a Democrat .... have you ever wondered how the terms "liberal" and "conservative" were established? It seems that a conservative is one who would preserve the Constitution and our way of life. I have noticed that GWB doesn't do this. He defies many rulings of this nature, and allows our way of life to be trampled by the horde from Mexico. I just don't see how you mistake Bush as being particularly pro-American or pro-Constitution. GWB is a globalist.

39 posted on 08/18/2006 2:49:56 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia
One cannot protect his enemies if he expects to have a constition to protect any longer.

I agree. We should stop admitting folks of the Muslim faith into this Nation, and seal the border with Mexico. I'd suggest a Constitutional Amendment to take exception with the validity of Islam as a religion. Then we should gather all of the invaders up, and ship them out.

It would make sense to declare war on Islam ... that would provide the necessary powers without trampling the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot be protected by trampling it. Period.

40 posted on 08/18/2006 2:56:10 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-186 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson