- Surely it wasn't pre-written and just waiting for a 9-11-style event to occur?
A little fact conveniently overlooked by those who would rather blindly trust their leaders in Washington. Thinking for yourself is hard work, you know.
Posted on 12/15/2005 5:27:25 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.
Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.
The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval represents a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.
"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."
Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.
According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The distinction that conversations are protected by BOR limitations on search until they are in the possession of the foreign agent has been and still is effective for letters, but isn't of any use in the case of instantaneous electronic communications. Apparently the standard that such communications that originate in the US have BOR protections is what is evolving to replace the old standard. Personally, I'd keep Madison's precedent- though I see that it has it's faults now too.
American presidents have always had inherent constitutional war power to "repel sudden attacks" (and sole power to deal with foreign agents).
Of course it is a very dangerous power which could destroy all our freedoms. Nixon resigned before certain impeachment for apparently abusing it.
Any president who didn't use it to defend the country from a foreign attack would also face certain impeachment.
...Though the media would be able to lie enough to save a Dem president from a 2/3 Removal vote by the Senate.
A little fact conveniently overlooked by those who would rather blindly trust their leaders in Washington. Thinking for yourself is hard work, you know.
If 9/11 happened under Clinton, and if Clinton had done the same thing, I would be here saying "BRAVO, MR. PRESIDENT!"
Any president who didn't act this way during such circumstances would be failing his duty.
Correction: I don't KNOW that ALL the papers were "acquired inside this country". The spy, John Henry, came to DC but some of the papers presumably were already in our possession as bona fides of what he was selling- for $50,000 BTW.
JAMES RISEN has a "New Book" coming out soon. (FACT)
The Bushbots are also willing to go along with Bush's centralization of power too.
I guess the moral is that big government is okay so long as the Republicans are the majority party pushing for more government power over the People.
"Any president who didn't act this way during such circumstances would be failing his duty."
"Acting this way" = crushing the civil liberties of Americans who have nothing to do with the "War on Terror".
No thanks.
The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval represents a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches. "This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."
This is much to do about nothing. They only monitored communications that entered or left the country, which means that by definition, they were not domestic.
"Any president who didn't act this way during such circumstances would be failing his duty."
(Assuming this story is correct, btw)
So presidents are free to trash the Constitution when THEY see fit? Or just Republican presidents?
"Any president who didn't act this way during such circumstances would be failing his duty."
That's right! For Bushbots, it's Party over Country 100% of the time. See the complete lack of outrage over Bush's pig-like spending as further proof.
BS!
The NSA sees the private info from many sources and cannot somehow see only what it wants to see.....
The legalities come into play with the use of what they see, not the seeing.
The entire issue they have raised is bogus and has been raised, answered and raised again, everytime they need fodder for a liberal move in congress.
Or his refusal to prevent the Mexican invasion?
"Or his refusal to prevent the Mexican invasion?"
Well, that's OK too. He needs the Latino vote, so it's OK.
Right, well I guess he's decided he doesn't need my vote. The GOP makes me ill.
Hush Bimbo calls Larry Craig some type of turncoat for voting against the Patriot Act?
The dittohead/Bushbot sheep are so foolish they would be entertaining if they weren't so dangerous.
That's total BS. Franklin had it wrong. But if he were alive to day I'll bet he'd say that those who would give up fundamental security in exchange for temporary liberty deserve neither.
First, he didn't trash the Constitution. Second, when our homeland has been attacked, when we're at war, the President does have the right to take extraordinary measures to protect this country.
"the President does have the right to take extraordinary measures to protect this country."
(The following is based on this story being proven to be true)
No President has the right to supercede Constitutional law. Like Clinton's perjury proved, no President- including Bush - is above the law.
When you don't know the law, as you apparently don't, you ought to avoid making BS claims. In fact, the Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
Chew on that a while.
"When you don't know the law, as you apparently don't, you ought to avoid making BS claims. In fact, the Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
Chew on that a while."
Hey, you're the one who doesn't mind being spied upon, not me. If it's OK with you that Bush abuses his exec. powers, I hope you're similarly unconcerned when President Hillary abuses the Patriot Act. The GOP and its whorish spending policies won't always be in power. But don't worry - when President Hillary abuses the Constitution and spies on you, I'll still be on your side.
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.