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

Skip to comments.

NYT: Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say
New York Times ^ | December 15, 2005 | JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAUD

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911; alqaeda; bigbrother; bush; carnivore; fakebutaccurate; homelandsecurity; nsa; patriotleak; sept11; september11; september12era; spying
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181 next last
To: Blzbba; sheltonmac; af_vet_rr
Those of us with knowledge of the Constitution see that president Bush's actions are the same as President Madison's actions in 1812 to obtain private conversations of American citizens with a foreign spy- without legal warrant.
These were reports of conversations that took place entirely domestically, and they were acquired in this country.

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.

101 posted on 12/16/2005 8:16:48 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba

A little fact conveniently overlooked by those who would rather blindly trust their leaders in Washington. Thinking for yourself is hard work, you know.


102 posted on 12/16/2005 8:20:07 AM PST by sheltonmac (QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba

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.


103 posted on 12/16/2005 8:23:56 AM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

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.


104 posted on 12/16/2005 8:26:25 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

JAMES RISEN has a "New Book" coming out soon. (FACT)


105 posted on 12/16/2005 8:28:38 AM PST by stocksthatgoup (Polls = Proof that when the MSM want your opinion it will give it to you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rattrap

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.


106 posted on 12/16/2005 8:30:43 AM PST by Veritas et equitas ad Votum (If the Constitution "lives and breathes", it dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: zook

"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.


107 posted on 12/16/2005 8:33:37 AM PST by Veritas et equitas ad Votum (If the Constitution "lives and breathes", it dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
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."

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.

108 posted on 12/16/2005 8:44:43 AM PST by BlueMondaySkipper (The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zook

"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?


109 posted on 12/16/2005 8:46:14 AM PST by Blzbba ("Shop Smart. Shop S-Mart" - Ashe, Housewares)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Veritas et equitas ad Votum

"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.


110 posted on 12/16/2005 8:47:49 AM PST by Blzbba ("Shop Smart. Shop S-Mart" - Ashe, Housewares)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
"It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."

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.

111 posted on 12/16/2005 8:53:48 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba

Or his refusal to prevent the Mexican invasion?


112 posted on 12/16/2005 9:29:39 AM PST by Veritas et equitas ad Votum (If the Constitution "lives and breathes", it dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Veritas et equitas ad Votum

"Or his refusal to prevent the Mexican invasion?"


Well, that's OK too. He needs the Latino vote, so it's OK.


113 posted on 12/16/2005 10:18:54 AM PST by Blzbba ("Shop Smart. Shop S-Mart" - Ashe, Housewares)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba

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.


114 posted on 12/16/2005 10:24:18 AM PST by Veritas et equitas ad Votum (If the Constitution "lives and breathes", it dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Veritas et equitas ad Votum
"Acting this way" = crushing the civil liberties of Americans who have nothing to do with the "War on Terror".

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.

115 posted on 12/16/2005 10:43:23 AM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
So presidents are free to trash the Constitution when THEY see fit? Or just Republican presidents?

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.

116 posted on 12/16/2005 10:45:20 AM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: zook

"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.



117 posted on 12/16/2005 11:14:39 AM PST by Blzbba ("Shop Smart. Shop S-Mart" - Ashe, Housewares)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba

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.


118 posted on 12/16/2005 11:20:59 AM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Of course it is a very dangerous power which could destroy all our freedoms. Nixon resigned before certain impeachment for apparently abusing it.

Because it is so dangerous, and because we are fighting something that has no end in sight, I'd rather not see it used, because the people will become used to it, and the politicians would become used to wielding it.

Any president who didn't use it to defend the country from a foreign attack would also face certain impeachment.

If President Bush was interested in defending the country, he would have done something about the borders after 9/11. How many years has it been since 9/11?
119 posted on 12/16/2005 11:24:29 AM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: zook

"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.


120 posted on 12/16/2005 11:28:13 AM PST by Blzbba ("Shop Smart. Shop S-Mart" - Ashe, Housewares)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181 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