Posted on 12/17/2005 7:35:57 AM PST by joinedafterattack
WAR ON TERRORISM
Congress blasts Bush's surveillance of U.S. calls, e-mailsA secret government program sparked outrage in Congress and hurt efforts to extend the Patriot Act.By RON HUTCHESONrhutcheson@krwashington.comWASHINGTON - Members of Congress from both parties expressed outrage Friday over revelations that President Bush launched a secret domestic surveillance program in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The disclosure that the National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on domestic telephone conversations created a furor that could have far-reaching implications for the Bush presidency. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, promised a thorough investigation into the secret program early next year.
The surveillance operation was disclosed Friday by The New York Times, which reported that the government has been monitoring phone calls and e-mail messages from the United States to foreign destinations without warrants for the past three years. ''There is no doubt that this is inappropriate. It's inexcusable to have spying on people in the United States without court surveillance in violation of our law -- beyond any question,'' Specter said.
Democrats accused the administration of trampling constitutional rights in the name of national security. ''This administration feels it's above the law, and the American people and our Constitution pay the price,'' Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said. ``This is Big Brother run amok.'' Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Bush may have broken the federal law restricting domestic surveillance and violated constitutional protections against intrusive searches by approving the wiretaps ''We are a government of law. The Congress was never asked to give the president the kind of unilateral authority that appears to have been exercised,'' she said. Bush declined to discuss the substance of the newspaper report, but he said he tries to strike a balance between protecting Americans from terrorist attacks and safeguarding civil liberties.
''I think the point that Americans really want to know is twofold. One, are we doing everything we can to protect the people? And two, are we protecting civil liberties as we do so? And my answer to both questions is yes, we are,'' Bush said in an interview with PBS anchorman Jim Lehrer. Anger over the surveillance operation helped derail the Bush administration's efforts Friday to extend the police powers granted by the Patriot Act. Supporters of the anti-terror law failed to get the 60 votes needed to bring the extension to a vote in the Senate. Some key provisions of the Patriot Act, which sailed through Congress after the terrorist attacks in 2001, are set to expire at year's end. ''I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this [Senate] floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care,'' Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said in opposing the law's extension without an overhaul. ``This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American.'' The domestic surveillance effort -- a significant departure from previous practice -- is in keeping with Bush's aggressive approach to potential terrorist threats. The president has faced similar criticism in the past over the treatment of terrorist suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; the practice of sending suspects to third countries with a history of torture and the establishment of secret interrogation facilities in Europe. ''This is a different kind of war,'' Bush said in a speech shortly after the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. ``Some victories will be won outside of public view, in tragedies avoided and threats eliminated. Other victories will be clear to all.'' According to The New York Times, Bush established the domestic surveillance program in 2002 by authorizing the National Security Agency to monitor international communications by suspected terrorists in the United States. The secret presidential order relaxed safeguards intended to prohibit government spying on American citizens.
Government officials told the newspaper that government eavesdroppers sought court-approved warrants only for conversations within the United States, not for overseas calls. The paper reported that ''hundreds, perhaps thousands of people inside the United States'' have been targeted for monitoring over the past three years.
''The president has, in effect, created an off-the-books surveillance procedure without any legislative authority,'' said Marc Rotenberg, a law professor at Georgetown University and executive director of the Electronic Security Information Center, a civil liberties group. ``The president has claimed an extraordinary power, the right to conduct surveillance without judicial review. He is in a place where no president has been before.'' Government officials told The New York Times that the clandestine program helped disrupt a planned 2003 attack on the Brooklyn Bridge. According to the paper, congressional leaders from both parties were briefed on the surveillance effort. Former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002, said he was not informed of the domestic surveillance program. In an interview, Graham recalled a 2002 meeting in Vice President Dick Cheney's office about a far more narrow plan by the National Security Agency to intercept communications from outside the United States to other foreign destinations that rely on U.S. satellite links. ''What the administration did was not justified,'' Graham said. ``You don't fight terrorism by taking away the constitutional liberties of U.S. citizens. . . . I never saw a situation of extreme urgency that would warrant this.''
Miami Herald staff writer Frank Davies contributed to this report, along with Knight Ridder bureau reporters Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel.
So what do you think we should do to and about the Dems and RINOS?
Oh, the hypocrisy from the Left was expected. This isn't even legitimate criticism; it's pure reactionary partisanship. But it doesn't change the fact that it gives the hand-wringers one more distraction to exploit. And it tempts conservatives to invoke "the end justifies the means" arguments.
Pure partisan insanity, in a time of War. [/shaking head in disbelief]
Do the Democrats even try to think?
Obviously the "eavesdropping" would not be wasted on normal people. Software looks for certain "keywords" that may trigger additional surveillance.
Those keywords are not "I'm having sex with my neighbor's wife". This is not England where the LOCAL magistrates can gain access to any phone line and all email of individuals for reasonable cause. We don't even have these types of secret surveillance systems in place.
Here's what I just sent Sen. Specter:
Dear Senator Specter,
I am dismayed by your recent antics concerning the NSA and President Bush. He has the authority to protect the citizens of the United States, and should not have to wait for a "smoking gun" to respond to terrorists. People's lives are at stake, and we are in the middle of a war.
He has notified Congress at least a dozen times about this evesdropping. Rather than being concerned that these leakers are causing great harm to our Republic, I see your name attached to nearly every article that is critical of the President of the United States instead.
I thank you for your service to this great country, but it's time for you to resign for the good of the nation. You should have resigned after defending former President Clinton by referring to Scottish law rather than the Constitution, but here we are years later and you are again acting contrary to the interests of the United States and her citizens.
Please do the right thing.
Sincerely,
XXXX
Did you see the clip run by Fox of the little 'ol lady in Iraq that had just voted and said pretty much the same thing you just posted, including telling them that they could all go to Hell?
She sounded to me like she was crazy about W.
Oops, never mind...most of 'em never even read the proposed legislation so how could they have known what would come about.
examples...Patriot Act Redux, and in the Dark
The Patriot Act was passed in haste, in the angst-filled days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with some lawmakers candidly admitting they never read the details.
The USA Patriot Act and Censorship
Many of the members of Congress and their staffs had not even read the Patriot Act, all 342 pages of it, before the vote on it was taken.
Students criticize PATRIOT Act
Many of those who voted for the bill have since claimed that their staff never even read it.
It would seem to me that those with the responsibility of voting on a bill should read the bill before they vote and not leave it to their staff who may, after all, not be qualified to accomplish such a task.
Peyton R. Helm President, Muhlenberg College
Those of us who have actually read the USA Patriot Act (all 342 pages of it) realize that much of it is sound, reasonable, and laudable. We also realize (as many of Adams' critics do not) that reading the act hardly ensures one will understand its meaning. To really understand the Patriot Act, with its scores of inscrutable references to minor changes in specific clauses of a host of other federal statutes, requires one to read extensive analysis and explanation of the act by trustworthy legal experts.
I really think this is just another notch in the Left's plan to wear the public down with repeated charges of scandal. Even if none of the allegations stick, eventually people become convinced that any administration earning so much opprobrium MUST be hiding something. And they're willing to vote Democrat just to make it go away.
The only hope is to spread the good news via the emerging media, and to tell the truth in the four corners of Christendom.
oops...Is our nation being run by a bunch of imbeciles?
"CONGRESS", HUH?
- Members of Congress from both parties expressed outrage Friday - Yeah, sure, looks like the normal suspects
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
Former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla.,
only missing Pubbie is McCain
The title is misleading...imagine that!
"I agree."
Check out my post #26 here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1542333/posts
That's been the agenda all along...the "story" is over a year old but it was sat on to whip out later.
I will definitely give the President the benefit of the doubt in determining the legality of this over that pack of sniveling mountebanks and blowhards in the US Senate.
According to other stuff I've read today he consulted with the Justice Department and "senior members of Congress" before implementing it.
I believe this is a clear example of the double-crosses that result from trusting "senior members of Congress," whether Democrat or RINO, with sensitive, leakable information. Democrats and RINOs like Specter put their own political survival and hatred of Bush ahead of the American people. I hope the President makes that point in his speech Sunday. This leak is part of a carefully orchestrated effort to set the President up for impeachment.
Or start fighting back. Bush apparently was mad as hell in his radio address and hopefully will continue to attack tomorrow in his televised address. However, the Republicans need to go farther than that.
The Democrats have been getting a free ride in congress. It's time to start playing hardball. Congressmen on the left need to be brought up on ethics charges for campaign finance violations. The Cisneros special prosecutor report needs to be released in full. It will destroy Hillary. It's time to put on the body armor and go to war in the House and Senate. If they don't have the nerve for it they don't need to be in the majority.
best be careful, the number of accomplices has been revealed to be many. the new media will spread the truth, I can only wonder will the truth be enough?
maybe yes....
maybe no.....
He can then turn the tables on the howler monkeys, and demonstrate that their feigned concern is nothing more than self-serving partisanship and betrayal of trust.
In other words, he wins if he takes the high ground. The Democrats (and a notable handful of "republicans") can never rise from their sewer, so he needn't fear any challenge for the position.
This president has been very good at turning the enemy's weapons against them.
Oh, no doubt! I'd believe a Magic 8-Ball before I trusted Arlen Specter, let alone Ted Kennedy.
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.