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.
I wonder why the public hasn't completely written off the Democratic party then. Under your scenario the public would have grown weary of their mudslinging long ago. It hasn't happened. I'm sick and tired of sitting back and taking it. Your play nice scenario doesn't work in the real world. That's the old country club Republican attitude. Go along to get along. It sucks.
For all I know (I'm not a lawyer) that's exactly what happened. The article that said the warrants were obtained from a secret court may have meant that the proceedings were classified as you mentioned. The use of the words "secret court" may just be the reporters attempt to cast this in the worst possible light. The President has said the NSA obtained legal authority to do what it did, the decisions were reviewed by the Justice Dept, White House legal council and NSA legal council and in addition appropriate members of congress were kept in the loop on a frequent basis. I'm giving the President the benefit of the doubt. Knowing how the Democratic smear machine works I won't believe a thing they say unless they can get a ruling from the Supreme Court supporting their allegations.
They probably have. But you're living in a world where reason applies. That is never true with Democrats, who made up their "minds" the day Bush was elected that he was a scoundrel. They've spent the last five years trying to prove it.
It hasn't happened.
No duh?
I'm sick and tired of sitting back and taking it.
Nobody's saying you should.
Your play nice scenario doesn't work in the real world.
"Play nice?" When did I urge that? I simply said that raging like idiots does nothing but tire an already weary public. The proper stance is calm, composed, and merciless.
That's the old country club Republican attitude.
What, sanity?
Go along to get along.
If the Democrats lie and we tell the truth, it hardly constitutes "going along."
It sucks.
This could be the defining moment for the Republicans. If they maintain an air of dignity and composure while the Democrats are imploding all around them, they will win the day. If they go monkey, they look as stupid as their critics.
This could be the defining moment for the Republicans.
You're right about that. The Republicans first shot was Specter calling the President a criminal. Followed shortly thereafter by McCain calling for an investigation. I don't see any other Republicans commenting yet.
Blindly following any party to me is not doing your duty to yourself or your country.
If Bill Clinton were president, these same people that adore Bush would be screeching their lungs out.
If they wish to give away their freedom and liberty that is their right, just do not give mine away as I do not trust Bush or anyone else in BIG Government.
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.