Posted on 12/17/2005 5:21:42 PM PST by frankjr
Facing angry criticism and challenges to his authority in Congress, President Bush on Saturday unapologetically defended his administration's right to conduct secret post-Sept. 11 spying in the United States as "critical to saving American lives."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she had been told on several occasions that Bush had authorized unspecified activities by the National Security Agency, the nation's largest spy agency. She said she had expressed strong concerns at the time, and that Bush's statement Saturday "raises serious questions as to what the activities were and whether the activities were lawful."
"The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time," Bush said. "And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad."
"I didn't hear him specify any legal right, except his right as president, which in a democracy doesn't make much sense," Bamford said in an interview. "Today, what Bush said is he went around the law, which is a violation of the law — which is illegal."
Bush said leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., told House Republicans that those informed were the top Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and of each chamber's intelligence committees. "They've been through the whole thing," Hoekstra said.
The president had harsh words for those who revealed the program to the media, saying they acted improperly and illegally. The surveillance was first disclosed in Friday's New York Times.
"As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have," Bush said. "The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I think this will turn into anothe misread of public opinion by the leftist....
I think Americans expect and welcome these actions by President Bush and will frown upon their leaks...
I also think Bush should get immediate court approval to turn the antennas on the reporters of NYTimes/WAPost/AP/Time etc and find out who their contacts are. The let loose the FBI...He could also monitor the staff of the Congressmen who sit on the related committees.
Just IMO, but find them, arrest them and imprison them.
Also, with the Patriot Act expiring, the Gorelick WALL may go back up...Just what the leftists want so they cannot be tracked or prosecuted!
If this crap is true, why haven't all/any of these powerful Democrats pushed for impeachment or pressed criminal charges?
Because none of it would stand up in a REAL court of law? Because it's nothing but accusatory political rhetoric based on falsehoods?
" How does eavesdropping (for whatever the reason) not violate the 4th amendment? "
"EAVESDROPPING INS AND OUTS [Mark R. Levin]
Some brief background: 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.
The reason the President probably had to sign an executive order is that the Justice Department office that processes FISA requests, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR), can take over 6 months to get a standard FISA request approved. It can become extremely bureaucratic, depending on who is handling the request. His executive order is not contrary to FISA if he believed, as he clearly did, that he needed to act quickly. The president has constitutional powers, too.
It's also clear from the Times piece that Rockefeller knew about the government's eavesdropping, as did the FISA court. By the time this story is fully fleshed out, we'll learn that many others knew about it, too. To the best of my knowledge, Rockefeller didn't take any steps to stop the eavesdropping. And he's no friend of this administration. Nor is he above using intelligence for political purposes, as his now infamous memorandum demonstrates.
But these leaks -- about secret prisons in Europe, CIA front companies, and now secret wiretaps, are egregious violations of law and extremely detrimental to our national security. They are far worse than any aspect of the Plame matter. The question is whether our government is capable of tracking down these perpetrators and punishing them, or will we continue to allow the Times and Washington Post determine national security policy. And if these wiretaps are violative of our civil liberties, it's curious that the Times would wait a year to report about it. I cannot remember the last time, or first time, this newspaper reported a leak that was helpful to our war effort.
Posted at 12:06 PM"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_12_11_corner-archive.asp#084896
"The President MUST send out the FBI to find, arrest, and prosecute the source of the intercept story. It either came from the Senate democrats, or democrats inside CIA."
"As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have," Bush said. "The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."
The president agrees at least in spirit with you. The question is does he have the courage to pursue it. I say it with a tear, I do not believe he will.
Got it! Thanks!
One more bit from Levin...
"NSA HYSTERICS [Mark R. Levin]
I notice the Los Angeles Times and other newspapers are using carefully cherry-picked "experts" from the ranks of the ACLU and the former Clinton administration to provide comment on the president authorizing the NSA to do what the NSA does, i.e., spy, among other things. Many of these "experts" -- joined by a few uninformed, media-obsessed politicians like Arlen Specter and Russ Feingold -- have claimed shock at the eavesdropping and have either suggested or pronounced the president's acts illegal or even unconstitutional.
Now, what exactly do we know from these hysterical reports? Not very much. As I wrote yesterday, the FISA permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens. 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. Today's Los Angeles Times writes that the program "was designed to enable the NSA to monitor communications between Americans in the U.S. and people overseas suspected of having ties to terrorist networks." Fine. That's not illegal or even unusual. And these "experts" know it. But the truth is that we have no idea of the contents of the president's executive order and, therefore, we have no idea what conduct we're supposed to be offended about. Perhaps the executive order expanded the authority of the NSA or expedited the processing of wiretaps. We just don't know. Unfortunately, the administration's hands are tied for while revealing the executive order's contents to the public might well demonstrate the appropriateness and legality of its conduct, thereby deflating the effort to create a scandal, it may well be too damaging to ongoing operations.
But clearly many members of Congress who have not spoken on the record do know about the program. As the president said today, Congress has been consulted, and often. It's remarkable that the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the Associated Press failed to uncover this fact. Indeed, they did the opposite. In addition to cherry-picking experts from the ACLU and the Clinton administration, the media are cherry-picking from their favorite politicians to give the opposite impression, i.e., that Congress was in the dark. And who better to react hysterically to hysterical reporting than Arlen Specter. The fact that Specter may not have been consulted, as he doesn't serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is of no consequence, except to Specter. He might want to ask his colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee what they know before stomping all over their congressional-oversight turf. But for a brief mention of Jay Rockefeller's knowledge of the program in yesterday's New York Times, we've hear nothing about of from the relevant committee members. Indeed, their silence, if anything, suggests to me their likely awareness of the program, consistent with the president's statement that Congress was aware.
What is clear is that this is not some Watergate-type rogue operation, as seemingly hoped by some. In addition to repeated congressional notification, the program has been heavily lawyered by multiple agencies, including the Department of Justice and NSA and White House, and is regularly reviewed. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of State Condi Rice have both insisted that program is legal. The fact that some might disagree with whatever legal advice and conclusions the president has received does not make them right or the program illegal. But at this point, we, the public, don't really know what these news stories are really about, do we?
Posted at 03:21 PM"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_12_11_corner-archive.asp#085012
So she admits they were briefed on the E.O.s? Stay on it W. Piss on the queer bait commiecRATS. We see the S.O.B.s for what they are. Shove it up their ass.
Couldn't have said it better. The Dems are looking real stupid right now by raising an uproar on something they knew about all along. Idiots.
What did Pelosi know, and when did she know it?
Good for the President in fighting back.
So, here's what we know. We know members of the United States Senate are leaking secretive information vital to the security of the United States for a) political reasoning b) Blackmail (McCain and the secret prisons).
They need to be indicted, tried and hung.
It's becoming quite clear why the President relinquished on some issues, to prevent these traitors from leaking more sensitive materials but we're just going to have to live with the consequences of the leaks. Try them Mr. President. If they retaliate with leaked date, put them before a firing squad.
Why do they assume the president's political critics are sincerely "angry" and who in Congress can possibly "challenge" the president's authority? Liberal "reporters" are so pathetic.
Pelosi says she was briefed that the NSA was conducting "unspecified activities" yet also claims she raised objections to something she was told nothing about. What a filthy liar.
Now more than ever, we need to mobilize strong public displays of support for President Bush. This is going to be a hell of a fight, perhaps the opening rounds of a new civil war.
I am so ready to see heads roll at the CIA.
Agree. It's purge time.
No kidding. I can check into a hotel in midtown Manhattan, call Karachi to tell them "the groom is ready for the bride" and that's not fair game for the NSA? Get real.
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.