West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Ant on December 17, 2005, 11:09:11 AM
-
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush acknowledged on Saturday that he authorized the National Security Agency "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations" and said leaks to the media about the program were illegal.
Sources have told CNN that Bush signed a secret order in 2002 allowing the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans and others in the United States who are communicating with people overseas. The story was first reported Friday in The New York Times.
During an unusual live, on-camera version of his weekly radio address, Bush said such authorization is "fully consistent" with his "constitutional responsibilities and authorities." (Watch Bush discuss eavesdropping, the Patriot Act -- 7:51)
"This is highly classified program crucial to our national security" and "its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks," Bush said.
"The existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports after being improperly given to news organizations," Bush said. "Unauthorized disclosure damages our national security and puts our nation at risk.
"Revealing this information is illegal." (Transcript)
The NSA eavesdrops on billions of communications worldwide. Although the NSA is barred from domestic spying, it can get warrants issued with the permission of a special court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court.
The court is set up specifically to issue warrants allowing wiretapping on domestic soil.
'Sad day'
Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said Saturday: "There's not a single senator or member of Congress who thought we were authorizing wiretaps."
"If he needs a wiretap, the authority is already there -- the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act," Feingold said. "They can ask for a warrant to do that and even if there's an emergency situation they can go for 72 hours as long as they give notice at the end of 72 hours."
Feingold said "it's a sad day" in light of what he heard Bush say.
"He authorized these wiretaps even though there was no specific law allowing it," Feingold said. "He's trying to claim somehow that the authorization for the Afghanistan attack after 9/11 permitted this and that's just absurd."
Bush said two of the September 11 hijackers -- Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi -- who flew the plane into the Pentagon "communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here until it was too late."
He said the authorizations have made it "more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time and the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad."
"I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times" since the September 11, 2001, attacks and "I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups," he said.
Sources with knowledge of the program told CNN on Friday that Bush signed the secret order in 2002. The sources refused to be identified because the program is classified.
During an interview Friday for PBS' "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," Bush said he understood that people want him to confirm or deny the Times report, but he couldn't discuss specifics because "it would compromise our ability to protect the people," according to a transcript of the program.
The New York Times report said the NSA has monitored international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants during the past three years as part of its war on terror.
Bill Keller, the Times' executive editor, said in a statement that the newspaper postponed publication of the article for a year at the White House's request as editors pondered the national security issues surrounding the release of the information.
But after considering the legal and civil liberties aspects, and determining that the story could be written without jeopardizing intelligence operations, the paper ran the story, Keller said, emphasizing that information about many NSA eavesdropping operations is public record.
"What is new is that the NSA has for the past three years had the authority to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without a warrant," Keller said. "It is that expansion of authority -- not the need for a robust anti-terror intelligence operation -- that prompted debate within the government, and that is the subject of the article."
CNN has not confirmed the exact wording of the president's order.
Effect on Patriot Act vote
However, senators contemplating a vote Friday on whether to renew some controversial portions of the Patriot Act used The New York Times' report as evidence that the government could not be trusted with the broad powers laid out in the act. (Read about the Patriot Act vote)
In particular, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said he had been unsure the night before how he would vote.
"Today's revelation that the government listened in on thousands of phone conversations without getting a warrant is shocking and has greatly influenced my vote," he said. "Today's revelation makes it very clear that we have to be very careful -- very careful."
One of Schumer's GOP colleagues, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, seemed troubled by Friday's news and said that the revelation, if true, was "very problemsome, if not devastating" to getting the Patriot Act renewed.
The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman added that his committee would immediately begin investigating the matter and that such behavior "can't be condoned."
Stansfield Turner, a retired Navy admiral who headed the Central Intelligence Agency from 1977 to 1981 under President Jimmy Carter, concurred with Schumer, saying, "Presidents have to conform to the law. All of the agencies of the government have to conform to the law."
-
propaganda!
-
Good. The government should definitely be listening to telephone conversations of people with known links to Al-Quada.
-
so wat if i said you were linked to al quada, and they tapped your phone, would that be right? would u like your phone tapped?
-
so wat if i said you were linked to al quada, and they tapped your phone, would that be right? would u like your phone tapped?
I am a white Christian, so it wouldn't affect me.
-
so wat if i said you were linked to al quada, and they tapped your phone, would that be right? would u like your phone tapped?
I am a white Christian, so it wouldn't affect me.
Yeah, right now. Who's to say it won't affect you 10-20 years down the line?
-
I doubt any of us have to worry about the govt. tapping our phone now, but my issue is with the government overreaching its bounds w/o congressional approval. Jackasses like Cwalker don't realize that Bush is only in office for 3more years, and once the government acquires new powers its reluctant to give them up. So maybe you think GWB is a good president? Eventually someone will be sitting in the white house that is a corrupt motherfucker, and do you want to support the aggregation of power by the executive branch then?
There is already a system in place to do this, they could have gone thru the original process which is to ask for a warrant. The CIA/FBI is allowed to eavesdrop on people as long as they eventually ask for a warrant, but Bush wants it to happen with no one being told about it. Not even other departments of the government - he wants the executive to accquire more and more power...
but the short sighted morons don't understand that, that is why you've seen them cheer on bush as he grabs for more and more power... their immature minds cant contemplate the future and think forward far enough to realize someone else is going to be in charge.
Cwalker would gladly suck Bush cock even if he turned the US into a dictatorship. In fact Cwalker probably even gets a little excited at the thought of a Bush dictatorship. Shit like this is why you're not a Real American, but a Real Poser. A Real Bitch. A real confused little boy that calls himself Cwalker but doesnt like black people. Calls himself Cwalker, but hates Tookie. Really its disturbing people with such poor logic exist in our society and become an active part of the political process.
-
What a big fuckin surprise? :o :o :o
-
Jackasses like Cwalker don't realize that Bush is only in office for 3more years, and once the government acquires new powers its reluctant to give them up.
That is bullshit. During times of war, the government has always assumed greater power and temporarily curtailed civil liberties in order to ensure security. It happened during World War 2, but once that was over things went back to normal.
The fact that the New York Times released this story pretty much confirms that they care more about taking down president Bush then they do about the national security of our country. Whose side are they on?
-
Jackasses like Cwalker don't realize that Bush is only in office for 3more years, and once the government acquires new powers its reluctant to give them up.
That is bullshit. During times of war, the government has always assumed greater power and temporarily curtailed civil liberties in order to ensure security. It happened during World War 2, but once that was over things went back to normal.
The fact that the New York Times released this story pretty much confirms that they care more about taking down president Bush then they do about the national security of our country. Whose side are they on?
None, they are journalist and they stating facts
-
Jackasses like Cwalker don't realize that Bush is only in office for 3more years, and once the government acquires new powers its reluctant to give them up.
That is bullshit. During times of war, the government has always assumed greater power and temporarily curtailed civil liberties in order to ensure security. It happened during World War 2, but once that was over things went back to normal.
The fact that the New York Times released this story pretty much confirms that they care more about taking down president Bush then they do about the national security of our country. Whose side are they on?
None, they are journalist and they stating facts
Exactly, Bush totally broke the law doing that shit.. this just makes me wonder what else has he done without nobody knowing, and what if he makes a mistake doing shit like this and gets in trouble with another big country and we see another 9/11 or worse?
You can definetly tell the journalists aren't taking any sides here. Especially when its all over the news.
-
Senator Accuses Times of Endangering U.S.
AP
WASHINGTON - A Republican senator on Saturday accused The New York Times of endangering American security to sell a book by waiting until the day of the terror-fighting Patriot Act reauthorization to report that the government has eavesdropped on people without court-approved warrants.
ADVERTISEMENT
"At least two senators that I heard with my own ears cited this as a reason why they decided to vote to not allow a bipartisan majority to reauthorize the Patriot Act," said Republican Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record) of Texas. "Well, as it turns out the author of this article turned in a book three months ago and the paper, The New York Times, failed to reveal that the urgent story was tied to a book release and its sale by its author."
Cornyn did not name the senators in his remarks on the Senate floor.
A call to The New York Times' Washington bureau was referred to spokeswoman Catherine Mathis, who could not be reached immediately.
Times reporter James Risen, who wrote the story, has a book "State of WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," coming out in the next few weeks, Cornyn said.
"I think it's a crying shame ... that we find that America's safety is endangered by the potential expiration of the Patriot Act in part because a newspaper has seen fit to release on the night before the vote on the floor on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act as part of a marketing campaign for selling a book," Cornyn said.
Since October 2001, the super-secret National Security Agency has, without court-approved warrants, eavesdropped on the international phone calls and e-mails of people inside the United States. President Bush said Saturday that the White House had kept the congressional leadership informed, which a Republican lawmaker confirmed.
But several senators cited the NSA revelation as a reason to uphold a filibuster on the renewal of the expiring portions of the USA Patriot Act — the domestic anti-terrorism law enacted after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — without getting additional safeguards into the law. Supporters of renewing the law failed to get 60 votes needed to break the filibuster.
Bush on Saturday also attacked the disclosure. "As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."
-
oh no c walker, the "enemies" are plottin the destruction of america through their infiltration of the new york times
-
Jackasses like Cwalker don't realize that Bush is only in office for 3more years, and once the government acquires new powers its reluctant to give them up.
That is bullshit. During times of war, the government has always assumed greater power and temporarily curtailed civil liberties in order to ensure security. It happened during World War 2, but once that was over things went back to normal.
The fact that the New York Times released this story pretty much confirms that they care more about taking down president Bush then they do about the national security of our country. Whose side are they on?
So go ahead and explain how they compromised national security by releasing this story? Now that the American public knows Bush authorizes govt. eavesdropping without requiring warrants how are we less safe? What are the terrorists going to do with this new knowledge? This isn't a liberal issue a number of republicans have expressed dissappointment with this news. The fact that you seriously think the NYT compromised national security by leaking this is yet another reason why you're a jackass.
-
I already have my phone tapped. Guess thats how uncle sam fucks you when you run the most lucrative kiddie porn ring on the west coast :-\
-
Another reason why Cwalker is an ass....
The Department of Homeland Security is now interrogating College Students simply because they attempted to borrow Mao Tse-Tung "the little read book" from a inter-library loan... remember that little bullshit about how the patriot act allows the govt. to track library loans? This is an early consquence of that and keep in mind this whole patriot act nonsense is a 'new' idea give them time to expand their powers to do even more bullshit. They are bringing it back to the old paranoia's.... interrogating students that want to read books about communism? seriously give me a fuckin break... What the fuck is a book about communism even doing on a 'watch list' its a well known book by a historical figure. Anyone that can say with a str8 face that we should seriously be monitoring people who read books on communism has fuckin issues... what's next? this so called 'war on terror' has nothing to do with communism and whether you like communism, find it interesting, don't really give a shit, or hate it with a passion there is no justification for spying on college students that want to do research on it or anyone who is interested in it for that matter...
Agents' visit chills UMass Dartmouth senior
By AARON NICODEMUS, Standard-Times staff writer
NEW BEDFORD -- A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book."
Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program.
The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.
The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.
"I tell my students to go to the direct source, and so he asked for the official Peking version of the book," Professor Pontbriand said. "Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring inter-library loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I understand it."
Although The Standard-Times knows the name of the student, he is not coming forward because he fears repercussions should his name become public. He has not spoken to The Standard-Times.
The professors had been asked to comment on a report that President Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to spy on as many as 500 people at any given time since 2002 in this country.
The eavesdropping was apparently done without warrants.
The Little Red Book, is a collection of quotations and speech excerpts from Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung.
In the 1950s and '60s, during the Cultural Revolution in China, it was required reading. Although there are abridged versions available, the student asked for a version translated directly from the original book.
The student told Professor Pontbriand and Dr. Williams that the Homeland Security agents told him the book was on a "watch list." They brought the book with them, but did not leave it with the student, the professors said.
Dr. Williams said in his research, he regularly contacts people in Afghanistan, Chechnya and other Muslim hot spots, and suspects that some of his calls are monitored.
"My instinct is that there is a lot more monitoring than we think," he said.
Dr. Williams said he had been planning to offer a course on terrorism next semester, but is reconsidering, because it might put his students at risk.
"I shudder to think of all the students I've had monitoring al-Qaeda Web sites, what the government must think of that," he said. "Mao Tse-Tung is completely harmless."
-
Using scare tactics to hide the truth. Typical Bush Administration bullshit.
-
Question for all the liberals:
Was it alright when Clinton and Carter did it? Or is this just something you don't like that Bush did?
-
Question for all morons^^^ Do you not realize that liberals aren't the only one's upset about this?
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/
The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –
What Drudge says:
Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”
What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.
Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.
What Drudge says:
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”
What Carter’s executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
-
I didn't pay my tax to get phone tapped. >:(
-
So it was o.k. when Clinton and Carter did the exact same thing?
-
So it was o.k. when Clinton and Carter did the exact same thing?
it's same with clinton and Carter..
-
So it was o.k. when Clinton and Carter did the exact same thing?
They didn't do the same thing. Do you have a hard time reading?
Here try this article... It talks about how republicans feel about what the president has done.
Hagel seeks hearings on domestic spying
'We don't have all the facts'; Nebraska senator says allegations must be dealt with
By Robert Pore
Allegations of potential abuse by the Bush administration involving domestic spying is a "very serious issue," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., Wednesday.
Hagel said he was one of four members of the Senate Intelligence Committee calling this week for a joint inquiry by the Senate judiciary and intelligence committees on alleged domestic spying abuses by the Bush administration.
"We don't have all the facts," Hagel said. "We know some things based on revelations that have come out, but we need to know more facts."
Hagel said oversight is needed any time when the government is spying on American citizens because of the potential of abuse.
"The civil rights of Americans must always be protected," he said.
While there are people plotting harm to America, the United States was founded on a set of laws rooted in the concept of civil liberties and personal rights, he said.
"The Bill of Rights are our precious rights and you cannot violate those rights under any circumstances," Hagel said.
But while Hagel recognizes that there are extraordinary circumstances where domestic spying is necessary for national security reasons, he said there are right and wrong ways to go about it.
"We must find the equilibrium and center of gravity that protects our national security as well as our civil rights," Hagel said. "We have been able to do that for more than 230 years."
He said that accountability is what's at issue and why the hearings are necessary.
Hagel said a law that was passed in 1978, The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, has worked "very well."
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provides a statutory framework for the use of electronic surveillance in the context of foreign intelligence gathering. The legislation was passed by Congress to strike a balance between national security interests and personal privacy rights.
"It holds any administration accountable," Hagel said. "The Congress is part of it. The courts are part of it. It plays out the way these kind of intelligence oversight issues should be handled."
He said the law was passed in 1978 because of abuse of domestic spying by the Nixon administration over Watergate and Vietnam.
This week Vice President Dick Cheney defended the spying program and called for "strong and robust" presidential powers.
Cheney -- a former member of congress, defense secretary and White House chief of staff under President Gerald Ford -- said executive authority has been eroding since the Watergate and Vietnam issues during the Nixon era.
"Every president, that we know of, has complied with the law (FISA)," Hagel said. "No president is above the law. We are a nation of laws and no president, majority leader, or chief justice of the Supreme Court can unilaterally or arbitrarily avoid a law or dismiss a law. If the vice president holds a different point of view, then he holds a different point of view."
Based on the facts that are out there concerning whether domestic spying abuses were taking place, Hagel said, there was a "breakdown."
"I take an oath of office to the Constitution," he said. "I don't take an oath of office to the vice president, a president or a political party. My obligation and responsibility are to the people I represent and the country I serve. I do what I think is right for the people I represent and the country I serve."
And part of that responsibility, Hagel said, is assuring that Americans' civil liberties are not violated or abused.
Hagel, referring to President Ronald Reagan, said people trusted him because he was not a "vitriolic person or one to impugn the motives of people who disagreed with him."
"Never did he do that," Hagel said. "There is no place for that in politics because it debases our system and our process. You can agree or disagree with your leaders and say whatever you like about your elected leaders and throw them out, but I do draw the line on the vilification and impugning of motives because someone disagrees with you."
He said the American people are "sick and fed up" with that type of politics.
"Cheney's poll numbers are very, very low," Hagel said. "This should be about elevating the debate and enhancing America and finding the solutions that we need to move forward. It doesn't help when you characterize people who disagree with you or threaten them or characterize them as unpatriotic or not caring about our people or our security. The American people see through that and it is beneath the dignity of this country."