POL - the whole spying mess

[Flasch186]

I have an honest question, not loaded. If this turns out to be true is this an impeachable offense? Would this be a blatant executive order to break the law?




Report: Bush eased spying restrictions
Eavesdropping allowed without search warrants, NYT says

Friday, December 16, 2005; Posted: 1:06 p.m. EST (18:06 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- A key Republican committee chairman put the Bush administration on notice Friday that his panel would hold hearings into a report that the National Security Agency eavesdropped without warrants on people inside the United States.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania a., said he would make oversight hearings by his panel next year "a very, very high priority."

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Other key bipartisan members of Congress also called on the administration to explain and said a congressional investigation may be necessary.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, appeared annoyed that the first he had heard of such a program was through a New York Times story published Friday. He said the report was troubling.

Neither Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice nor White House press secretary Scott McClellan, asked about the story earlier Friday, would confirm or deny that the super-secret NSA had spied on as many as 500 people at any given time since 2002.

That year, following the September 11 attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of people inside the United States, the Times reported.

Before the program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.

"We need to look into that," McCain told reporters at the White House after a meeting on Iraq with President Bush. "Theoretically, I obviously wouldn't like it. But I don't know the extent of it and I don't know enough about it to really make an informed comment. Ask me again in about a week."

McCain said it's not clear whether a congressional probe is warranted. He said the topic had not come up in the meeting with Bush.

"We should be informed as to exactly what is going on and then find out whether an investigation is called for," he said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., also said he needed more information.

"Of course I was concerned about the story," said Lieberman, who also attended the White House Iraq meeting. "I'm going to go back to the office and see if I can find out more about it."

Other Democrats were more harsh.

"This is Big Brother run amok," declared Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "We cannot protect our borders if we cannot protect our ideals." Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisconsin, called it a "shocking revelation" that he said "ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American."

Administration officials reacted to the report by asserting that the president has respected the Constitution while striving to protect the American people.

Rice said Bush has "acted lawfully in every step that he has taken." And McClellan said Bush "is going to remain fully committed to upholding our Constitution and protect the civil liberties of the American people. And he has done both."

The report surfaced as the administration and its GOP allies on Capitol Hill were fighting to save provisions of the expiring USA Patriot Act that they believe are key tools in the fight against terrorism. An attempt to rescue the approach favored by the White House and Republicans failed on a procedural vote Friday morning.

The Times said reporters interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.

Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting al-Qaida by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.

Faris' lawyer, David B. Smith, said on Friday the news puzzled him because none of the evidence against Faris appeared to have come from surveillance, other than officials eavesdropping on his cell phone calls while he was in FBI custody.

Some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.

Asked about this on NBC's "Today" show, Rice said, "I'm not going to comment on intelligence matters."

"I can only comment to say that the president has been very clear that he has not ordered people to do things that are illegal," she added.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group's initial reaction to the NSA disclosure was "shock that the administration has gone so far in violating American civil liberties to the extent where it seems to be a violation of federal law."

Asked about the administration's contention that the eavesdropping has disrupted terrorist attacks, Fredrickson said the ACLU couldn't comment until it sees some evidence. "They've veiled these powers in secrecy so there's no way for Congress or any independent organizations to exercise any oversight."

Earlier this week, the Pentagon said it was reviewing its use of a classified database of information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States after a report by NBC News said the database listed activities of anti-war groups that were not a security threat to Pentagon property or personnel.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said that while it appears that some information may have been left in the database longer than it should have been, it was not clear yet whether mistakes were made. A written statement issued by the department implied -- but did not explicitly acknowledge -- that some information had been handled improperly.

The administration had briefed congressional leaders about the NSA program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.

Aides to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, declined to comment Thursday night.

The Times said it delayed publication of the report for a year because the White House said it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. The Times said it omitted information from the story that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists.

[Radii]

I have an honest question, not loaded. If this turns out to be true is this an impeachable offense? Would this be a blatant executive order to break the law?


Well I assume that if it is true this statement by Rice:


"I can only comment to say that the president has been very clear that he has not ordered people to do things that are illegal," she added.

is very carefully crafted and that the president probably did not explicitly order anyone to do anything illegal and someone below him would take the fall for it.



It's very nice,and very comforting to see quotes from Republicans about how this needs to be taken seriously until the truth is proven. This + the Patriot Act story today leave me feeling a little less wary of our Legislative Branch.


I should also note that until more information comes out this does not change my feelings about our Executive Branch in either direction, its just a story for now, lets see what happens.

[albionmoonlight]

I have an honest question, not loaded. If this turns out to be true is this an impeachable offense?
Ask the House and Senate.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

These are the relevant constitutional provisions related to impeachment. The Constitution gives these powers to the House and Senate. Because these powers are so central to the role of checks and balances, the Supreme Court has indicated that it will (almost?) never interfere with an impeachment. See Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)(involving removal of a Federal judge) (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-740.ZS.html).

In short, the House gets to decide whether to impeach. And the Senate decides what it means to "try" the President and what a "High Crime and Misdemeanor" is. Really, who else could? If the courts forced the Congress to impeach the President, or overturned impeachments with which it did not agree, then one of the most powerful checks given to the legislative branch would, in effect, be given to the judiciary. The Supreme Court has indicated that that cannot be.

The buck has to stop somewhere, and the Constitution has it stop with Congress. They decide what is impeachable and what is not. And they decide whether to convict.

[JonInMiddleGA]

albion, I think that's about as good & reasoned an explanation as anybody is going to come up with. You sir appear to be on a roll today.

[Flasch186]

yup, it let me know exactly what I was looking for, thanks.

[albionmoonlight]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/index.html

Smart move by the White House. Since it was true, it was going to come out--so no coverup possible. And getting defensive about the issue makes it look wrong.

So, as they have done with great success in the past, they turn to the offensive. First, imply/indicate that this secret spying has only been done against terrorists in the United States. Second, change the story into "who did the leaking" from what was leaked.

The big question for me is what kind of spying has been going on that could not have gone through the FISA court--which is top secret and, allegedly, has only turned down one warrent request in 30 years. The fact that the executive branch saw a need to go outside of this process makes me very suspicious of what was really going on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Smart move by the White House.

I agree, if for no reason so much as the reaction is exactly the one I would have hoped to see.

My biggest gripe with the President over the past year or so is that he's developed a tendency to give in on points where he's right. Frankly, I didn't vote for him so he could surrender, so seeing him take the offensive on an issue where I so adamantly & fervently agree with his action is kind of refreshing. Haven't seen enough of that lately, so rare has it been that I'm probably a lot less enthused by today's remarks than I would have been otherwise. But at least it's something.

[Buccaneer]

I thought this had been allowable under the Patrior Act (and other Executive Orders in the past)?

[Flasch186]

there had to be a warrant issued by the secret court.

[Buccaneer]

Weren't there plenty of this kind of stuff going on during the Cold War?

[Barkeep49]

Weren't there plenty of this kind of stuff going on during the Cold War?
Yes. The law changed in 1978 I believe.

[Flasch186]

probably...boils down to who finds out. when the media finds out something scandalous that'll get people watching they run with it although in this case it was sat on for a year which I cant figure out.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

There is the small problem that this is against the law. It forbids warrantless surveillance of US citizens, and it provides procedures to be followed in emergencies that do not leave enough time for federal agents to get a warrant. If the NY Times report is correct, the government did not follow these procedures. It therefore acted illegally.

Bush's order is arguably unconstitutional as well: it seems to violate the fourth amendment, and it certainly violates the requirement (Article II, sec. 3) that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

I mean, I'm sure Jon thinks this is OK, but if I download a U2 album, I should be drawn and quartered in the town square.

[Buccaneer]

Are you sure? Police and security officials surveillance (can this be a verb?) citizens all of the time, but must get a warrant to actually go onto or into personal property.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

This isn't Detective McGee washing down cups of coffee watching the outside of a house though. The FISA makes it a criminal offense to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute."

FISA does authorize surveillance without a warrant, but not on US citizens.

FISA also says that the Attorney General can authorize emergency surveillance without a warrant when there is no time to obtain one. It requires that the Attorney General notify the judge of that authorization immediately, and that he should apply for a warrant "as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance."

Everything that being's said sounds like Bush didn't get a warrant and sueveilance went past 72 hours.

[st.cronin]

There is the small problem that this is against the law.

Are you a lawyer?

[Flasch186]

cant tap phones without a warrant though.

[Flasch186]

Are you a lawyer?

name me one thing you disagree with the admin on or where you wont defend them, quick. .... show that open mindedness.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

No, but I'm not an idiot. I can read a law, see someone did something that the law says they can't do, and go from there. If I see somebody assaulting somebody, I don't say it's not an assault because "I'm not a lawyer."

[st.cronin]

name me one thing you disagree with the admin on or where you wont defend them, quick. .... show that open mindedness.

huh?

I asked a question ... I wanted to know what his expertise in the matter was, because *I* don't know what the legality is.

And the only area I've defended this administration is foreign policy. Their domestic policy, including the Patriot Act, has been a disaster.

[duckman]

Are you a lawyer?
No, but he plays a congressman on a government simulation. ;)

(Playful jab at Jesse. We both played on American Government Simulation)

[Flasch186]

huh?

I asked a question ... I wanted to know what his expertise in the matter was, because *I* don't know what the legality is.

And the only area I've defended this administration is foreign policy. Their domestic policy, including the Patriot Act, has been a disaster.

I apologize, I assumed it was a loaded question. If not then it was a valid question, sorry.

[st.cronin]

No, but I'm not an idiot. I can read a law, see someone did something that the law says they can't do, and go from there. If I see somebody assaulting somebody, I don't say it's not an assault because "I'm not a lawyer."

Well, do we even know what was in fact done? I don't see where that article goes into any detail about specific acts. It seems that what's being reported is very vague and speculative.

[Flasch186]

and the first Arles-esque citing. HELLO!! Bush said it himself today, "I authorized the secret tappings. I would do it again and will continue to do so." Et al.....for once, you cant go the Arles route...It actually DID come from the horse's mouth.

[st.cronin]

and the first Arles-esque citing. HELLO!! Bush said it himself today, "I authorized the secret tappings. I would do it again and will continue to do so." Et al.....for once, you cant go the Arles route...It actually DID come from the horse's mouth.

But isn't he also saying it's legal?

I can't really have an opinion on this without knowing if laws were bent or broken, and then further knowing the specifics of what was done. The second part I assume I won't find out for a very long time.

[Flasch186]

well I can tell you who is certainly NOT a lawyer and that is Mr. Bush and He isnt going to say, "yeah I did it. It aint legal but Id do it again."

[JW]

Back to Flasch186's last question, this does not seem a blatant executive order to break the law. I've read some very interesting discussions among some lawyers this morning on another forum I frequent, and the bottom line seems to me that this is a muddled area where it is not going to be possible to prove that -- in this instance -- the Bush administration knowingly went out and broke the law. There is some precedent on Bush's side, but I'm not a lawyer and am not going to try to argue it.

The fact that Bush came out this morning and took full responsibility and defended the action vigorously I find very interesting and enlightening. Bush obviously believes the actions are defensible. Link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=AgcgvVoBs42Lpln9Eswb5kGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

It will be interesting to hear what Bush has to say Sunday night.

[flere-imsaho]

Are you sure? Police and security officials surveillance (can this be a verb?) citizens all of the time, but must get a warrant to actually go onto or into personal property.

"Surveil", I believe.

[Buccaneer]

well I can tell you who is certainly NOT a lawyer and that is Mr. Bush and He isnt going to say, "yeah I did it. It aint legal but Id do it again."
I do, however, think he knows a few lawyers though.

[Flasch186]

no doubt

[JonInMiddleGA]

I do, however, think he knows a few lawyers though.

Or at least some people who slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

[MrBigglesworth]

I agree, if for no reason so much as the reaction is exactly the one I would have hoped to see.

My biggest gripe with the President over the past year or so is that he's developed a tendency to give in on points where he's right. Frankly, I didn't vote for him so he could surrender, so seeing him take the offensive on an issue where I so adamantly & fervently agree with his action is kind of refreshing. Haven't seen enough of that lately, so rare has it been that I'm probably a lot less enthused by today's remarks than I would have been otherwise. But at least it's something.
It's no surprise to anyone that you would be in favor of this, but exactly where should the line be drawn on what the government can and can not do, in your eyes?

[MrBigglesworth]

After reading a little more about this, two points that I think are interesting:

- FISA allows a 72 hour grace period to file for a warrant, so time concerns were not an issue
- There is only one instance since its inception that FISA has turned down a request for surveillance

I think both of those points may have been mentioned already, but what that means to me is that there is no reason NOT to get a warrant. If it was an emergency and they had to put someone under surveillance quick, that would still be legal because they could get a warrant after the fact. And they wouldn't have to worry about being denied the warrant, since FISA always grants them. So then the only reason that I can come up with that the Bush administration has in not getting warrants is that they don't want even FISA to know who they are spying on.

So who are these thousand or so people?

[JW]

Here is one defense of the President's actions:

"No search warrant is required to spy on foreign nationals. In the process of doing so, there is no protection of privacy of US citizens communicating on international calls with persons we are spying upon."

This is from a lawyer on another forum where the case is being argued. The question may hinge on whether the eavesdropping was directed at foreign nationals and only on overseas calls. Assuming that is the case, then the above may be what the Bush administration will argue.

And, again, I'm not a lawyer and definitely don't know the law on this. It may end up that Bush skirted the law but did not blatantly and deliberately violate it.

[Flasch186]

if thats the case, and his intention on each one was initiated via spying on Foreign nationals, ie. accused terorrists and some citizens were involved in those conversation than Im in favor of what he did...but if it went the other way, spying on US Citizens first than I am not.

[flere-imsaho]

I do, however, think he knows a few lawyers though.

Are they good lawyers, though? ;) Witness the actions (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102002051.html?nav=hcmodule) of a former White House Counsel:

Her answers to the committee's questionnaire included a misinterpretation of constitutional law and were deemed so inadequate that the panel asked her to redo it. She revealed one day that her D.C. law license had been temporarily suspended -- and said the next day that the same thing had happened in Texas -- because of unpaid dues.

[flere-imsaho]

if thats the case, and his intention on each one was initiated via spying on Foreign nationals, ie. accused terorrists and some citizens were involved in those conversation than Im in favor of what he did...but if it went the other way, spying on US Citizens first than I am not.

Flasch, if you want to argue these lawyerly topics, then you've got to start being a little more circumspect in your choice of words.

I very much doubt the foreign nationals in question, for instance, have been accused of anything. Oh, I'm sure someone in the Bush Admin is happy to allege something, but given the number of people falsely arrested in the past few years and sent to Gitmo or to European rendition sites, I think we have to assume that in many cases the eavesdropping was done on probably innocent foreign nationals (and possibly U.S. citizens).

Should the same protections we have for our citizens (and it looks like these were violated anyway) not be afforded to citizens of other countries? If not, why not?

And again, as Biggles pointed out:


- FISA allows a 72 hour grace period to file for a warrant, so time concerns were not an issue
- There is only one instance since its inception that FISA has turned down a request for surveillance


Again, one has to ask why the Bush Admin failed to go through the proper channels here. Incompetence (see Harriet Miers and her inability to pay her bar association dues)? Arrogance (they feel they're above the law)? A belief that their requests would be turned down?

But yeah, maybe it's all just an honest mistake....

[Anthony]

i have no problem with the government spying on US citizens. if the end result is that America is just that much safer - so be it. mission accomplished. if the end result was the powers were being abused, again, so be it - if you're not doing anything illegal than you have nothing to worry about. if the government wants to spy on my talking to my friends how i got completely trashed at my company's christmas party wednesday nite and how i got kicked out of a cab for throwing up on myself - they're more than welcome to listen in.

only people doing bad things need be worried. i'm all about trying to prevent another 9/11. when 9/11 is not just something you've seen on tv, when it's something you've actually experienced - it's something you don't ever want to go back to. if at the end of the day i need to fork over some privacy to ensure if doesn't happen again then i'll gladly do so.

[Flasch186]

Flasch, if you want to argue these lawyerly topics, then you've got to start being a little more circumspect in your choice of words.

I very much doubt the foreign nationals in question, for instance, have been accused of anything. Oh, I'm sure someone in the Bush Admin is happy to allege something, but given the number of people falsely arrested in the past few years and sent to Gitmo or to European rendition sites, I think we have to assume that in many cases the eavesdropping was done on probably innocent foreign nationals (and possibly U.S. citizens).



Should the same protections we have for our citizens (and it looks like these were violated anyway) not be afforded to citizens of other countries? If not, why not?

not necessarily....After 9/11 we DO have to be more vigilant in tracking and investigating, and if listening in on a guy in Du'bai helps or not, it needs to be done. Now, listening in specifically on U.S. Citizens should not be done without a warrant. My stance is consistent with the one I have on the Padilla case.







Again, one has to ask why the Bush Admin failed to go through the proper channels here. Incompetence (see Harriet Miers and her inability to pay her bar association dues)? Arrogance (they feel they're above the law)? A belief that their requests would be turned down?

But yeah, maybe it's all just an honest mistake....


If I had to pick one I would go with Arrogance BUT I'm not sure my standard will ever be known on an individual basis regarding who was tapped and when. If it was a US citizen without wrrant, then in my view that is impeachable and disgusting, if it was our friend in Du'bai than I have no problem with it.

[Flasch186]

i have no problem with the government spying on US citizens. if the end result is that America is just that much safer - so be it. mission accomplished. if the end result was the powers were being abused, again, so be it - if you're not doing anything illegal than you have nothing to worry about. if the government wants to spy on my talking to my friends how i got completely trashed at my company's christmas party wednesday nite and how i got kicked out of a cab for throwing up on myself - they're more than welcome to listen in.

only people doing bad things need be worried. i'm all about trying to prevent another 9/11. when 9/11 is not just something you've seen on tv, when it's something you've actually experienced - it's something you don't ever want to go back to. if at the end of the day i need to fork over some privacy to ensure if doesn't happen again then i'll gladly do so.

thank the Bill of rights and the constititution that you're entitled to that opinion. Defend it like its the only thing you have, cuz in the end when those two go away, the Terrorists won.

[Dutch]

thank the Bill of rights and the constititution that you're entitled to that opinion. Defend it like its the only thing you have, cuz in the end when those two go away, the Terrorists won.

Flasch,

You sound like we should just tie our hands behind our backs until the terrorist win anyway.

[Flasch186]

do you read my posts? I was for both wars, am for the tapping of foreigners wires, etc. Im just open minded to NOT have to follow some idealogue and am able to see plusses and minuses of ALL things...More importantly I expose debauchery on both sides of the aisle and demand honesty and integrity of all ellected officials no matter red blue or green.

[flere-imsaho]

if at the end of the day i need to fork over some privacy to ensure if doesn't happen again then i'll gladly do so.

So when they do a cavity search on you the next time you fly, you'll be OK with that?

[st.cronin]

I'm curious what some of you think of Great Britain's actions after 7/7 ... I think they went as far as to revoke certain people's citizenships.

[Flasch186]

I'm curious what some of you think of Great Britain's actions after 7/7 ... I think they went as far as to revoke certain people's citizenships.

Thats not the U.S.

I dont know that Im against that across the board, there are probably exceptions and anomalies that deserve to be revoked.

[st.cronin]

Thats not the U.S.

I dont know that Im against that across the board, there are probably exceptions and anomalies that deserve to be revoked.

I know it's not the US, but it's probably the closest analogue you could find in today's world. It seemed to me that the British reaction was much more narrow in focus (I believe that laws were passed specifically regulating the teaching of Islam), but not quite as contrary to custom as our Patriot Act.

[Anthony]

thank the Bill of rights and the constititution that you're entitled to that opinion. Defend it like its the only thing you have, cuz in the end when those two go away, the Terrorists won.

this isn't a game. winning and losing are judged by different terms. the terrorists have won when they've successfully completed their missions of death and destruction. if we give everyone 100% freedom and allow some sensitive information to pass through that results in another catastrophic disaster, how have we "won"? who actually loses when innoncent people have died?

[flere-imsaho]

not necessarily....After 9/11 we DO have to be more vigilant in tracking and investigating, and if listening in on a guy in Du'bai helps or not, it needs to be done.

That's not what I was asking. Being able to wiretap a U.S. citizen requires some sort of authorization, which can even be done 72 hours after the fact. Why not afford that same "protection" to a foreign national?

If I had to pick one I would go with Arrogance BUT I'm not sure my standard will ever be known on an individual basis regarding who was tapped and when. If it was a US citizen without wrrant, then in my view that is impeachable and disgusting, if it was our friend in Du'bai than I have no problem with it.

What if it was our friend in England? Or Germany? Or Canada? Are people somehow less human because they do not live in the United States?

[st.cronin]

Why not afford that same "protection" to a foreign national?


That made me laugh out loud.

[flere-imsaho]

You sound like we should just tie our hands behind our backs until the terrorist win anyway.

Because granting the Bush Administration extralegal powers has brought Osama bin Laden to justice and so impacted Al Qaeda's ability to operate, of course....

[Anthony]

So when they do a cavity search on you the next time you fly, you'll be OK with that?

good point. but i hope i will have at least (inadvertently) done something to have triggered that response, and it not be completely random. it would suck, though.

[Flasch186]

That's not what I was asking. Being able to wiretap a U.S. citizen requires some sort of authorization, which can even be done 72 hours after the fact. Why not afford that same "protection" to a foreign national?



What if it was our friend in England? Or Germany? Or Canada? Are people somehow less human because they do not live in the United States?

We are trying to protect the US and do it protecting our citizens civil rights....somethings gotta give, Flere. Cant protect us better if you cant try to stop the enemy. In this case, I believe, listening to Foreigners conversations is in an attempt to protect us...I am not condoning listening to Us citizens cnoversations...Theyre our bill of rights, not the world's. We still have countries.

[flere-imsaho]

We are trying to protect the US and do it protecting our citizens civil rights....somethings gotta give, Flere. Cant protect us better if you cant try to stop the enemy.

I guess I don't see how stopping the enemy is impacted by simply requiring that surveillance is warranted, even if the warrant is applied for 72 hours after the fact. Especially when only one of these (for domestic purposes) has ever been refused.

If our intelligence services are eavesdropping on people in such a random and directionless manner that they would be unable to provide even a cursory justification for their activities then yes, I would say the terrorists have already won.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Theyre our bill of rights, not the world's.

If you've ever made a statement that sounded more like me, darned if I can think of it.

Good job ;)

(Obviously I agree with you here, I'm just having a little fun)

[st.cronin]

Is anybody else intensely curious as to what the ONE warrant that was refused was about, and why it was refused?

[Flasch186]

If you've ever made a statement that sounded more like me, darned if I can think of it.

Good job ;)

(Obviously I agree with you here, I'm just having a little fun)

..but remember I also think that we should be defending the downtrodden everywhere...not sure you agree with that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

..but remember I also think that we should be defending the downtrodden everywhere...not sure you agree with that.

In theory? Or in practical application? ;)

Nah, doesn't matter. I don't think either of us would have to look hard to find some "downtrodden" that I'd recommend stepping on harder.

[Dutch]

Because granting the Bush Administration extralegal powers has brought Osama bin Laden to justice and so impacted Al Qaeda's ability to operate, of course....

And by the same token, it's made your life the living hell that it is.

Sorry, not buying it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Thankfully, rescinding the bill of rights in the face of The Greatest Threat Ever In the History of the United States (brown people) is a minority opinion, but it goes to show how atrocities can occur in modern countries. There are people here already that wouldn't stop until every brown person was in a prison somewhere, and we are supposedly the greatest country in the world. All you need is a scapegoat/enemy to rally people behind (Jews, brown people, Eurasia), and you can start to give the executive unlimited power.

[st.cronin]

Thankfully, rescinding the bill of rights in the face of The Greatest Threat Ever In the History of the United States (brown people) is a minority opinion, but it goes to show how atrocities can occur in modern countries. There are people here already that wouldn't stop until every brown person was in a prison somewhere, and we are supposedly the greatest country in the world. All you need is a scapegoat/enemy to rally people behind (Jews, brown people, Eurasia), and you can start to give the executive unlimited power.

I agree that we should be vigilant in regards to discrimination/racism. I still believe that we are the free-est, most open country in the history of the world. Brown people are not our enemy, and I don't think people believe they are. Radical Islam, however *IS* our enemy, and to deny that in the face of all the evidence would be stupid. They are not a scapegoat; they started it.

[JW]

And what about the agenda of the NYT. Let me see if I have all this straight.
1. The NYT reporter is soon releasing a book and is about to start a promotional blitz for the book.
2. The surveillance story is in the book.
3. The NYT says it had the story for months but held it.
4. The story was released the day after the Iraqi elections, knocking the successful elections from the front page of the NYT.
5. The story was released when the Patriot Act was up for a vote in the Senate and may have affected the vote of a few senators.

Now, leaving the merits of the story aside for a moment, does this all sound like coincidence or an agenda?

I frankly do not trust the NYT to tell the truth any more than I trust this administration.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

The best you got is the reporter is releasing a book? C'mon, that means I can safely ignore every single conservative writer because they always have a book coming out, and as such, may have an 'agenda.'

[Dutch]

Thankfully, rescinding the bill of rights in the face of The Greatest Threat Ever In the History of the United States (brown people) is a minority opinion.

So your strawman in this is that the US government isn't trying to protect us, it's under the guise of 'protection' to discriminate against people with brown skin.

When the terrorists operate strictly in the realm of theory, then I would agree with you. But in the meantime, I support their decision to deal with the threat seriously and support the measure.

[Flasch186]

And what about the agenda of the NYT. Let me see if I have all this straight.
1. The NYT reporter is soon releasing a book and is about to start a promotional blitz for the book.
2. The surveillance story is in the book.
3. The NYT says it had the story for months but held it.
4. The story was released the day after the Iraqi elections, knocking the successful elections from the front page of the NYT.
5. The story was released when the Patriot Act was up for a vote in the Senate and may have affected the vote of a few senators.

Now, leaving the merits of the story aside for a moment, does this all sound like coincidence or an agenda?

I frankly do not trust the NYT to tell the truth any more than I trust this administration.

why wouldnt they release it during the election....ridiculous, doesnt float, convenient for the argument, but doesnt float.

[Joe]

weren't the people being spied on only people that had known ties to terrorist organizations?

[SirFozzie]

Standard GW Motif: "Attack the Attacker."

Makes me wonder if he's a scientologist.

[Flasch186]

weren't the people being spied on only people that had known ties to terrorist organizations?


I dont believe that that has come out either way...the admin. does not want it to get out who was being spied on....so far.

[MrBigglesworth]

And what about the agenda of the NYT. Let me see if I have all this straight.
1. The NYT reporter is soon releasing a book and is about to start a promotional blitz for the book.
2. The surveillance story is in the book.
3. The NYT says it had the story for months but held it.
4. The story was released the day after the Iraqi elections, knocking the successful elections from the front page of the NYT.
5. The story was released when the Patriot Act was up for a vote in the Senate and may have affected the vote of a few senators.

Now, leaving the merits of the story aside for a moment, does this all sound like coincidence or an agenda?

I frankly do not trust the NYT to tell the truth any more than I trust this administration.
What is it that you think is their agenda, being as they held on to the story at the request of the federal government for 'national security' reasons?

[MrBigglesworth]

weren't the people being spied on only people that had known ties to terrorist organizations?
Someone in the administration said that every person spied on had 'clear ties' to Al-Q. So either that was an incorrect statement, or there are thousands of people in this country with clear ties to Al-Q that we've never bothered to charge with any crime.

EDIT: And furthermore, if there were 'clear ties', why not just get a warrant?

[st.cronin]

... or there are thousands of people in this country with clear ties to Al-Q that we've never bothered to charge with any crime.

That actually wouldn't surprise me in the least.

[MrBigglesworth]

So your strawman in this is that the US government isn't trying to protect us, it's under the guise of 'protection' to discriminate against people with brown skin.

When the terrorists operate strictly in the realm of theory, then I would agree with you. But in the meantime, I support their decision to deal with the threat seriously and support the measure.
I don't think you know what a strawman is. Making up an argument someoene didn't make and then attacking that argument is a strawman. See above.

[MrBigglesworth]

Radical Islam, however *IS* our enemy, and to deny that in the face of all the evidence would be stupid. They are not a scapegoat; they started it.
They started it did they? Bill Maher said, "The world didn't change on 9/11, we just joined the rest of it." Why is it do you think that radical Islam is our enemy? Because they hate our freedom?

People have this idealistic version of the United States. We aren't perfect, we messed up a lot of people's shit. We aren't benevolent promoters of democracy, some of our biggest allies are totalitarian (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan), some of our biggest antagonizers are democracies (Venezuela). Not everyone likes what is in the best interests of the United States. We are not a universal source of good. Overall we've done more good than bad, but that doesn't matter to the people who we've screwed over, and being surprised that they are pissed is a little naive.

[st.cronin]

They started it did they? Bill Maher said, "The world didn't change on 9/11, we just joined the rest of it." Why is it do you think that radical Islam is our enemy? Because they hate our freedom?

People have this idealistic version of the United States. We aren't perfect, we messed up a lot of people's shit. We aren't benevolent promoters of democracy, some of our biggest allies are totalitarian (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan), some of our biggest antagonizers are democracies (Venezuela). Not everyone likes what is in the best interests of the United States. We are not a universal source of good. Overall we've done more good than bad, but that doesn't matter to the people who we've screwed over, and being surprised that they are pissed is a little naive.

Every administration has gone out of our way to be generous to Islam. And I didn't say they started it on 9/11, although that definitely caught a lot of people's attention more so than the first time they bombed the Twin Towers, or the attack on the USS Cole.

They are our enemy because they SAY they are our enemy, in very clear language, and they keep attacking us. What part of that is hard to understand?

[Dutch]

I don't think you know what a strawman is. Making up an argument someoene didn't make and then attacking that argument is a strawman. See above.

As a rhetorical term, "straw man" describes a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument; the creator of a "straw man" argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous.

Your suggestion that our government is trying to defend America simply from "brown" people does 'mischaracterize' the govt's position.

Thankfully, rescinding the bill of rights in the face of The Greatest Threat Ever In the History of the United States (brown people) is a minority opinion

[JW]

What is it that you think is their agenda, being as they held on to the story at the request of the federal government for 'national security' reasons?

The agenda of the New York Times has been and is to discredit this administration. They are the Rove of the left, political attack dogs. They held the story only until a point of their choosing.

As to the timing, one can just as easily ask, "Why now?" as, "Why not now?" What better timing than now, one day after the Iraqi elections, moving the purples fingers off the front page all over the country. The same day as the Senate vote on the Patriot Act, possibly altering some votes. And on the eve of President Bush's speech to the nation.

I knew daring to suggest that the NYT might have its own agenda would irritate some folks here who apparently still believe the NYT is 'the' source of information for the nation, but I think it is clear that there is a media war going on here, too, with media outlets on the left (NYT, for example) and on the right (Fox News, for example), pushing their own versions of the truth.

[Tekneek]

Does it matter what their agenda is since it appears to be the truth? Bush could have revealed it anytime prior, if he had wanted to, but he chose to let the NYT do it for him.

[st.cronin]

The agenda of the New York Times has been and is to discredit this administration. They are the Rove of the left, political attack dogs.

This is a ludicrous assertion, and severely damages your credibility. The NY Times is financially viable because it's percieved as a quality, non-biased news source. It's editorial page is certainly slanted left, and the editorial staff probably all vote democratic, but I see no evidence whatsoever that they have any agenda except to sell papers and advertising and improve their brand.

[Dutch]

Does it matter what their agenda is since it appears to be the truth? Bush could have revealed it anytime prior, if he had wanted to, but he chose to let the NYT do it for him.

Well, for starters it is (was) a classified program.

It doesn't hurt the USA for you or I to know about it. It only hurts when the bad guys find out. And when they read the NYT the other day, they found out. That's why it wasn't revealed by our gov't.

[JW]

This is a ludicrous assertion, and severely damages your credibility. The NY Times is financially viable because it's percieved as a quality, non-biased news source. It's editorial page is certainly slanted left, and the editorial staff probably all vote democratic, but I see no evidence whatsoever that they have any agenda except to sell papers and advertising and improve their brand.

My credibility on the FOF forum is pretty low on my list of concerns.

As to the perception that the NYT is a quality, non-biased news source, that is certainly a perception some have. However, the recent history of the NYT and its lapses in journalist judgement and ethics might lead some to the opposite perception. You might read this recent UCLA study to see where the NYT ranks in a bias in this study.

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

As to the electronic eavesdropping itself, I don't think this is an open-and-shut case of the president violating the law. If the eavesdropping was on overseas communications only, as even the NYT states at this point, then I think the law might not be as clear as some think.

[John Galt]

My credibility on the FOF forum is pretty low on my list of concerns.

As to the perception that the NYT is a quality, non-biased news source, that is certainly a perception some have. However, the recent history of the NYT and its lapses in journalist judgement and ethics might lead some to the opposite perception. You might read this recent UCLA study to see where the NYT ranks in a bias in this study.

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

As to the electronic eavesdropping itself, I don't think this is an open-and-shut case of the president violating the law. If the eavesdropping was on overseas communications only, as even the NYT states at this point, then I think the law might not be as clear as some think.

The UCLA study, and others like it, is a joke. It uses the current congress as a baseline. Comparing mentions of advocacy groups to those by lawmakers in one of the most conservative congresses in modern history (if not the most) doesn't tell us very much.

edit: and your assertion about the NYT shows you know almost nothing about how media works. That Judy Miller sure was out to get the GOP.

[SirFozzie]

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin

Listen.. I am all for being safe, but not to the point that we are going, where we ARE trading essential liberties for temporary security.

[st.cronin]

My credibility on the FOF forum is pretty low on my list of concerns.

As to the perception that the NYT is a quality, non-biased news source, that is certainly a perception some have. However, the recent history of the NYT and its lapses in journalist judgement and ethics might lead some to the opposite perception. You might read this recent UCLA study to see where the NYT ranks in a bias in this study.

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

As to the electronic eavesdropping itself, I don't think this is an open-and-shut case of the president violating the law. If the eavesdropping was on overseas communications only, as even the NYT states at this point, then I think the law might not be as clear as some think.

Even if there was a pervasive liberal bias throughout the staff of the NYTimes, it's a huge leap to get from there to having an agenda of discrediting the current administration.

[MrBigglesworth]

Your suggestion that our government is trying to defend America simply from "brown" people does 'mischaracterize' the govt's position.
Dutch, I was commenting on people's opinions in this forum, not on the government.

[MrBigglesworth]

The agenda of the New York Times has been and is to discredit this administration. They are the Rove of the left, political attack dogs. They held the story only until a point of their choosing.

As to the timing, one can just as easily ask, "Why now?" as, "Why not now?" What better timing than now, one day after the Iraqi elections, moving the purples fingers off the front page all over the country. The same day as the Senate vote on the Patriot Act, possibly altering some votes. And on the eve of President Bush's speech to the nation.

I knew daring to suggest that the NYT might have its own agenda would irritate some folks here who apparently still believe the NYT is 'the' source of information for the nation, but I think it is clear that there is a media war going on here, too, with media outlets on the left (NYT, for example) and on the right (Fox News, for example), pushing their own versions of the truth.
Wow. As John Galt said, was Judy Miller a lefty partisan attack dog? This is the paper of David Brooks, Thomas Freidman, and John Tierney. Why would they even be employed by the NYT if what you say is correct? Al Franken doesn't work for FoxNews.

[Tekneek]

Well, for starters it is (was) a classified program.

It doesn't hurt the USA for you or I to know about it. It only hurts when the bad guys find out. And when they read the NYT the other day, they found out. That's why it wasn't revealed by our gov't.

There is no better job for the press than to act as a watchdog and let us know about shady activities our government is engaged in. If a "classified program" is illegal, then it needs to stop. I don't give a damn if killing the program allows Osama to walk down Pennsylvana Avenue.

Unlike some of you here, I don't think the "war on terror" is an "anything goes" kind of affair. It seems that even with their beloved Patriot Act, they will still go further than they are allowed. I've never been a fan of the Patriot Act and this development surely does not help.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

It's amazing how quickly every single political thread here devolves into bickering over whether the press hates Republicans...

[Joe]

It's amazing how quickly every single political thread here devolves into bickering over whether the press hates Republicans...

No, it's really not surprising.

[Flasch186]

yup, everytime something is exposed it is deny deny deny AND the media hates the Republicans. I just hope that the middle can see through it...remember, the beat the drum long enough motto has worked in the past.

[Flasch186]

It pisses me off that both sides have been briefed on this and were ok with it back in the day. If you dont call something to the carpet you are tacitly approving it. If Bush broke the law he should be called out on it, if he didnt so be it but its rather convenient now for the congress to be up in arms when they've been breifed on this before. They shouldve blown it up then, now too, but ealrier rather than later. phuck!!




Lawmakers Call for Domestic Spying Probe

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 52 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Democrats and Republicans called separately Sunday for congressional investigations into
President Bush's decision after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to allow domestic eavesdropping without court approval.
[0]


"The president has, I think, made up a law that we never passed," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.

Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Penn., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he intends to hold hearings.

"They talk about constitutional authority," Specter said. "There are limits as to what the president can do."

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada also called for an investigation, and House Democratic leaders asked Speaker
Dennis Hastert to create a bipartisan panel to do the same.

Bush acknowledged Saturday that since October 2001 he has authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails of people within the United States without seeking warrants from courts.

The New York Times disclosed the existence of the program last week. Bush and other administration officials initially refused to discuss the surveillance or their legal authority, citing security concerns.

"It's been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times, and, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law," Vice President
Dick Cheney said Sunday in an interview with ABC News "Nightline" to be broadcast Monday evening: "It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11."

President Bush and other administration officials also have said congressional leaders had been briefed regularly on the program. Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said there were no objections raised by lawmakers who were told about it.

"That's a legitimate part of the equation," McCain said on ABC's "This Week." But he said Bush still needs to explain why he chose to ignore the law that requires approval of a special court for domestic wiretaps.

Reid acknowledged he had been briefed on the four-year-old domestic spy program "a couple months ago" but insisted the administration bears full responsibility. Reid became Democratic leader in January.

"The president can't pass the buck on this one. This is his program," Reid said on "Fox News Sunday." "He's commander in chief. But commander in chief does not trump the Bill of Rights."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement Saturday that she had been told on several occasions about unspecified activities by the NSA. Pelosi said she expressed strong concerns at the time.

Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said on "Fox News Sunday" that Bush "has gone to great lengths to make certain that he is both living under his obligations to protect Americans from another attack but also to protect their civil liberties."

Several lawmakers weren't so sure. They pointed to a 1978 federal law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides for domestic surveillance under extreme situations, but only with court approval.

Specter said he wants Bush's advisers to cite their specific legal authority for bypassing the courts. Bush said the attorney general and White House counsel's office had affirmed the legality of his actions.

Appearing with Specter on CNN's "Late Edition," Feingold said Bush is accountable for the program regardless of whether congressional leaders were notified.

"It doesn't matter if you tell everybody in the whole country if it's against the law," said Feingold, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used in a manner "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it targets only international communications of people inside the U.S. with "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.

Government officials have refused to define the standards they're using to establish such a link or to say how many people are being monitored.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., called that troubling. If Bush is allowed to decide unilaterally who the potential terrorists are, he in essense becomes the court, Graham said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"We are at war, and I applaud the president for being aggressive," said Graham, who also called for a congressional review. "But we cannot set aside the rule of law in a time of war."

The existence of the NSA program surfaced as Bush was fighting to save the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the domestic anti-terrorism law enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Renewal of the law has stalled over some its most contentious provisions, including powers granted law enforcement to gain secret access to library and medical records and other personal data during investigations of suspected terrorist activity.

Democrats have urged Bush to support a brief extension of the law so that changes could be made in the reauthorization, but Bush has refused, saying he wants renewal now

[JPhillips]

JW: You do know that the NYT held the story for a year at the request of the administration?

[Dutch]

There is no better job for the press than to act as a watchdog and let us know about shady activities our government is engaged in. If a "classified program" is illegal, then it needs to stop. I don't give a damn if killing the program allows Osama to walk down Pennsylvana Avenue.

Unlike some of you here, I don't think the "war on terror" is an "anything goes" kind of affair. It seems that even with their beloved Patriot Act, they will still go further than they are allowed. I've never been a fan of the Patriot Act and this development surely does not help.

You're making up mystical opponents again. I have always defended the rights of journalists to do good investigative journalism, especially when dealing wtih politics.

However, I wonder how journalists are coming across classified programs like that. Somebody is leaking it and that's also very dangerous. Now, if I were a good investigative journalist that didn't get the scoop on the classified program, I'd go find out how the story was leaked, who leaked it, who they leaked it too. I mean, nowadays, who cares if anonymous sources are revealed, if the story is interesting enough.

And nobody here is suggesting the war on terror is an 'anything goes' kind of affair. But if there are terrorists in this country like they were before 9/11, I would be willing to have our Govt investigate persons of interest on my behalf. It's either that or let them investigate in reaction to bombs going off. Not sure the press is going to give them a green light going that route either.

Am I suggesting they should abuse this power? Absolutely not. But what I am suggesting, is that if they have the ability to stop a terror incident by quietly checking out some foreign visitors or some organizations that are doing suspicious activities....I'll give them my vote of support.

If it would make us feel better, we could (if we don't already) have an internal affairs branch that could keep track of such programs. The bottom line is, that it would be impossible to fight the war against these terror groups on the front pages of the NYT. It will never work that way.

During a war like this, your damned if you do and damned if you don't. But at least if you do, you have a fighting chance. In any event, I am not surprised we are taking such measures and I support them so long as they are in direct support of the global war on terror.

[MrBigglesworth]

Am I suggesting they should abuse this power? Absolutely not. But what I am suggesting, is that if they have the ability to stop a terror incident by quietly checking out some foreign visitors or some organizations that are doing suspicious activities....I'll give them my vote of support.
There you go with your strawman again. Guess what? Nobody is arguing against what you are saying. In fact, the left has this same exact argument. Nobody is against spying on Americans, we do it on people in the mob and drug dealers all the time. In fact, it is already legal and there is no debate about the ability of the government to quietly check on foreign visitors and even American citizens. The issue is that Bush broke the law and went without any oversight whatsoever for reasons that nobody can explain.

Civil liberties vs homeland security is not a zero sum game. Can you explain how what Bush did improves homeland security? You can't, because so far there has been no reason presented why that is the case. The actions involved in Bush's program are legal, it's the way he went about it that is illegal.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Dutch: This was illegal. Against the law. Their is a perfectly legal way they could've gotten warrants to investigate these people, and it was from a body (FISA) that had given the government a warrant everytime it wanted to. It wasn't like they had to go the 9th Circuit here. They had a perfectly valid legal way to do this and they chose not too or they had no real evidence that even the most open-minded judge would sign off on. Simple as that.

[sterlingice]

My credibility on the FOF forum is pretty low on my list of concerns.

As to the perception that the NYT is a quality, non-biased news source, that is certainly a perception some have. However, the recent history of the NYT and its lapses in journalist judgement and ethics might lead some to the opposite perception. You might read this recent UCLA study to see where the NYT ranks in a bias in this study.

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

As to the electronic eavesdropping itself, I don't think this is an open-and-shut case of the president violating the law. If the eavesdropping was on overseas communications only, as even the NYT states at this point, then I think the law might not be as clear as some think.Um... did you read that. "Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center."

SI

[sterlingice]

Is anybody else intensely curious as to what the ONE warrant that was refused was about, and why it was refused?Actually, that's been bugging me ever since hearing that story. Glad I'm not the only one ;)

SI

[flere-imsaho]

It doesn't hurt the USA for you or I to know about it. It only hurts when the bad guys find out. And when they read the NYT the other day, they found out. That's why it wasn't revealed by our gov't.

Kind of like when someone in the administration leaks the name of a CIA operative to the press, right? ;)

However, I wonder how journalists are coming across classified programs like that. Somebody is leaking it and that's also very dangerous. Now, if I were a good investigative journalist that didn't get the scoop on the classified program, I'd go find out how the story was leaked, who leaked it, who they leaked it too. I mean, nowadays, who cares if anonymous sources are revealed, if the story is interesting enough.

Oh, the irony.

[MrBigglesworth]

Here is an interesting theory, it makes sense: Bush was spying on journalists. This comes from a far-left partisan website (Americablog), but it makes sense to me:

1. Bush had the authority to go the court AFTER THE SURVEILLANCE and RETROACTIVELY get the warrant to do surveillance he'd already done. He didn't. The only reason I can come up with for why Bush would NOT go to the court after the fact is because he thought the court would slap him down. The court's greatest concern would likely be spying on US citizens, and an even greater concern would be spying on either members or Congress or the American media. If Bush were spying on American media, he might just lose this retroactive warrant.

2. Bush says that these were only Americans making phone calls to people with known Al Qaeda ties. That probably knocks out members of Congress, but it very much sounds like US journalists. Who else, other than terror cells, would be talking on a regular basis with people who might have ties to terrorism? American journalists working on stories.

It could even include US journalists talking to their bureaus abroad. Read again who Bush said the program is targeting (if you believe him):
"intercept the international communications of people with known links to Al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations."
What's a "known link"? Does a journalist who has contacts inside Al Qaeda have a "known link" to Al Qaeda? Well sure he does, he absolutely has links/contacts with Al Qaeda.

3. Bush says that revealing the details of his spy program would tell Al Qaeda what we were doing and stop the program from being effective. Again, journalists. Al Qaeda already knows we're monitoring phone calls and emails, we've been doing that for years. They also know that the Patriot Act lets Bush spy on Americans (with the appropriate court orders). So what about the revelation of this domestic spying program could possibly tip off Al Qaeda to something they already know we're doing? There has to be a new wrinkle to the program, something Al Qaeda never thought we'd do. Spy on US journalists.

If terrorists knew that Bush was monitoring every communication US journalists were having a lot of their foreign sources would dry up. As much as "the terrorists" think that the US is monitoring everything, they'd be more willing to trust a US journalist since they know we don't spy on our journalists in this country. Until now...

And here's another possibility. We outsource torture to foreign governmments, why wouldn't the Bush administration outsource surveillance of American citizens, including American journalists? It would be just the kind of too-cute-by-half move the Bush administration would come up with to obey the law against spying on US citizens while at the same time doing it. Ask your foreign government friends to do the spying on Americans for you.
Obviously it's all conjecture, if someone has a fact that refutes this I'd listen.

[Flasch186]

I only got to hear a bit of Bush's speech today but one thing I heard that I dd not like is that he said, "tapping conversations ocurred from calls originating overseas to the US and Vice Versa." Meaning calls that originated from, I assume, US citizens (sinceit swhat were talking about) to overseas. That I DO have a problem with. IMO, this is going to be a bigger deal than any of us anticipate at this juncture.

[Raiders Army]

I remember J. Jonah Jameson used his newspaper, The Daily Bugle, to discredit Spider-Man. The only good thing about it was that he bought pictures from Peter Parker, thus financing the webslinger whom he wanted to condemn.

[Flasch186]

huh

[st.cronin]

I'm not sure what the problem is there, but I don't think that's what's going on. Journalists using terrorists to advance their careers? Um, yeah, the government should be aware of those conversations.

My guess would be that it's wiretaps on people with vague ties to terrorists ... like somebody with a son traveling abroad who might potentially meet somebody they're curious about. That would be much more of a grey area.

[SFL Cat]

Why not afford that same "protection" to a foreign national??

God, this is like the stupidest thing I've ever read? Hell, why not just send everyone on the globe a welfare check?

[Warhammer]

The UCLA study, and others like it, is a joke. It uses the current congress as a baseline. Comparing mentions of advocacy groups to those by lawmakers in one of the most conservative congresses in modern history (if not the most) doesn't tell us very much.

edit: and your assertion about the NYT shows you know almost nothing about how media works. That Judy Miller sure was out to get the GOP.

The current Congress is pretty evenly split. The Senate is what, 52-48 right now? The House is more solidly Republican, but it is what 55% red? That's certainly more balanced than what we had in the 80s.

[Warhammer]

Um... did you read that. "Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center."

SI

They also explained why that was. Most of the links on the Drudge Report were to news organizations that actually wrote the article, and those articles lean left (coming from more left leavning organizations). They allude to the fact that most of the stuff Drudge writes is on the right side of the spectrum.

[Warhammer]

My faith in all journalism went out the window a few years ago when it dawned on me that newspapers and news shows are in the business of making money. That means that everything they do is trying to make a buck. Why does everyone perceive FOX News to be so far right? They filled a niche where there was no one previously. The end result is high ratings and big money because they have an entire side of the political spectrum to themselves.

[flere-imsaho]

God, this is like the stupidest thing I've ever read? Hell, why not just send everyone on the globe a welfare check?

Yes, let's go with your solution, and require everyone to obtain travel permits before travelling between states.

[Glengoyne]

I only got to hear a bit of Bush's speech today but one thing I heard that I dd not like is that he said, "tapping conversations ocurred from calls originating overseas to the US and Vice Versa." Meaning calls that originated from, I assume, US citizens (sinceit swhat were talking about) to overseas. That I DO have a problem with. IMO, this is going to be a bigger deal than any of us anticipate at this juncture.I think it is too early to predict how big this actually is.

I think the fact that Congress has been repeatedly briefed and those briefings didn't raise any flags makes me think this might be a lot of smoke but no real fire. The NYT report certainly paints a bleak picture, but the fact that the Whitehouse is out in front of the topic, proclaiming they are essentially on firm legal ground can't be ignored.

I have a feeling that this might replace Halliburton as the left's favorite rallying cry about the Administration's abuses. I won't mind that, if it actually amounts to anything. If it turns out to be a little a deal as the Halliburton "scandal", then I'll be tired of hearing about it.

[Flasch186]

I think it is too early to predict how big this actually is.

I think the fact that Congress has been repeatedly briefed and those briefings didn't raise any flags makes me think this might be a lot of smoke but no real fire. The NYT report certainly paints a bleak picture, but the fact that the Whitehouse is out in front of the topic, proclaiming they are essentially on firm legal ground can't be ignored.

I have a feeling that this might replace Halliburton as the left's favorite rallying cry about the Administration's abuses. I won't mind that, if it actually amounts to anything. If it turns out to be a little a deal as the Halliburton "scandal", then I'll be tired of hearing about it.

I LOVE the fact that the Admin was in front of this and appears to be begrudgingly open(er) about this. Like I have always maintained it is what I most want more than anything. However, if he broke this particular law, AND both sides of the aisle realize that it is too open and shut to toe party lines...the admin. might have a problem with this. If it is nothing, so be it (Halliburton and its subsidiaries STILL fleeced like there was no tomorrow...perhaps they cant ever be drag through the coals but all the accounting evidence shows major overcharges or undeliverables) but if it is that this law was broken I think it IS a very big deal.

[MrBigglesworth]

The NYT report certainly paints a bleak picture, but the fact that the Whitehouse is out in front of the topic, proclaiming they are essentially on firm legal ground can't be ignored.
Bush said in his speech today that he derives the authority to do the wiretapping from the authorization of force against Al-Q passed by congress. Basically, he said the he is above the law, and can do whatever he wants by Presidential fiat. That's his firm legal ground that you say can't be ignored. See any problems there?

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm not sure what the problem is there, but I don't think that's what's going on. Journalists using terrorists to advance their careers? Um, yeah, the government should be aware of those conversations.
Journalists have been meeting with terrorists and our enemies for decades, it's part of the free press. Surely this isn't coming as a surprise to you, that journalists interview terrorist organizations?

My guess would be that it's wiretaps on people with vague ties to terrorists ... like somebody with a son traveling abroad who might potentially meet somebody they're curious about. That would be much more of a grey area.
What is your guess then about why they didn't go to FISA?

[Glengoyne]

I LOVE the fact that the Admin was in front of this and appears to be begrudgingly open(er) about this. Like I have always maintained it is what I most want more than anything. However, if he broke this particular law, AND both sides of the aisle realize that it is too open and shut to toe party lines...the admin. might have a problem with this. If it is nothing, so be it (Halliburton and its subsidiaries STILL fleeced like there was no tomorrow...perhaps they cant ever be drag through the coals but all the accounting evidence shows major overcharges or undeliverables) but if it is that this law was broken I think it IS a very big deal.I agree.

With Halliburton...I'm talking about the fact that they were awarded the troop support contract even with the Cheney ties. That is essentially a non-story, because they are the player in that market. It's not like President Clinton didn't award the same type of contracts to Halliburton to support troops during his term. It should have been a non-story, yet many on the left are still up in arms about it. Regarding the overbillings and such, I think that is simply par for the course when dealing with government contractors. Not that they should get a free pass on that stuff, but we have a whole department full of accountants to police the contractors. They are there for a reason.

[Flasch186]

Biggles:

name something you support the pres. on? You are just too over the top IMO and too quick to hammer consistently without being open minded. IMO you are bad as BW or JIMG on the other side....no offense.

[st.cronin]

Journalists have been meeting with terrorists and our enemies for decades, it's part of the free press. Surely this isn't coming as a surprise to you, that journalists interview terrorist organizations?

It isn't a surprise, my point is that monitoring those conversations shouldn't be particularly controversial, except possibly to the journalists themselves.

As to why Fisa wasn't involved, I couldn't even begin to speculate.

[Flasch186]

well as a personal feeling about being listened to cannot be argued, since it's one's personal feelings BUT whether it is lawful or not can be. So while I appreciate your feelings, and hope you appreciate mine (wherein I dont want to be listened to) if he broke the law, I hope he gets impeached and you should to. No one, not even the citizen president is above the law.

[MrBigglesworth]

Biggles:

name something you support the pres. on? You are just too over the top IMO and too quick to hammer consistently without being open minded. IMO you are bad as BW or JIMG on the other side....no offense.
I disagree with nearly everything Bush has done. It's like a perfect storm, because I grew up a Republican until the late nineties. I am a card carrying ACLU social libertarian, so obviously low marks for Bush there (gay marriage, torture, Patriot Act, holding prisoners without trial, religion in the public sphere, overturning the law via presidential fiat, etc). I'm slightly economically conservative, whereas I believe tax cuts are fine if you reduce the budget at the same time to maintain a budget that reduces the deficit in terms of the time value of money, so obviously Bush gets low marks for that (wasteful Medicare bill, tax cuts everywhere, increasing budget deficits, increased military spending in wasteful areas, etc).

Foreign policywise, I was for the Afghan war. I was even for the Iraq war, until there weren't any WMD's and no threat found. But Afghanistan was left unfinished, and Iraq is an obvious clusterfvck. I think that you need to work with the rest of the world, so I am against the way he screwed up all of our alliances (the British people do not trust us even). I'm happy with what he is now doing in North Korea, but upset that he spent the entire election season disparaging Kerry for having the same view.

[st.cronin]

well as a personal feeling about being listened to cannot be argued, since it's one's personal feelings BUT whether it is lawful or not can be. So while I appreciate your feelings, and hope you appreciate mine (wherein I dont want to be listened to) if he broke the law, I hope he gets impeached and you should to. No one, not even the citizen president is above the law.

I can agree with this, but there's too much noise for me to make any sense of whether any laws were broken. I don't know how anybody can be sure one way or the other, unless they are an expert *and* know all the details of what was done. The allegations at this point are really vague and odd; you have to admit that.

[Flasch186]

I disagree with nearly everything Bush has done. It's like a perfect storm, because I grew up a Republican until the late nineties. I am a card carrying ACLU social libertarian, so obviously low marks for Bush there (gay marriage, torture, Patriot Act, holding prisoners without trial, religion in the public sphere, overturning the law via presidential fiat, etc). I'm slightly economically conservative, whereas I believe tax cuts are fine if you reduce the budget at the same time to maintain a budget that reduces the deficit in terms of the time value of money, so obviously Bush gets low marks for that (wasteful Medicare bill, tax cuts everywhere, increasing budget deficits, increased military spending in wasteful areas, etc).

Foreign policywise, I was for the Afghan war. I was even for the Iraq war, until there weren't any WMD's and no threat found. But Afghanistan was left unfinished, and Iraq is an obvious clusterfvck. I think that you need to work with the rest of the world, so I am against the way he screwed up all of our alliances (the British people do not trust us even). I'm happy with what he is now doing in North Korea, but upset that he spent the entire election season disparaging Kerry for having the same view.


So basically nothing...how are you anything more than a partisan shill then?

[MrBigglesworth]

It isn't a surprise, my point is that monitoring those conversations shouldn't be particularly controversial, except possibly to the journalists themselves.

As to why Fisa wasn't involved, I couldn't even begin to speculate.
My personal feeling is that the government spying on the press is going. I can see how that can be debated though.

What I don't think is debatable is doing it first of all without oversight, and second of all the attitude that the executive can overturn any law they want. That whole argument is based on a benevolent and all-knowing person weilding the power. But a benevolent and all-knowing person does not exist. It's why we have oversight and checks and balances.

[sterlingice]

So basically nothing...how are you anything more than a partisan shill then?Not to defend, but to play Devil's advocate: how is it a partisan shill if the particular person in power is the exact opposite of your beliefs?

SI

[Flasch186]

Not to defend, but to play Devil's advocate: how is it a partisan shill if the particular person in power is the exact opposite of your beliefs?

SI


because it doesnt seem that everything, he has done has followed party lines. Not EVERYTHING. Yet, Biggles stances do. So on the stuff that isnt party lined he should be able to admit that it is ok, but I havnt seen Biggles be able to do that.

[duckman]

This thread has taken an interesting turn......

[Flasch186]

This thread has taken an interesting turn......

I TOLD YOU a thousand times, I attack both sides equally. You should too. It shouldnt matter the party, see injustice, kick injustice, like Tara Reid, Where!?! in the mouth!!!!

[MrBigglesworth]

So basically nothing...how are you anything more than a partisan shill then?
I answered your question honestly, thoroughly, and with respect, despite the obvious rancor in the original. Apparently that wasn't good enough to expect the same respect in return. Pity.

To answer your second question, a partisan shill will go against his principles to argue for a party, even ignoring all evidence to the contrary with such statements as, 'I won't believe it until he admits to it'. I won't get into who does, but someone like JiMG does not fit this bill. As for myself, I've articulated my positions and my principles. If you find me arguing against them, please feel free to call me a partisan shill. If you are correct I will re-evaluate my position.

To be honest, I think you see the same things I do in the administration, but you go out of your way to praise Bush to appear 'balanced'. For example, your posts about Bush backing the McCain amendment. In reality, what happened was that Bush and Cheney tried their absolute best to destroy the amendment, then when McCain got a veto-proof majority Bush backed down instead of standing on his stated principles and vetoing the thing. You ignored all the evidence, and said that Bush was 'doing the right thing'. You actually got to the point where you were praising Bush for 'flip-flopping' to support an anti-torture bill that the Senate passed by about 90-2.

[MrBigglesworth]

because it doesnt seem that everything, he has done has followed party lines. Not EVERYTHING. Yet, Biggles stances do. So on the stuff that isnt party lined he should be able to admit that it is ok, but I havnt seen Biggles be able to do that.
If you are a social libertarian and fiscal conservative and you have a totalitarian minded, big deficit president, you aren't going to see eye to eye on many issues. What non-party line stuff are you referring to?

[Flasch186]

I answered your question honestly, thoroughly, and with respect, despite the obvious rancor in the original. Apparently that wasn't good enough to expect the same respect in return. Pity.

To answer your second question, a partisan shill will go against his principles to argue for a party, even ignoring all evidence to the contrary with such statements as, 'I won't believe it until he admits to it'. I won't get into who does, but someone like JiMG does not fit this bill. As for myself, I've articulated my positions and my principles. If you find me arguing against them, please feel free to call me a partisan shill. If you are correct I will re-evaluate my position.

since you corrected me on what is the definition of a Partisan Shill, I agree you are not.



To be honest, I think you see the same things I do in the administration, but you go out of your way to praise Bush to appear 'balanced'. For example, your posts about Bush backing the McCain amendment. In reality, what happened was that Bush and Cheney tried their absolute best to destroy the amendment, then when McCain got a veto-proof majority Bush backed down instead of standing on his stated principles and vetoing the thing. You ignored all the evidence, and said that Bush was 'doing the right thing'. You actually got to the point where you were praising Bush for 'flip-flopping' to support an anti-torture bill that the Senate passed by about 90-2.

When your motivations are questioned you say it is lack of respect but in the next statement attack my sincerity. I applaud the admin. when I think they do something right and I hammer them I think they do something wrong. Don't play both sides of the coin when you think that theyre convenient. You say youre sincere in your stances, why cant I be too? Or because I dont agree with you everytime, I must have some sort of alterior motive....at least I can admit when Im wrong or go against the party line when I feel I should.

[Flasch186]

If you are a social libertarian and fiscal conservative and you have a totalitarian minded, big deficit president, you aren't going to see eye to eye on many issues. What non-party line stuff are you referring to?

I cant go through them all, but could you simply give one, in which you back the admin.? It would be simpler than me having to go through everything you disagree with in your head to find something in your head you do. Shoot the pres. only had to come up with "one mistake"...im sure you can come up with one too.

[flere-imsaho]

I cant go through them all, but could you simply give one, in which you back the admin.?

Honestly Flasch....


Foreign policywise, I was for the Afghan war. I was even for the Iraq war, until there weren't any WMD's and no threat found. But Afghanistan was left unfinished, and Iraq is an obvious clusterfvck. I think that you need to work with the rest of the world, so I am against the way he screwed up all of our alliances (the British people do not trust us even). I'm happy with what he is now doing in North Korea, but upset that he spent the entire election season disparaging Kerry for having the same view.

[Flasch186]

each has a caveat...

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Um...there's no cavaet for the Afghan War. Also, he's saying he'd fine with Bush's stance on NK if he hadn't spent the whole election slapping Kerry around for putting forth the same exact idea.

[MrBigglesworth]

When your motivations are questioned you say it is lack of respect but in the next statement attack my sincerity. I applaud the admin. when I think they do something right and I hammer them I think they do something wrong. Don't play both sides of the coin when you think that theyre convenient. You say youre sincere in your stances, why cant I be too? Or because I dont agree with you everytime, I must have some sort of alterior motive....at least I can admit when Im wrong or go against the party line when I feel I should.
I think I wasn't clear. I was saying that you think you are being fair and balanced by praising Bush for things like supporting the McCain amendment. Caving in to an overwhelmingly popular position in order to not look like an idiot, while necessary at times, is not something worthy of praise. But you praise him for that and then say you are balanced. Dutch at least praises Bush for being pro-torture.

[MrBigglesworth]

Um...there's no cavaet for the Afghan War. Also, he's saying he'd fine with Bush's stance on NK if he hadn't spent the whole election slapping Kerry around for putting forth the same exact idea.
Actually, I did leave a caveat for the Afghan war: it was left unfinished. I don't think that is a controversial opinion (we don't have Osama after all, nor is Bush all that concerned with him), nor is it controversial to disapprove of a candidate castigating his opponent on the election trail for a stance that he plans to take after being elected. At least, I don't think they are 'partisan shill' level stances.

[MrBigglesworth]

I cant go through them all, but could you simply give one, in which you back the admin.?
This isn't Britian, here the burdon of proof is on the accuser. I've stated my principles and where I stand on social, economic, and foreign policy issues. If you want to label me a partisan shill, fair enough, but don't make me prove that I am not without giving any evidence that I am.

[flere-imsaho]

each has a caveat...

The world's not black and white, Flasch.

[Flasch186]

This isn't Britian, here the burdon of proof is on the accuser. I've stated my principles and where I stand on social, economic, and foreign policy issues. If you want to label me a partisan shill, fair enough, but don't make me prove that I am not without giving any evidence that I am.


...but i cant be in your brain. Only one would do, out of your brain....I cannot throw all issues on the wall and see which one sticks...

[flere-imsaho]

I think the fact that Congress has been repeatedly briefed and those briefings didn't raise any flags makes me think this might be a lot of smoke but no real fire.

However, Congress was repeatedly briefed on Iraq before the war and it now turns out that they weren't told everything. (http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm)

(Link is to a Congressional Research Services report)

Given this, I'd say it's certainly possible that Congress wasn't briefed on all the aspects of this intelligence operation.

[st.cronin]

There's nothing wrong with being a partisan shill. There's nothing wrong with being entirely pro-Bush or entirely anti-Bush, provided your conclusions are arrived at via reason and careful consideration and not knee-jerk reaction and emotion. Even though I can't remember the last time Biggles said something that surprised me, I believe him to be a thoughtful and sincere poster. There are others I have come across here (who shall remain nameless) whose posts are frequently devoid of thought. I don't typically engage them, except by accident.

[JW]

I'm just wondering how many of you think eavesdropping on international electronic traffic going to or from America is anything new. Here is a rather detailed look at the signals intelligence business from five years ago. Interestingly, the article contains about exactly what has happened with the current relevations of electronic eavesdropping. But my point is that, right or wrong, this is nothing new.

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html

I think Mara Liasson (sp?) of NPR made some good comments on Fox last night in a panel discussion. The general tenor of the conversation was that despite all the rhetoric, this is not some earthshattering Watergate-level disclosure. Mara said that her hope was that it would generate a debate on the whole issue of electronic eavesdropping.

[maxwarrior]

I think we are blowing this issue out of proportion. There is a problem with where you cross the line, but on this one I'm with the administration until we learn more. I understand the need for immediate reaction to possible terrorist info. From what I can gather thus far, we are talking about monitoring people whose numbers and names came up on captured Al-Quaida cells and lap tops. If we or Pakistan goes into a safe house and finds electronic equipment, we have no more than a day or two, but quite possibly hours to get current info. Remember, we are at war. The enemy is smart and flexible. The trail goes cold quickly. There is potential for abuse. Let's wait and see more details.
The idiots we elected to Congress will play politics and attack the other side at the drop of a hat. Both Dem. and Rep. They stopped doing the peoples business years ago. We'd be better off voting out most of them. Won't happen. The American electorate hates everyone elses representative not their own.

[Flasch186]

From what I can gather thus far, we are talking about monitoring people whose numbers and names came up on captured Al-Quaida cells and lap tops.

I have not heard that information from anywhere or anybody. Where did you gather this tidbit?

[maxwarrior]

I think we are blowing this issue out of proportion. There is a problem with where you cross the line, but on this one I'm with the administration until we learn more. I understand the need for immediate reaction to possible terrorist info. From what I can gather thus far, we are talking about monitoring people whose numbers and names came up on captured Al-Quaida cells and lap tops. If we or Pakistan goes into a safe house and finds electronic equipment, we have no more than a day or two, but quite possibly hours to get current info. Remember, we are at war. The enemy is smart and flexible. The trail goes cold quickly. There is potential for abuse. Let's wait and see more details.

The idiots we elected to Congress will play politics and attack the other side at the drop of a hat. Both Dem. and Rep. They stopped doing the peoples business years ago. We'd be better off voting out most of them. Won't happen. The American electorate hates everyone elses representative not their own.

BTW: I'd call myself a liberal Republican. I believe in Capitalism and believe we should narrow down entitlement programs. I am pro choice, but the constitution doesn't say religion isn't allowed in government. I believe I'm pretty much a Centrists.

[maxwarrior]

The NY Times in their story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=2

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm just wondering how many of you think eavesdropping on international electronic traffic going to or from America is anything new. Here is a rather detailed look at the signals intelligence business from five years ago. Interestingly, the article contains about exactly what has happened with the current relevations of electronic eavesdropping. But my point is that, right or wrong, this is nothing new.

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html

I think Mara Liasson (sp?) of NPR made some good comments on Fox last night in a panel discussion. The general tenor of the conversation was that despite all the rhetoric, this is not some earthshattering Watergate-level disclosure. Mara said that her hope was that it would generate a debate on the whole issue of electronic eavesdropping.
Again, the issue is not whether or not wiretapping or eavesdropping on electronic traffic is a good thing or not. The issue is Bush for some unknown reason circumvented the rules that we have in place and considered his branch of government above the law.

[maxwarrior]

Here's a piece:

"What the agency calls a "special collection program" began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, as it looked for new tools to attack terrorism. The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, they said.

In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said."

[MrBigglesworth]

I think we are blowing this issue out of proportion. There is a problem with where you cross the line, but on this one I'm with the administration until we learn more. I understand the need for immediate reaction to possible terrorist info. From what I can gather thus far, we are talking about monitoring people whose numbers and names came up on captured Al-Quaida cells and lap tops. If we or Pakistan goes into a safe house and finds electronic equipment, we have no more than a day or two, but quite possibly hours to get current info. Remember, we are at war. The enemy is smart and flexible. The trail goes cold quickly. There is potential for abuse. Let's wait and see more details.
The idiots we elected to Congress will play politics and attack the other side at the drop of a hat. Both Dem. and Rep. They stopped doing the peoples business years ago. We'd be better off voting out most of them. Won't happen. The American electorate hates everyone elses representative not their own.
Again, this is a red herring. Current law allows everything that you are talking about: the NSA can start wiretapping someone immediately, and they have 72 hours to get a retroactive warrant. Ironically, I bet the 'idiots in Congress' are aware of this, which is why they may be upset.

[Flasch186]

interesting.

I still have a problem with them listening to Us citizens phone calls that are dialed from our borders.

[maxwarrior]

I'm not sure of the line here myself. It's not exactly a red herring. Let's say a gray one. :) If the NSA created a "Top Secret" program, then they could not go to the judge. They be illegal in doing so. On the other side, if the judges basically always agreed to the warrants then what difference does it make other than to keep it a secret so the enemy doesn't have a way to realize what we are doing. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but if arrested I could fight it in court. If it stops other terrorist attacks, I think I can live with it. I still need more time to digest this. I'm leaning toward stopping the terrorist first.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm not sure of the line here myself. It's not exactly a red herring. Let's say a gray one. :) If the NSA created a "Top Secret" program, then they could not go to the judge. They be illegal in doing so. On the other side, if the judges basically always agreed to the warrants then what difference does it make other than to keep it a secret so the enemy doesn't have a way to realize what we are doing. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but if arrested I could fight it in court. If it stops other terrorist attacks, I think I can live with it. I still need more time to digest this. I'm leaning toward stopping the terrorist first.
Again, this argument depends on the divine benevolence and omniscience of the executive branch. Unfortunately, nobody is like this. Unchecked power will be abused. Thousands of people are able to be monitored without oversight, suddenly not all of them are related to Al-Q and/or terrorism. That's why we have checks and balances and oversight in our government.

And still, it is against the law. If Bush wants unchecked power he can go to the Congress and ask for it, but I doubt they would give it to him. That's no reason to willingly break the law.

[maxwarrior]

You can make the case they did in their Joint Resolution after 9/11.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html

I don't believe they neccessarily intended for it to be carte blanche, but it does say:

"SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

This is an interesting issue. The Presidents powers during war or eminent threat has always been debated. This may make it to the Supreme Court. The arguments are many on both sides. It should be fasinating.

I just feel internet and cell phones are open. You always know someone can be watching. You use the public air waves with your cell phone. Do you really have privacy? I'm not sure you do. New technology is changing the rules kinda. These are debates we need to have.

[MrBigglesworth]

You can make the case they did in their Joint Resolution after 9/11.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html

I don't believe they neccessarily intended for it to be carte blanche, but it does say:

"SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

This is an interesting issue. The Presidents powers during war or eminent threat has always been debated. This may make it to the Supreme Court. The arguments are many on both sides. It should be fasinating.

I just feel internet and cell phones are open. You always know someone can be watching. You use the public air waves with your cell phone. Do you really have privacy? I'm not sure you do. New technology is changing the rules kinda. These are debates we need to have.
Under what definition is wiretapping a 'use of force'? Why would congress pass AUMF, then a month or so later pass the Patriot Act, since by your reading of the AUMF the executive would already hold the power to do whatever the hell they please?

[MrBigglesworth]

Couple of points from further reading I've done:

1) Some have suggested that members of congress have either signed off on or conducted oversight of the President's NSA program. Pelosi and Rockefeller have said that they were briefed in secret, were not allowed to confer with aides, and were not allowed to talk about anything in the meetings. Furthermore, they have both produced copies of letters they sent to the administration saying that they do NOT approve of the program. So Bush conferring with congress seems to be incorrect in the true sense of the word.

2) Another thing going around is that the wiretapping is some kind of new technology, perhaps data mining, that is both impossible to gain individual warrants for and also of questionable legal merit, since the FISA judges reportedly warned the administration not to bring any of the program's collected data in to gain a real warrant. This is based off of Bush's parsing of the words 'monitoring' and 'detecting', Rockefeller's letter objecting to not allowing his technical aides to be briefed on the program, and Bill Keller of the NYT's saying they omitted certain technical information.

[John Galt]

The key question for all of this is: why didn't the Bush administration use the FISA court?

FISA allows surveillance to start before the warrant is obtained which means there is no good emergency argument (you just have to apply for the warrant within 72 hours).

FISA plainly makes what the administration did unlawful. That means the authorization of force is irrelevant (principles of statuory construction mean that unless the authorization specifically repealed parts of FISA, FISA is presumed intact). Further, that means the president can only argue parts of FISA are unconstitutional restrictions of Article II power (which is a VERY tough argument to make).

FISA approves 99.9% of the warrants applied for, so it hasn't been much of an obstacle in the past. Gonzales said yesterday that they believed these searches wouldn't have been approved by the FISA court. If that really is the case, it makes me wonder what was really being searched by the NSA. Of course, I seriously doubt we will ever find out who was being tapped.

[JW]

Again, the issue is not whether or not wiretapping or eavesdropping on electronic traffic is a good thing or not. The issue is Bush for some unknown reason circumvented the rules that we have in place and considered his branch of government above the law.

Circumvented the rules. Probably.

Considered his branch of government above the law. Opinion.

[flere-imsaho]

I understand the need for immediate reaction to possible terrorist info. From what I can gather thus far, we are talking about monitoring people whose numbers and names came up on captured Al-Quaida cells and lap tops. If we or Pakistan goes into a safe house and finds electronic equipment, we have no more than a day or two, but quite possibly hours to get current info.

That's fine, but let's not forget that FISA allows for an application for a warrant up to 72 hours after the surveillance.

The law, as it is written, does not stop intelligence agencies from collecting information quickly, if necessary. All it does is ask that they provide evidence, after the fact, that their motive for gathering that information was at least reasonable.

Is that too much to ask?

In the example you give, I can see no reason why the agency in question wouldn't be able to provide a reasonable justification for the warrant in the 72 hours after they started the surveillance. In fact, I'm sure it would be relatively straightforward for the field agents to go ahead with the surveillance while some analyst back in the States just got the paperwork together.

[flere-imsaho]

I still have a problem with them listening to Us citizens phone calls that are dialed from our borders.

So you're OK with eavesdropping on U.S. citizens' phone calls that are dialled from outside our borders? How about eavesdropping on U.S. citizens' phone calls when it is suspected the U.S. citizen is working with Al Qaeda?

Where do you draw the line? And why do you draw the line there?

No offense, Flasch, but your arguments seem to consist more of arbitrary delineations than logical consistency.

[Flasch186]

yeah, I think its silly that they just didnt go to the Secret court after the tap. Just seems silly, possibly illegal, but at the least silly.

[Flasch186]

So you're OK with eavesdropping on U.S. citizens' phone calls that are dialled from outside our borders? How about eavesdropping on U.S. citizens' phone calls when it is suspected the U.S. citizen is working with Al Qaeda?

Where do you draw the line? And why do you draw the line there?

No offense, Flasch, but your arguments seem to consist more of arbitrary delineations than logical consistency.

If a US citizen is overseas, than I am ok with their call being listened to. IF a US citizen is suspected with woreking with Al Qaeda then Absolutely listen and go to the FISA court after the fact, if you cant before. I am ok with US citizens having their call listened to when it originates outside of our borders AND they are suspected or linked to a terrorist organization AND the FISa courts agree. I draw the line where my opinion, based on the information I have chooses to draw the line. Luckily, in this country, I have that right.

[flere-imsaho]

If the NSA created a "Top Secret" program, then they could not go to the judge.

Huh? All you need is a judge who can obtain "Top Secret" clearance. Which, I have to point out, is exactly what the Executive Branch did on a regular basis during the Cold War.

Executive Branch: "We need to be able to conduct searches/eavesdropping on suspected Soviet agents and keep those activities secret."

Legislative Branch: "We understand this need, but we're worried about checks & balances. As long as you can get a federal judge to review and allow these warrants, even 72 hours after the fact, we're OK with that."

Executive Branch: "Judicial, do you have judges who can obtain this kind of clearance and work on this kind of timetable."

Judicial Branch: "Sure, most of us don't have lives anyway."

If it stops other terrorist attacks, I think I can live with it.

Removing the need for any Law Enforcement Officer to obtain a warrant before a search would also probably stop any further terrorist attacks. Let's do that.

[flere-imsaho]

This is an interesting issue. The Presidents powers during war or eminent threat has always been debated. This may make it to the Supreme Court. The arguments are many on both sides. It should be fasinating.

On this, I can certainly agree. I think one of the key issues this presents is that the Executive Branch has become historically less likely to call for a Declaration of War when engaging in military action. In fact, a Declaration of War may never happen again in this country. As a result, the bounds for military action have been muddied. How to resolve this is certainly a question for debate.

I just feel internet and cell phones are open. You always know someone can be watching. You use the public air waves with your cell phone. Do you really have privacy? I'm not sure you do. New technology is changing the rules kinda. These are debates we need to have.

I don't think so. Sending emails and using cell phones isn't akin to shouting down the street at someone. You're suggesting that these communications can be passively intercepted and read/heard, like you would if you overheard someone shouting down the street. That really isn't true. Someone must still actively decide to intercept and read/listen to these communications.

[flere-imsaho]

If a US citizen is overseas, than I am ok with their call being listened to.

I am ok with US citizens having their call listened to when it originates outside of our borders AND they are suspected or linked to a terrorist organization AND the FISa courts agree.

Is the second quote a clarification of the first, or a separate instance?

[Flasch186]

2 seperate things:

in the first one a US citizen would have traveled overseas, and made a call. in the seoncd one a Us Citizen is within our states and a call originates overseas and comes here. Both I think should have to go to Fisa before or after the tapping, though.

[cartman]

Hmm, as recently as last year, Bush said that ALL wiretaps would require a court order. Check this page, and search in the text for "wiretap". It's about halfway down the page. WTF? There is no consistency between this statement and what he said on Sunday night.

http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2004/Apr/21-381579.html

Here is the excerpt:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

[Glengoyne]

Hmm, as recently as last year, Bush said that ALL wiretaps would require a court order. Check this page, and search in the text for "wiretap". It's about halfway down the page. WTF? There is no consistency between this statement and what he said on Sunday night.

http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2004/Apr/21-381579.html

Here is the excerpt:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.I think that addresses traditional targetted Wiretaps. I'm beginning to think that what we are talking about goes beyond listening in on a specific phone or phone call.

I do find it interesting that members of Congress are on the record, so to speak, denouncing the program. That shows that this might actually be something out of the ordinary.

I'm certainly not ready to declare that the President has determined that he or his office is above the law. There's simply not enough information out to honestly make that sort of determination. We won't really know anything about this until the facts come out.

[flere-imsaho]

I do find it interesting that members of Congress are on the record, so to speak, denouncing the program. That shows that this might actually be something out of the ordinary.

Specifically, Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, wrote the following letter (http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/12/senator_rockefe.php) to the VP after being "briefed" on this, in 2003:

July 17, 2003
Dear Mr. Vice President,
I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, and Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.

Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance.

Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or techical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.

I appreciate your consideration of my views.

Most respectfully,

Jay Rockefeller

Also, possibly more problematic for the White House, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), had this to say (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/18/ftn/main856364.shtml):


Bob: ...does he have that authority, Senator?

Graham: I don't know of any legal basis to go around that. There may be some, but I'm not aware of it. And here's the concern I have-we can’t become an outcome-based democracy. Even in a time of war, you have to follow the process, because that's what a democracy is all about-a process.


And that's exactly my point. To recap, here's the way things happened:

1. After getting Congress' approval to go after terrorists, the Bush Admin comes up with a plan to electronically eavesdrop on potential threats, which may include Americans. They believe they do not have to comply with FISA because of their reading of Congress' approval to go after terrorists. Question: Why worry about complying with FISA, when no other Administration, including the Bush Administration, ever had trouble complying with it?

2. For some reason, the White House lets members of the House/Senate Intelligence Committees know about their plans in Top Secret, can't-talk-to-your-aides meetings. Members of Congress express concerns, even in writing, but can't do anything because of "national security". Question: Why not address these concerns? Especially when if the story ever comes out, you're going to get dinged politically for not doing so? Was either side playing partisan politics in closed session, top secret intelligence committee meetings about national security?

[flere-imsaho]

President Bush, 4/20/04: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html)

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.

Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law. We couldn't use these against terrorists, but we could use against gangs.

[maxwarrior]

Been doing some research. US Code 50-36 is pretty interesting. section 1801, 1802 and 1811 rather pertinent to our discussion. It does seem as Congress intended to give the President a lot of flexibility. Some of it with no court order needed ever. I'm no lawyer, but I do work with Fiscal laws and regulations daily. With respect to them, you can only do things the laws says you can do and not the other way around. Most people think you can do what you want unless the law says no. That is true for no government entities and regular citizens. As an agent of the government I can other do things authorized by Congress. I would assume this same definition applies to the office of the President. Here is section 1801:

Section 1811. Authorization during time of war

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the
Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a
court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence
information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days
following a declaration of war by the Congress.


The question here seems to be are we at war? This section clearly authorizes the President to make the call I think. I see no restrictions. Section 1801 also has an opening where no warrant is needed or even needed after the fact, but the Attorney General would need to brief Congress and give a sealed copy of the authorization to the court.

This looks like it will definitely come down to the lawyers as both viewpoints have a valid argument the way I read things. Lawyers have a great job. They make their own rules with they interpret and police themselves. Nice racket. Job security.

[bronconick]

The restriction there would be the 15 day limit.

That would imply that the end of warrantless searches would have occurred on September 30th, 2001.

1802 includes the situations where you can opt to not use a warrant, however it includes this line

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
hxxp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html

Those are the touchy spots as far as I can tell. I expect it to be muddied up for the next 3 years or so without any change, barring a new breakthrough of information.

[maxwarrior]

I take it different. I believe it authorizes an act of survellance for 15 days each. I have two weeks to listen in each time.

[cartman]

I take it different. I believe it authorizes an act of survellance for 15 days each. I have two weeks to listen in each time.

The key part of that is "Declaration of war by Congress". In this instance, that hasn't happened. They have only authorized the use of force. A very big difference. The last time Congress declared war was after Pearl Harbor.

[John Galt]

I take it different. I believe it authorizes an act of survellance for 15 days each. I have two weeks to listen in each time.

I don't think anyone is arguing 1811 applies to the present case.

[KWhit]

There has absolutely not been a declaration of war here. 1811 does not apply.

[maxwarrior]

Is there a difference? I see them as one and the same, but again, it's a lawyer type issue. Here is the resolution:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blsjres23.htm

It sure sounds like a declaration of war. Plus, all Presidents have fought with Congress over the breadth of the War Powers Act, which this resolution seems to invoke. If it is in play, then I would say the use of force in the 14 Sep resolution and the War powers act make this a war. That still leaves us with the same basic questions. Also, is it illegal to snoop on Mr Al-Quaida in Pakistan because he's talking to someone in the US. I think not. If you say it is, then you would seem to believe if he calls an accomplice in England we can listen, if he calls one in LA we can't. Doesn't make sense to me, but again I'm not a lawyer.

[cartman]

Is there a difference? I see them as one and the same, but again, it's a lawyer type issue. Here is the resolution:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blsjres23.htm

It sure sounds like a declaration of war. Plus, all Presidents have fought with Congress over the breadth of the War Powers Act, which this resolution seems to invoke. If it is in play, then I would say the use of force in the 14 Sep resolution and the War powers act make this a war. That still leaves us with the same basic questions. Also, is it illegal to snoop on Mr Al-Quaida in Pakistan because he's talking to someone in the US. I think not. If you say it is, then you would seem to believe if he calls an accomplice in England we can listen, if he calls one in LA we can't. Doesn't make sense to me, but again I'm not a lawyer.

Congress has to explicity declare war. It is in the Constitution. Anything else is just a police action or an authorization to use force.

As for the scenario you presented, that is the exact purpose of the FISA act. We can listen on the call to LA, but a court order has to be done. The FISA act even allows after-the-matter court orders to be filed, so there is no "urgent need" defense to go around FISA.

My uncle is ex-NSA, you should hear him going off on the current situation...
:D

[maxwarrior]

Where does it say in the constitution there has to be a document or bill that says "Declaration of War"? It says the Congress has the power to declare war. It never says the format of the declaration. If Congress says, do everything necessary to include the use of military force, I'd say it declared war.

This site agrees with my position:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declare_war

I'm sure all don't, but it proves the issue is debatable.

[cartman]

Where does it say in the constitution there has to be a document or bill that says "Declaration of War"? It says the Congress has the power to declare war. It never says the format of the declaration. If Congress says, do everything necessary to include the use of military force, I'd say it declared war.

This site agrees with my position:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declare_war

I'm sure all don't, but it proves the issue is debatable.

Explicity declaring war brings international treaties into the matter. If Congress passes a named "Declaration of War", then NATO and SEATO, among others get involved.

Historically, the bar has been set pretty high for the declaration to explicity state "Declaration of War" so that there is no ambiguity on the matter.

[JPhillips]

But I think because the U.S. has a very clear history of what "Declaration of War" means it would be hard to argue that the authorization of force resolution is the same thing. It may be arguable, but I'd hate to rest my fate on trying to convince a judge that declaration of war isn't a defined term.

[maxwarrior]

Then where does it say Congress can authorize the use of force? Are we saying if the President sends in troops by ourselves without invoking treaties and stuff then it's OK because it isn't a "Declared War" which only Congress can do. No. There is no real difference that I can see. The Joint Resolution references the War Powers Act, which gives the President to use US troops with foreign troops and with treaty obligations.

http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm

I think we have an issue where the President was clearly acting with a conviction to protect the country and did not believe the acts are illegal. I'm not positive they are 100% legal, but I can see where his advisors believe they are acting properly. Thus, the real debate is where do we go from here. I think we need a single legal opinion and establish Rules of Engagement from here on. I personnally would rather have the President err on the side of safety. I also believe if I was one of the ones listened too and the government decided to arrest me I'd be able to beat it as a citizen. If we stopped any terrorist acts then it is worth it.

[Flasch186]

There is no reason for the president not to have gone to FISA retroactively for the warrants. None. It is a secret court so there was no worry of it getting out. IT was at minimal an oversight and at worst, manipulative and egomaniacal. Some from Both sides of the aisle are stating that they never intended for the act to be used in such a manner.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Here's the thing. I know what they want to do. I know they are evil men. I realize there is a threat.

If we closed the airports and interned all the muslims, we would be safer. If we spent all of our money scanning cargo freight and ports, we would be safer. If we turned to martial law, we would be safer.

I accept that my way of thinking makes us less safe. We would be safer if we allowed our government to act more like the KGB (I am not saying they do).

It is a balancing act. It is my belief that there is something that makes the US different than most nations on earth. A couple hundred years ago we decided to do something that had never been done. It was the grandest of experiments. Self rule. Protection from our government. We are still in the infancy of that experiment, and it is more fragile than some realize. It is easy to maintain when there is no danger. The real tests come when we face obstacles like these. Do we give the power back to the government due to fear, or do we fight to keep the liberties we have? Without those liberties, what are we fighting for?

[MrBigglesworth]

Section 1811. Authorization during time of war

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the
Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a
court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence
information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days
following a declaration of war by the Congress.
I take it different. I believe it authorizes an act of survellance for 15 days each. I have two weeks to listen in each time.
If you want to find tortured rationales, this might be a good place to try to twist words. But it's clear that it says "fifteen days following a declaration of war by the Congress", and it's clear that the original intent of the law is to allow the President to obtain emergency intelligence for a war that may have come out of nowhere.

[maxwarrior]

Every recent President has fought Congress over there War Powers. They've all pushed the envolope to do what they think needed to be done. If it was an ego thing, then why brief Congress. Just do it because I can, I'm the man. Anyone believe it was done to try and protect us with no other motives. Most early polls I've seen show most Americans see it as uncontitutional but have no real problem with it. Pretty interesting.

[Buccaneer]

Here's the thing. I know what they want to do. I know they are evil men. I realize there is a threat.

If we closed the airports and interned all the muslims, we would be safer. If we spent all of our money scanning cargo freight and ports, we would be safer. If we turned to martial law, we would be safer.

I accept that my way of thinking makes us less safe. We would be safer if we allowed our government to act more like the KGB (I am not saying they do).

It is a balancing act. It is my belief that there is something that makes the US different than most nations on earth. A couple hundred years ago we decided to do something that had never been done. It was the grandest of experiments. Self rule. Protection from our government. We are still in the infancy of that experiment, and it is more fragile than some realize. It is easy to maintain when there is no danger. The real tests come when we face obstacles like these. Do we give the power back to the government due to fear, or do we fight to keep the liberties we have? Without those liberties, what are we fighting for?
Sheesh Jesse, that's a lot to think about and to respond to.

[maxwarrior]

Some interesting reading:

In 2002, that FISA review court upheld the president's warrantless search powers, referencing a 1980 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. That court held that "the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power," wrote the court.

"The Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, which is the highest court that's looked at these questions, has said that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence and Congress cannot take away that constitutional authority. That's a pretty good argument," Bryan Cunningham, former National Security Council legal adviser, told FOX News.

Cunningham offered several other circumstances under which FISA warrants would be unnecessary.

"If the physical interceptions were done outside the United States and if it were the communications of the foreign person that were targeted, not the person inside the United States, or if the person inside the United States was not found to be a U.S. person — that is a citizen or resident or permanent resident alien — then those circumstances would potentially take this out of FISA, and therefore, not require a FISA warrant," he said. "It principally depends on where the collection is being done".

[cartman]

Most early polls I've seen show most Americans see it as uncontitutional but have no real problem with it. Pretty interesting.

I'm pretty sure that the Japanese Internment after Pearl Harbor was viewed the same way. A US Citizen is a US Citizen, in the eyes of the Constitution there are not different classes of citizens.

[cartman]

Some interesting reading:

In 2002, that FISA review court upheld the president's warrantless search powers, referencing a 1980 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. That court held that "the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power," wrote the court.

"The Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, which is the highest court that's looked at these questions, has said that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence and Congress cannot take away that constitutional authority. That's a pretty good argument," Bryan Cunningham, former National Security Council legal adviser, told FOX News.

Cunningham offered several other circumstances under which FISA warrants would be unnecessary.

"If the physical interceptions were done outside the United States and if it were the communications of the foreign person that were targeted, not the person inside the United States, or if the person inside the United States was not found to be a U.S. person — that is a citizen or resident or permanent resident alien — then those circumstances would potentially take this out of FISA, and therefore, not require a FISA warrant," he said. "It principally depends on where the collection is being done".

All of these reference foreign sources or persons. This kind of intelligence gathering is what the NSA does day in and day out. If the person is a US Citizen, then you have to have a warrant. No ifs and or buts.

[maxwarrior]

Did we use the info against Americans or on the terrorists. Agian, I'm not sure it is a problem if the government is spying on a foreign individual and some of the calls are to or from the US proper. If Osama calls a buddy in Chicago and tells him to make his move, I sure hope we are listening in. I don't care if there is a warrant or not. We're not talking about US people talking in the US to each other be spyed on without a warrant. I see a big difference. When a US citizen travels overseas, you go thru customs coming back. Your bags or you can be searched. No warrant needed. Whats the difference? There's no probable case there.

[maxwarrior]

Jesse, you did a much better job than me describing the big picture. Where do we draw the line.

[Buccaneer]

Most early polls I've seen show most Americans see it as uncontitutional but have no real problem with it. Pretty interesting.

Wouldn't that assume that most Americans understand the Constitution?

[maxwarrior]

You are right Buccaneer, most Americans don't even know state capitals never mind the nuances of the constitution. They generally listen to their favorites. Thus, each party is getting out their talking points on the issue. It's all about politics and that's the problem. It really is about the Constitution and how new technologies and the growing world complexities today affect our "great experiment" as Jesse stated. We are in a far different world today. The great thing is our founding fathers gave us a flexible and balanced document, but our enemies will use our freedoms against us.

[Buccaneer]

You are right Buccaneer, most Americans don't even know state capitals never mind the nuances of the constitution. They generally listen to their favorites. Thus, each party is getting out their talking points on the issue. It's all about politics and that's the problem. It really is about the Constitution and how new technologies and the growing world complexities today affect our "great experiment" as Jesse stated. We are in a far different world today. The great thing is our founding fathers gave us a flexible and balanced document, but our enemies will use our freedoms against us.
And the blame solely lies with Jefferson and Hamilton.

To go off on a tangent, I have been doing some readings lately on Constitutional history and have jumped on the bandwagon that the fallibility of the Constitution was in its unforeseen rise of political parties or perhaps, in its naivete in not anticipating political (oppositional) parties.

[Flasch186]

And the blame solely lies with Jefferson and Hamilton.

To go off on a tangent, I have been doing some readings lately on Constitutional history and have jumped on the bandwagon that the fallibility of the Constitution was in its unforeseen rise of political parties or perhaps, in its naivete in not anticipating political (oppositional) parties.


I agree, the perfection of the constitution is its mallability BUT the advent of the powerful politcal parties and their trappings have made it so that the Consititution has become a tool to beat up the adversary.

[Buccaneer]

I agree, the perfection of the constitution is its mallability BUT the advent of the powerful politcal parties and their trappings have made it so that the Consititution has become a tool to beat up the adversary.
Uh...ok.

[st.cronin]

Just throwing this out there to see if it sticks...

Is it possible that what the intelligence is going to be used for makes any difference? For example, if it has been determined that the intelligence will never be used in any criminal proceeding, but instead will only be used for bona fide military operations (overseas, as in finding bin Laden perhaps) ... could that impact the legality of what we're talking about?

[Glengoyne]

Here's George Will's take on this so far. I intended to post this earlier,but the board wouldn't let me.


Why Didn't He Ask Congress?
By George F. Will
Tuesday, December 20, 2005; A31


The president's authorization of domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency contravened a statute's clear language. Assuming that urgent facts convinced him that he should proceed anyway and on his own, what argument convinced him that he lawfully could?

Presumably the argument is that the president's implied powers as commander in chief, particularly with the nation under attack and some of the enemy within the gates, are not limited by statutes. A classified legal brief probably makes an argument akin to one Attorney General John Ashcroft made in 2002: "The Constitution vests in the president inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority."

Perhaps the brief argues, as its author, John Yoo -- now a professor of law at Berkeley but then a deputy assistant attorney general -- argued 14 days after Sept. 11, 2001, in a memorandum on "the president's constitutional authority to conduct military operations against terrorists and nations supporting them," that the president's constitutional power to take "military actions" is "plenary." The Oxford English Dictionary defines "plenary" as "complete, entire, perfect, not deficient in any element or respect."

The brief should be declassified and debated, beginning with this question: Who decides which tactics -- e.g., domestic surveillance -- should be considered part of taking "military actions''?

Without more information than can be publicly available concerning threats from enemies operating in America, the executive branch deserves considerable discretion in combating terrorist conspiracies using new technologies such as cell phones and the Internet. In September 2001, the president surely had sound reasons for desiring the surveillance capabilities at issue.

But did he have sound reasons for seizing them while giving only minimal information to, and having no formal complicity with, Congress? Perhaps. But Congress, if asked, almost certainly would have made such modifications of law as the president's plans required. Courts, too, would have been compliant. After all, on Sept. 14, 2001, Congress had unanimously declared that "the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism," and it had authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" against those involved in Sept. 11 or threatening future attacks.

For more than 500 years -- since the rise of nation-states and parliaments -- a preoccupation of Western political thought has been the problem of defining and confining executive power. The problem is expressed in the title of a brilliant book, "Taming the Prince: The Ambivalence of Modern Executive Power," by Harvey Mansfield, Harvard's conservative.

Particularly in time of war or the threat of it, government needs concentrated decisiveness -- a capacity for swift and nimble action that legislatures normally cannot manage. But the inescapable corollary of this need is the danger of arbitrary power.

Modern American conservatism grew in reaction against the New Deal's creation of the regulatory state, and the enlargement of the executive branch power that such a state entails. The intellectual vigor of conservatism was quickened by reaction against the Great Society and the aggrandizement of the modern presidency by Lyndon Johnson, whose aspiration was to complete the project begun by Franklin Roosevelt.

Because of what Alexander Hamilton praised as "energy in the executive," which often drives the growth of government, for years many conservatives were advocates of congressional supremacy. There were, they said, reasons why the Founders, having waged a revolutionary war against overbearing executive power, gave the legislative branch pride of place in Article I of the Constitution.

One reason was that Congress's cumbersomeness, which is a function of its fractiousness, is a virtue because it makes the government slow and difficult to move. But conservatives' wholesome wariness of presidential power has been a casualty of conservative presidents winning seven of the past 10 elections.

On the assumption that Congress or a court would have been cooperative in September 2001, and that the cooperation could have kept necessary actions clearly lawful without conferring any benefit on the nation's enemies, the president's decision to authorize the NSA's surveillance without the complicity of a court or Congress was a mistake. Perhaps one caused by this administration's almost metabolic urge to keep Congress unnecessarily distant and hence disgruntled.

Charles de Gaulle, a profound conservative, said of another such, Otto von Bismarck -- de Gaulle was thinking of Bismarck not pressing his advantage in 1870 in the Franco-Prussian War -- that genius sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. In peace and in war, but especially in the latter, presidents have pressed their institutional advantages to expand their powers to act without Congress. This president might look for occasions to stop pressing.

[Vegas Vic]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin


Just ask Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union.

[Dutch]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin


Just ask Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union.

Ooooo, you compared the War on Terror to WWII....you're in deep doo-doo now. The liberals are gonna tear you apart for that one. :D

[JW]

Here is an interesting argument supporting warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes:

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.

"It is important to understand that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities.

"Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise. Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."

That's Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994. He of course was arguing for the Clinton administration. The case is not completely analagous to the current controversy, but it is instructive. Link.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

A couple of points about the discussion about Section 1811, if it applies at all. First, I believe Congress shirked a key responsibility by not debating a formal declaration of war in 2001. However, at the time some members of BOTH parties said that the authorizations given to the President were equivalent to a declaration of war. Some even said the concept of a formal declaration is obsolete. And, as noted already, there is debate about what exactly a declaration of war looks like. Is an authorization to use force a declaration of war?

As for the 15-day period, such language is often used by the government to do things for 15-day (or whatever length) period AT A TIME, as also noted. I think this is a deceptive practice, but it is common.

My own view, which some will find surprising, is that Bush overstepped his authority as President here. However, I'm not a lawyer, and plain English and legal English are two different things (15-day period, for example). Where I differ from the Bush-haters is that I don't think this is indicative of a President above the law. I do not think this is a terrible attack on our civil liberties. I don't think this is an impeachable offense. I do think those screaming the loudest in Washington are doing so not out of concern for the Constitution but for temporary political advantage.

[JW]

And here is a current analysis by still another former Clinton administration Justice Department official. Link and excerpt. The point here is that whether Bush is wrong or not, this is not some blatant, obvious abuse of power or attempt by the President to be above the law, as some would have us believe.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

President had legal authority to OK taps

By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005


President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

[MrBigglesworth]

JW, nobody is arguing that spying on people in foreign countries is wrong. Not even that spying on them without a warrant is wrong. Not one person. Providing link after link proving that it is legal is a lot of sound and fury accomplishing nothing.

[MrBigglesworth]

Ooooo, you compared the War on Terror to WWII....you're in deep doo-doo now. The liberals are gonna tear you apart for that one. :D
I think you misread his comment.

[Dutch]

I think you misread his comment.

Nah, I think you misread mine.

[MrBigglesworth]

Nah, I think you misread mine.
So you were purposely miscontruing his words to make a lame petty attack? That's kind of...well, lame.

[SFL Cat]

A former Clinton attorney weighs in...

link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed)

President had legal authority to OK taps

By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005

----------

John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.

----------

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.

The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.

But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."

FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.

Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.

But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

[SFL Cat]

dola...oops sorry JW a little late to the game on this one.

[Dutch]

So you were purposely miscontruing his words to make a lame petty attack? That's kind of...well, lame.

I wasn't attacking him at all.

[MrBigglesworth]

I wasn't attacking him at all.
Why can I not make a comment to you without you making up something that I said?

[MrBigglesworth]

But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.
I don't think there is much disagrement to this argument either. President's sometimes have to take extra power in emergencies. Jefferson dealt with these issues during the Louisiana Purchase. But two things:

1) Bush has said that we will be at 'war' with terrorism forever. That does not mean then that the executive should have unlimited unchecked power forever. It means new laws have to be passed to deal with everything. If you can't get Congress to go along, especially a Congress controlled by your own party, it shouldn't be done.

2) Presidents who have needed extra-Constitutional powers have been public about it, taking the power but putting themselves at the mercy of the people (FDR and internment, Lincoln and martial law). Bush intended to break the law and never tell the public, and not even to tell Congress.

[flere-imsaho]

Ooooo, you compared the War on Terror to WWII....you're in deep doo-doo now. The liberals are gonna tear you apart for that one. :D

Don't make me post the "Mission Accomplished" picture, Dutch. ;)

[Dutch]

Don't make me post the "Mission Accomplished" picture, Dutch. ;)

Bring it on! :)

http://www.newscorpse.com/Pix/gofox.jpg

[JW]

I don't think there is much disagrement to this argument either. President's sometimes have to take extra power in emergencies. Jefferson dealt with these issues during the Louisiana Purchase. But two things:

1) Bush has said that we will be at 'war' with terrorism forever. That does not mean then that the executive should have unlimited unchecked power forever. It means new laws have to be passed to deal with everything. If you can't get Congress to go along, especially a Congress controlled by your own party, it shouldn't be done.

2) Presidents who have needed extra-Constitutional powers have been public about it, taking the power but putting themselves at the mercy of the people (FDR and internment, Lincoln and martial law). Bush intended to break the law and never tell the public, and not even to tell Congress.

Your arguments all have merit except for the last. To tell the public about the program would have made the program far less effective, as I'm sure has now happened. By its very nature public announcement of this program defeats is purpose. Your assumption that Bush intended to break the law is simply an assumption. Bush may well have been convinced -- perhaps wrongly -- that he had the authority to do this. And that point -- whether or not he had the authority -- is not settled. And he did brief Congress, despite the waffling some Senators are doing on the issue now.

[flere-imsaho]

To tell the public about the program would have made the program far less effective, as I'm sure has now happened.

I can't really see terrorists sitting around saying "Well, according to FISA, the U.S. can't listen into conversations made by U.S. citizens, so we'll be OK with those phone calls."

[cartman]

The other thing that bugs me about this whole thing is that if there are people they think are Al-Qaeda in the US, you'd think they would already have warrants to monitor them. Why else would they know to listen in on their conversations? If it has made it to that point, there would be no reason to not go to the FISA court for a warrant.

[Dutch]

For all we know the NSA folks told the President's advisors that everything was checked out and good, the same paperwork came across the Presidents desk every six weeks in the "To be Signed - Recurring - Checked Out and Verified" box and then some malcontent found out that there was a missed checkbox in the procedures and instead of going to correct the problem and winning a gold star he ran straight to the NYT's.

The President did a good job by saying, "Yeah, we do that, and now that it's leaked we'll double our efforts."

His mistake was that he didn't say, "And if we need to fix our paper-work procedure, we will."

Hell, if all it takes is a quick walk down to the FISA office, no time like the present to tie loose ends.

[JPhillips]

JW- He briefed four to six senators that I'm aware of. Rockefeller has released a letter that shows he was against the program in 2003 and Pelosi claims she wrote a similar letter and has asked for it to be declassified. There was never a mass briefing to all of congress and those that knew were under penalty of law if they divulged that the program existed.

If Bush would have ever done anything to make this program known to the FISA court or asked congress to pass a new law authorizing whatever this program is I probably wouldn't have much of a beef. But that isn't what he did. He hid it from FISA and purposefully didn't go to congress because he didn't believe the whole body would approve. Today Gonzalez even said that paperwork was a reason for never seeking FISA warrants.

Whether you like it or not it does fit a pattern that Bush has of seeing his authority as supreme and unquestionable.

He and only he determines who is and who is not an enemy combatant.

He and only he determines who can have access to an attorney.

He and only he determines if a detinee can have access to courts or military tribunals.

He and only he determines what information will be shared with congress.

He and only he determines what constitutes torture.

He and only he determines what gets released in governemtn reports.

He and only he has the power to decide what congress means by authorization of force.

And on and on...

There was a time when conservatives believed in the rule of law and strict checks on governmental powers. What happened?

[cartman]

For all we know the NSA folks told the President's advisors that everything was checked out and good, the same paperwork came across the Presidents desk every six weeks in the "To be Signed - Recurring - Checked Out and Verified" box and then some malcontent found out that there was a missed checkbox in the procedures and instead of going to correct the problem and winning a gold star he ran straight to the NYT's.

The President did a good job by saying, "Yeah, we do that, and now that it's leaked we'll double our efforts."

His mistake was that he didn't say, "And if we need to fix our paper-work procedure, we will."

Hell, if all it takes is a quick walk down to the FISA office, no time like the present to tie loose ends.

That would be nice, but that's not what he said. He's flat out stated that he has been told he has the power to do this, and will continue to do this. Instead of saying "our bad", they attacked the messenger for running the story. Now, they are saying that it was too much of an effort to gather the paperwork and submit it to FISA. (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900211.html)

On Page two of the article:


"The whole key here is agility," he said at a White House briefing before Bush's news conference. According to Hayden, most warrantless surveillance conducted under Bush's authorization lasts just days or weeks, and requires only the approval of a shift supervisor. Hayden said getting retroactive court approval is inefficient because it "involves marshaling arguments" and "looping paperwork around."


I'm sorry. If you don't like the process, work to get it changed, just don't ignore it.

[cartman]

Dola,

Here's a great editorial from George Will on this issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900975.html


Why Didn't He Ask Congress?
By George F. Will
The Washington Post

Tuesday 20 December 2005

The president's authorization of domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency contravened a statute's clear language. Assuming that urgent facts convinced him that he should proceed anyway and on his own, what argument convinced him that he lawfully could?

Presumably the argument is that the president's implied powers as commander in chief, particularly with the nation under attack and some of the enemy within the gates, are not limited by statutes. A classified legal brief probably makes an argument akin to one Attorney General John Ashcroft made in 2002: "The Constitution vests in the president inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority."

Perhaps the brief argues, as its author, John Yoo - now a professor of law at Berkeley but then a deputy assistant attorney general - argued 14 days after Sept. 11, 2001, in a memorandum on "the president's constitutional authority to conduct military operations against terrorists and nations supporting them," that the president's constitutional power to take "military actions" is "plenary." The Oxford English Dictionary defines "plenary" as "complete, entire, perfect, not deficient in any element or respect."

The brief should be declassified and debated, beginning with this question: Who decides which tactics - e.g., domestic surveillance - should be considered part of taking "military actions"?

Without more information than can be publicly available concerning threats from enemies operating in America, the executive branch deserves considerable discretion in combating terrorist conspiracies using new technologies such as cell phones and the Internet. In September 2001, the president surely had sound reasons for desiring the surveillance capabilities at issue.

But did he have sound reasons for seizing them while giving only minimal information to, and having no formal complicity with, Congress? Perhaps. But Congress, if asked, almost certainly would have made such modifications of law as the president's plans required. Courts, too, would have been compliant. After all, on Sept. 14, 2001, Congress had unanimously declared that "the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism," and it had authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" against those involved in Sept. 11 or threatening future attacks.

For more than 500 years - since the rise of nation-states and parliaments - a preoccupation of Western political thought has been the problem of defining and confining executive power. The problem is expressed in the title of a brilliant book, "Taming the Prince: The Ambivalence of Modern Executive Power," by Harvey Mansfield, Harvard's conservative.

Particularly in time of war or the threat of it, government needs concentrated decisiveness - a capacity for swift and nimble action that legislatures normally cannot manage. But the inescapable corollary of this need is the danger of arbitrary power.

Modern American conservatism grew in reaction against the New Deal's creation of the regulatory state, and the enlargement of the executive branch power that such a state entails. The intellectual vigor of conservatism was quickened by reaction against the Great Society and the aggrandizement of the modern presidency by Lyndon Johnson, whose aspiration was to complete the project begun by Franklin Roosevelt.

Because of what Alexander Hamilton praised as "energy in the executive," which often drives the growth of government, for years many conservatives were advocates of congressional supremacy. There were, they said, reasons why the Founders, having waged a revolutionary war against overbearing executive power, gave the legislative branch pride of place in Article I of the Constitution.

One reason was that Congress's cumbersomeness, which is a function of its fractiousness, is a virtue because it makes the government slow and difficult to move. But conservatives' wholesome wariness of presidential power has been a casualty of conservative presidents winning seven of the past 10 elections.

On the assumption that Congress or a court would have been cooperative in September 2001, and that the cooperation could have kept necessary actions clearly lawful without conferring any benefit on the nation's enemies, the president's decision to authorize the NSA's surveillance without the complicity of a court or Congress was a mistake. Perhaps one caused by this administration's almost metabolic urge to keep Congress unnecessarily distant and hence disgruntled.

Charles de Gaulle, a profound conservative, said of another such, Otto von Bismarck - de Gaulle was thinking of Bismarck not pressing his advantage in 1870 in the Franco-Prussian War - that genius sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. In peace and in war, but especially in the latter, presidents have pressed their institutional advantages to expand their powers to act without Congress. This president might look for occasions to stop pressing.

[sterlingice]

A little late to the party, cartman: http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=992636&postcount=193

;)

SI

[Vegas Vic]

Bring it on! :)

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/7306/remember9111tc.jpg

[Dutch]

http://www.explodinghouse.net/funny/kerry.bmp

:)

[Vegas Vic]

http://img475.imageshack.us/img475/518/pixrummysaddam4xk.jpg

[MrBigglesworth]

Your arguments all have merit except for the last. To tell the public about the program would have made the program far less effective, as I'm sure has now happened. By its very nature public announcement of this program defeats is purpose. Your assumption that Bush intended to break the law is simply an assumption. Bush may well have been convinced -- perhaps wrongly -- that he had the authority to do this. And that point -- whether or not he had the authority -- is not settled. And he did brief Congress, despite the waffling some Senators are doing on the issue now.
You are assuming that Bush's only option is to break the law. In fact, he can go to Congress and have the law changed. He can invoke super secret sessions where he explains to Congress why the changes are necessary. No matters of national security need to be addressed. But the reports that I have heard are that he tried to go to Congress, but they said they would not change the law for whatever reason.

[JW]

You are assuming that Bush's only option is to break the law. In fact, he can go to Congress and have the law changed. He can invoke super secret sessions where he explains to Congress why the changes are necessary. No matters of national security need to be addressed. But the reports that I have heard are that he tried to go to Congress, but they said they would not change the law for whatever reason.

I am assuming nothing of the kind. YOU are making that assumption. I am proposing that perhaps Bush moved forward with the intercepts in the belief that he was not breaking the law, that he received advice that convinced him the actions were not illegal. And I am further proposing that it is undecided whether the actions broke the law or not, that people with knowledge on the matter are falling on both sides on this one, including a former Clinton administration justice department official who says the intercepts were legal. I am saying the matter is not, as you believe, settled.

[JW]

JW- He briefed four to six senators that I'm aware of. Rockefeller has released a letter that shows he was against the program in 2003 and Pelosi claims she wrote a similar letter and has asked for it to be declassified. There was never a mass briefing to all of congress and those that knew were under penalty of law if they divulged that the program existed.

If Bush would have ever done anything to make this program known to the FISA court or asked congress to pass a new law authorizing whatever this program is I probably wouldn't have much of a beef. But that isn't what he did. He hid it from FISA and purposefully didn't go to congress because he didn't believe the whole body would approve. Today Gonzalez even said that paperwork was a reason for never seeking FISA warrants.

Whether you like it or not it does fit a pattern that Bush has of seeing his authority as supreme and unquestionable.

He and only he determines who is and who is not an enemy combatant.

He and only he determines who can have access to an attorney.

He and only he determines if a detinee can have access to courts or military tribunals.

He and only he determines what information will be shared with congress.

He and only he determines what constitutes torture.

He and only he determines what gets released in governemtn reports.

He and only he has the power to decide what congress means by authorization of force.

And on and on...

There was a time when conservatives believed in the rule of law and strict checks on governmental powers. What happened?

I did not mean he briefed all Congress. As noted, he briefed selected members of Congress. And reports vary on how well they were briefed. It is also a good tactic to prepare a letter noting concerns about a program in case it causes problems. But no one can tell me a Senator with concerns about a classified program can do NOTHING to bring attention to the program.

[JW]

JW, nobody is arguing that spying on people in foreign countries is wrong. Not even that spying on them without a warrant is wrong. Not one person. Providing link after link proving that it is legal is a lot of sound and fury accomplishing nothing.

Your post makes no sense. The citations I provided do not refer to spying on people in foreign countries. The first is a Clinton era defense of warrantless searches. The second from a Clinton era justice department official defends the intercept program we are discussing. Care to try again?

Sorry, but I have to be gone a few days to visit in-laws. Have a Merry Christmas.

[Flasch186]

But no one can tell me a Senator with concerns about a classified program can do NOTHING to bring attention to the program.


Thats correct, because of its classification it was a crime to talk about it EVEN to people who already knew about it.

[MrBigglesworth]

...But no one can tell me a Senator with concerns about a classified program can do NOTHING to bring attention to the program.
You mean something like leaking the program to the NYT?

[MrBigglesworth]

Your post makes no sense. The citations I provided do not refer to spying on people in foreign countries. The first is a Clinton era defense of warrantless searches. The second from a Clinton era justice department official defends the intercept program we are discussing. Care to try again?

Sorry, but I have to be gone a few days to visit in-laws. Have a Merry Christmas.
Every one is 'foreign intelligence purposes', 'foreign intelligence purposes', blah blah blah. I hate it when the Right slime machine gets going, because it takes forever to wade through the bullshit just to actually discuss the issue at hand. In regards to the Clinton era defense of warrantless searches, I don't know if you know this, but Clinton was President. As President, like Bush, he wanted as much power as he could get. It's the nature of the beast, people want power, which is WHY we have the elaborate system of checks and balances. Bringing up a Clinton official does not magically make it a bipartisan thing: it is a Presidential thing. You know what happened with that situation? Clinton found a loophole in the law, the debate occured in Congress, Congress changed the law, and Clinton (for all we know) never broke the law. The situation here is that Bush saw how the law was, knew Congress wouldn't change it, so broke it for three years in secret. When it was discovered, he said the is going to go right on breaking it. Do you see the subtle but important differences here??

[cartman]

This just came over the news wire. I hope to God that this is someone at AP playing a joke. If not, I'm speechless.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DOMESTIC_SPYING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-12-22-18-11-28

DOJ Defends Domestic Spying Program

By TONI LOCY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration defended its domestic spying program in a letter to Congress late Thursday saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals caught up in the surveillance.

In a letter to the chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the Justice Department said President Bush authorized warrantless electronic surveillance in an effort to thwart terrorist acts against the United States.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

edited to use updated link and content

[Dutch]

This just came over the news wire. I hope to God that this is someone at AP playing a joke. If not, I'm speechless.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/APNEWSALERT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-09-12-14-52-18

AP News Alert

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration defends its domestic spying program in a letter to Congress saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

Now that's what I call in depth reporting.

[cartman]

Now that's what I call in depth reporting.

The initial URL was a news flash. The full article is coming.

[cartman]

Here's a more in depth article:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DOMESTIC_SPYING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-12-22-18-27-23

Bush Administration Defends Spying Program

By TONI LOCY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration formally defended its domestic spying program in a letter to Congress late Thursday saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals caught up in the surveillance.

In a letter to the chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the Justice Department said President Bush authorized electronic surveillance without first obtaining a warrant in an effort to thwart terrorist acts against the United States.

"There is undeniably an important and legitimate privacy interest at stake with respect to the activities described by the president," wrote Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella. "That must be balanced, however, against the government's compelling interest in the security of the nation."

President Bush has acknowledged he authorized such surveillance and repeatedly has defended it in recent days.

But Moschella's letter was the administration's first public notice to Congress about the program in which electronic surveillance was conducted without the approval of a special court created to examine requests for wiretaps and searches in the most sensitive terrorism and espionage cases.

Moschella maintained that Bush acted legally when he authorized the National Security Agency to go around the court to conduct electronic surveillance of international communications into and out of the United States by suspects tied to al-Qaida or its affiliates.

Moschella relied on a Sept. 18, 2001, congressional resolution, known as the Authorization to Use Military Force, as primary legal justification for Bush's creation of a domestic spying program. He said Bush's powers as commander-in-chief give the president "the responsibility to protect the nation."

The resolution "clearly contemplates action within the United States," Moschella wrote, and acknowledges Bush's power to prevent terrorism against the United States.

[JPhillips]

"There is undeniably an important and legitimate privacy interest at stake with respect to the activities described by the president," wrote Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella. "That must be balanced, however, against the government's compelling interest in the security of the nation."

GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!

[Flasch186]

im not sure how this applies yet, considering it's all behind the scenes rumor stuff, but it still should be put in this thread since it's new as of today:

NY Times: Domestic spying widespread



NEW YORK (AP) -- The National Security Agency has conducted much broader surveillance of e-mails and phone calls -- without court orders -- than the Bush administration has acknowledged, The New York Times reported.

The NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained access to streams of domestic and international communications, said the Times, citing unidentified current and former government officials.

The story did not name the companies.

Since the Times disclosed the domestic spying program last week, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al Qaeda.

But the Times said that NSA technicians have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might lead to terrorists.

The volume of information harvested from telecommunications data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the paper said, quoting an unnamed official.

The story quoted a former technology manager at a major telecommunications firm as saying that companies have been storing information on calling patterns since the September 11 attacks, and giving it to the federal government. Neither the manager nor the company he worked for was identified.

[Glengoyne]

GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH! Come on, like people were sifting through Patrick Henry's cell phone calls.

[Tekneek]

Bumping this because I have a question for those who may have been involved with the discussion...

Even though they are limiting the spying to international calls, what does this mean for all those companies who have off-shored their customer contact operations? Technically, every call from them to you is originating outside the US, and every call you make to those banks/ISPs/etc is ultimately ending up outside the country. Does that mean that NSA is checking them out by definition then?

[Flasch186]

Bumping this because I have a question for those who may have been involved with the discussion...

Even though they are limiting the spying to international calls, what does this mean for all those companies who have off-shored their customer contact operations? Technically, every call from them to you is originating outside the US, and every call you make to those banks/ISPs/etc is ultimately ending up outside the country. Does that mean that NSA is checking them out by definition then?

hmmm, interesting, Id venture to guess the right will fall on the "must be an Al Qaeda linked terrorist" line. but interesting look at it.

[Tekneek]

hmmm, interesting, Id venture to guess the right will fall on the "must be an Al Qaeda linked terrorist" line. but interesting look at it.

They would have to consider them, at least potentially. Customer contact has been sent to countries like Philippines, at least, which has terrorist activity linked to Al-Qaeda. It probably isn't a major point, in that regard, but it might surprise a lot of people if they found out just how much international telecommunications they are involved in without intentionally dialing an international number.

[Dutch]

The second you talk into a phone or send an e-mail, you are putting your thoughts and personal information into the hands of a proprietary communications network run and operated by a bunch of people that haven't taken a vow to protect Americans.

[st.cronin]

Does anybody know how to find polling information on this question? What do most americans think of this?

[QuikSand]

The second you talk into a phone or send an e-mail, you are putting your thoughts and personal information into the hands of a proprietary communications network run and operated by a bunch of people that haven't taken a vow to protect Americans.

But that's not the point here -- the point here is whether the government has unchecked authority to decide when to conduct a search of that information. Up until recently, the law of the land was fairly established on these matters... citizens were entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy, even when conducting communications over commerically available media. This has been settled rather exhaustively as regards the telephone (both personal lines and even things like public payphones). The law has been that the government needs to meet a standard ("probable cause" being the most familiar) in order to delve for this sort of information. That's not a wholly unreasonable standard to meet -- just offer evidence that the person is of interest to a criminal matter or investigation, and a judge/court offers a warrant.

Where we are, with the current matter, is not whether the government ought to be allowed such access -- that is not at all indispute. Indeed, the FISA law set forth this ability quite clearly, even providing for "after-the-fact" warrants, and a period of time to get them that was rather deliberately extended during times of war (which many would argue that we are in now). So, despite the current framing of the debate, the issue is not whether Amewricans are entitled to some complete degree of privacy at all. It's simply whether the government is still bound by the same principles that have stood for decades -- that they need to have a reasonable argument why they are spying on us in order to do so.

I personally have no problem at all with this sort of surveillance, as long as it meets the common sense test of "is there a reason to be doing this?" The flouting of the FISA law, whether its genesis is constitutional arrogance or just bureaucratic frustration, is an absolute affront to many who actually respect conservative principles of restrained government power. And the current effort to contort this into a political effort to demonstrate who wants to kill the bad guys the most may well prevent the real issue from reaching the fore, unfortunately.

[Flasch186]

interesting irony you point out that generally the Republican party has been known as the party for smaller government and more privacy (in a gov't. stay out of my business kind of way) but lately, the last 15 years, the Republican party has slowly done the opposite. No judgment here, since I like government, but interesting nonetheless.

[JPhillips]

QS: Exactly. There should be a real concern about how this admin has expanded the authority of the executive branch. Be it the wiretaps, enemy combatants, prisoner abuse, signing statements, or political appointees rewriting civil servants' work, this admin has set about quite consciously to expand the authority of the executive branch. Its clear to me that they believe the executive is superior to the other two branches of government.

It is a very important issue that is getting covered up in a purely political fight. In a sane world there would be somebody with the stature to point out that there is a fundamental shift of the nation's governing principles taking place. Do we as a country want an executive with greater authority.

Its a very similar situation to the election of 1800, but I would have never expected the party of Reagan to play the role of the Hamiltonians.

[flere-imsaho]

Even though they are limiting the spying to international calls, what does this mean for all those companies who have off-shored their customer contact operations? Technically, every call from them to you is originating outside the US, and every call you make to those banks/ISPs/etc is ultimately ending up outside the country. Does that mean that NSA is checking them out by definition then?

It means the NSA can be checking them out, at the moment. Whether they are, though, is another story. I would hope that the NSA would decide that the thousands of calls placed to Dell's tech support each day aren't worth eavesdropping.

[flere-imsaho]

The second you talk into a phone or send an e-mail, you are putting your thoughts and personal information into the hands of a proprietary communications network run and operated by a bunch of people that haven't taken a vow to protect Americans.

Interesting, taken to its logical conclusion this is basically an argument for the nationalisation of all American industries. At least nationalisation in the sense of each organization having its books completely open to the NSA at all times, NSA agents in their organizations, and probably government representatives on their boards.

[Dutch]

It's simply whether the government is still bound by the same principles that have stood for decades -- that they need to have a reasonable argument why they are spying on us in order to do so.

FWIW, I think the government still stands by the principles you speak of.

-----

For example,

The police are not allowed to run surveillance on people who are not suspects. But yet, if they are waiting for their suspect to come out of an apartment building, they are analyzing and watching everybody that comes in and out of the building. Yet, those people have done nothing wrong, why should the police being surveilling them?

-----

The answer to me is that it's collateral information, it's legal to gather it, but illegal to abuse it.

The same holds true for the NSA. If it's staff is wandering off the beaten path and abusing information they are gathering, that is breaking the law.

It is my belief that netting a lot of information while tracking a suspect is not breaking the law, so long our privacy is not being abused.

[MrBigglesworth]

FWIW, I think the government still stands by the principles you speak of.

-----

For example,

The police are not allowed to run surveillance on people who are not suspects. But yet, if they are waiting for their suspect to come out of an apartment building, they are analyzing and watching everybody that comes in and out of the building. Yet, those people have done nothing wrong, why should the police being surveilling them?

-----

The answer to me is that it's collateral information, it's legal to gather it, but illegal to abuse it.

The same holds true for the NSA. If it's staff is wandering off the beaten path and abusing information they are gathering, that is breaking the law.

It is my belief that netting a lot of information while tracking a suspect is not breaking the law, so long our privacy is not being abused.
The street outside an apartment building is the public sphere. You expect people to be watching you because of the impossible to get around fact that there are people outside. Common sense and reams of case law say that that is not the case for telephone calls, as already pointed out by QS.

Your argument requires you to deem all electronic communication part of the public sphere. The Bush administration is not even making this argument.

[flere-imsaho]

Fact 1: A secret FISA court exists to approve warrants and is staffed 24/7 by 7 judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Fact 2: Applications for warrants can be submitted up to 72 hours after the eavesdropping in question took place.

No one has yet to explain why these two things were deemed insufficient by the Bush Administration.

I'm still waiting....

[Dutch]

This is probably the explanation that you were looking for, don't worry, it didn't just jump out at me either, I had to go and search for it.

Intercepts Key Element in Terrorism Fight, Attorney General Says
Gonzales asserts United States' terrorist surveillance program is legal
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2006/Jan/25-917735.html

Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called "emergency authorizations" of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There's a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine IN ADVANCE that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted. That review process can take precious time.

Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA that all provisions of FISA have been satisfied, then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be similarly satisfied, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. And we would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within the 72 hours.

A typical FISA application involves a substantial process in its own right: The work of several lawyers; the preparation of a legal brief and supporting declarations; the approval of a Cabinet-level officer; a certification from the National Security Adviser, the Director of the FBI, or another designated Senate-confirmed officer; and, finally, of course, the approval of an Article III judge.

We all agree that there should be appropriate checks and balances on our branches of government. The FISA process makes perfect sense in almost all cases of foreign intelligence monitoring in the United States. Although technology has changed dramatically since FISA was enacted, FISA remains a vital tool in the War on Terror, and one that we are using to its fullest and will continue to use against al Qaeda and other foreign threats. But as the President has explained, the terrorist surveillance program operated by the NSA requires the maximum in speed and agility, since even a very short delay may make the difference between success and failure in preventing the next attack. And we cannot afford to fail.

[MrBigglesworth]

This is probably the explanation that you were looking for, don't worry, it didn't just jump out at me either, I had to go and search for it.

Intercepts Key Element in Terrorism Fight, Attorney General Says
Gonzales asserts United States' terrorist surveillance program is legal
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2006/Jan/25-917735.html
So now the defense of violating the law is that the Attorney General is too busy to sign a piece of paper?

[flere-imsaho]

This is probably the explanation that you were looking for, don't worry, it didn't just jump out at me either, I had to go and search for it.

I don't buy it. In my opinion Gonzalez is making a mountain out of a molehill to justify their warrantless searches.

Again, the FISA court is designed for speed. It is staffed 24/7 and reacts immediately to applications. Also, it is known to be indulgent having granted something on the order of 15,000 applications whilst only denying 5.

On top of that, if you read the statute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html) you'll notice that FISA allows the Attorney General or his designee to approve of "emergency" surveillance if, basically, they think the eventual application will be approved by the FISA court when they make it.

[John Galt]

On top of that, if you read the statute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html) you'll notice that FISA allows the Attorney General or his designee to approve of "emergency" surveillance if, basically, they think the eventual application will be approved by the FISA court when they make it.

And just to be clear, "designee" pretty much includes any DOJ lawyer working on the investigation. The AG rarely gets involved in most of these sorts of decisions.