Bush Admits to Ordering NSA to Illegally Spy on Americans

[Killfile]

Cross post from my blog:

From the NSA’s website in response to the question “Does NSA/CSS unconstitutionally spy on Americans?”

“No. NSA/CSS performs SIGINT operations against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers. It strictly follows laws and regulations designed to preserve every American's privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. persons from unreasonable searches and seizures by the U.S. government or any person or agency acting on behalf of the U.S. government. “

Yet, since 2002 it seems that the above statement is no longer true. Under executive orders signed by President George W. Bush, the NSA has utilized warrantless wiretaps to listen to the personal correspondence of thousands of individuals within the United States.

Under the United States Constitution and US law, wiretapping an individual requires a court issued warrant. The PATRIOT act broadened the powers of federal agencies which might seek wiretaps within the United States. Under PATRIOT warrants are issued by a special court and are not a matter of public record – meaning that tapped parties may never know they have been tapped, even if the wiretap exonerates them.

Despite these expanded provisions, President Bush’s administration still felt that it was too difficult to listen to the phone calls and read the emails of people it considered terrorist risks – so the NSA was asked to perform military surveillance of targets within the United States (and therefore protected by its laws) without notification, court order, or any standard of evidence.

The Bush Administration has attempted to justify these orders by tying them to Congress’ military authorizations relating to the “War on Terror” and invoking the expanded powers of the executive in time of war.

According to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) and others, however, that’s not enough. “There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,” Specter quipped – and he is not alone in his views. Supreme Court president holds from Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. et al. v. Sawyer that the expanded powers of the Executive exist only in time of declared war, not mere military conflict. Moreover, the fact remains that the Congress already authorized expanded wiretapping authority.

The resulting furor spread to The Hill, where a bi-partisan (sort of) filibuster is burning away the final days before sunset provisions begin to whittle away at the hotly contested PATRIOT act (though none of the aforementioned provisions apply to this kind of domestic surveillance).

While all this is very interesting, more significant are the long term consequences. The inevitable reaction from Washington when a given agency is found well outside its scope and jurisdiction is the immediate restriction of that agency. The NSA will come under intense Congressional scrutiny following this revelation. It will likely face more stringent guidelines, greater bureaucratic entanglements, and a severe narrowing of its power. By violating the Constitution and US law, Bush has imperiled not only American Civil Liberties and his own Presidency, but the signals intelligence capabilities of the United States. Because of his short sighted and felonious actions, the US Military, the primary beneficiary of NSA signals intercepts, will be weaker in future conflicts.

On Sept 11, 2001 it was not our freedoms nor our way of life that came under attack (as Mr. Bush would have us believe). No, it was three buildings, four aircraft, and the people inside them that were targeted by terrorists. Since that day, however, our freedom and way of life have been under siege by politicians.

Write your Senators and Representatives. Tell them not to stand for this.

[ucrzymofo87]

On Sept 11, 2001 it was not our freedoms nor our way of life that came under attack (as Mr. Bush would have us believe). No, it was three buildings, four aircraft, and the people inside them that were targeted by terrorists. Since that day, however, our freedom and way of life have been under siege by politicians.

That makes so much more sense now. The terrorists simply must not care for tall buildings or buildings that resemble geometric shapes or airplanes or air travelers. They don't hate American freedom or anything like that, despite the fact that the terrorists themselves declare otherwise unceasingly.

Wow, such indescribable wisdom.

[newbified]

Do you really think those that commit terrorist acts are jealous of the United States' "freedom"?

[Killfile]

On Sept 11, 2001 it was not our freedoms nor our way of life that came under attack (as Mr. Bush would have us believe). No, it was three buildings, four aircraft, and the people inside them that were targeted by terrorists. Since that day, however, our freedom and way of life have been under siege by politicians.

That makes so much more sense now. The terrorists simply must not care for tall buildings or buildings that resemble geometric shapes or airplanes or air travelers. They don't hate American freedom or anything like that, despite the fact that the terrorists themselves declare otherwise unceasingly.

Wow, such indescribable wisdom.

I didn't say it wasn't for lack of trying. Nonetheless, I was no less free on Sept 11, 2001 at 12:45 pm than I was on Sept 11, 2001 at 5:00 am.

The PATRIOT Act, the authorization of the NSA to spy on me without a warrant, and the willingness of my governement to jail and try individuals in secret with no opportunity for legal representation or appeal are what made me less free.

The deaths of my countrymen made me sad.
The deaths of my liberties makes me afraid.

[ucrzymofo87]

Do you really think those that commit terrorist acts are jealous of the United States' "freedom"?

No, they hate it.

[Killfile]

Do you really think those that commit terrorist acts are jealous of the United States' "freedom"?

No, they hate it.

How do you imagine the discourse goes?

Terrorist 1: By Allah, I hate those Americans!
Terrorist 2: Why do you hate them Achmed?
Terrorist 1: They're so free! I hate freedom!
Terrorist 2: Really? The Shake told me that the Americans were evil because they depicted women in a shameful manner. They offend Allah with the obscenity of Brittney Spears and Christina Agulara.
Terrorist 1: No! It is not their violation of the sexual taboos which have formed the basis of kinship order in our society for thousands of years that offends me. It is their freedom! I can not abide living in a world where Americans are free to say whatever it is they want to say!
Terrorist 2: But you can't even read English. Why does that matter to you? Maybe you're really just upset because the Americans insist on deploying their infidel troops in regions of the world that are holy to us. That their profane boots should trod the earth in the holy city of Mecca boils my blood!
Terrorist 1: Let them wander about the holy cities. I do not care. But the fact that their government can't search them without a warrant! That's unforgivable. I would gladly give my life to end that!
Terrorist 2: What? Are you sure you're not upset about American cultural imperialism? Maybe that's it. I know my father was upset when my brother started skipping prayers because he wanted to go to theaters and watch American movies.
Terrorist 1: Let your brother go. There's nothing wrong with the sex filled American movies that stereotype our culture. But consider that the Americans guarantee equal protection under the law! I would be so upset if I were guaranteed the same protections as the Saudi Royal Family! I must exterminate the Americans to make sure nothing like that ever happens.
Terrorist 2: Dude?
Terrorist 1: ... and their representative democracy! Nothing moves me to fits of homicidal rage like the very thought of the Electoral College!
Terrorist 2: Well I hear there are some people in Florida who feel that way but what about....
Terrorist 1: Silence infidel! Let us go and build bombs to strike at the Americans in retribution for their shameful freedom from quartering troops in their homes!
Terrorist 2: You're a fruitcake.
Terrorist 1: ... and build weapons of mass destruction to avenge the evils of the "speedy trial" they guarantee in their infidel bill of rights...
Terrorist 2: I'm leaving...
Terrorist 1: ... and fly jet liners into buildings to show them that Allah hates their right to sue for sums in excess of twenty of their dollars....
Terrorist 2: Whatever....
Terrorist 1: ... and then the world shall be free of the American Scum! I am invincible!
Terrorist 2: You're a loony.

[ucrzymofo87]

Now we know why the government was spying on you.

[psi29a]

Now we know why the government was spying on you.

I'm sure the folks at the NSA are laughing at you right now. *greetz hax0rs*

Here, let me just call my friends who happen to work there... ah hah! indeed, they just informed me that in their professional opinion, you have run out of clever things to say. Yes they do work for the NSA, no I won't tell you who they are, and they think Killfile is funny. They didn't even need an executive order to read this conversation either.


Killfile... I think you missed this important piece of the puzzle:

Terrorist 3: "If Allah is a kind and benevolent god and the creator of all good things, then why does he create the bombs that fall on our homes?"

[Killfile]

Now we know why the government was spying on you.

Anyway ucrzymofo - I thought I should respond to your comments about the feasability of releasing an "air freshener" in a large confined space like the Phoenix Airport.

Essentially, with the currents stirred up by individuals walking about, you wouldn't have to worry about trying to diffuse it throughout the building - but you would need an huge concentration to allow anyone to smell it.

I'm still not sure what kind of a public service project involves a "stealth air freshener" campaign in a public building but good luck - I guess.

--Killfile

PS: Send me a post-card from Cuba.

[Eldo]

Bush and his staff (Cheney and Rice), claims that the reasoning for unauthorised spying on Americans were justified because they have 'links' to terrorist groups and irrefutable proof. If so, why didn't they get a court order for that?

Rice also claimed in an interview that Bush has some authorisional power as President to override the law. When asked to cite it, she couldn't come up with shit. I wonder why. It's fucking Watergate all over again.

[d-boy]

A [strong] goverment must control thier citizen. [M]aybe Bush [is] one of [the] president who agree with that.

Edits by Killfile - Learn to write.

[ucrzymofo87]

Uh oh, looks like George W. Bush was not the only president to order "spying" on suspected terrorists/foreign nationals without a court order. I would also like to point out that all of these actions, taken by Carter, Clinton, and Bush are all allowed under U.S. law source
Pay close attention to section 1802 where it reads, "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 periods of up to one year." EDIT: So, the title of this thread is misleading and false.

EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
EO 12139
23 May 1979


By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and
104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this
chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for
foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to
approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section
103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic
surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
information.

1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national
security or defense, is designated to make the certifications
required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications
to conduct electronic surveillance:

(a) Secretary of State.

(b) Secretary of Defense.

(c) Director of Central Intelligence.

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(e) Deputy Secretary of State.

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above
certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any electronic surveillance, as defined
in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be
conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.

1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes
electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that
Act as well as this Order.''.

Jimmy Carter.

source

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release February 9, 1995


EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949

- - - - - - -
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.

Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:

(a) Secretary of State;

(b) Secretary of Defense;

(c) Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.


WILLIAM J. CLINTON


THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995.

source

[psi29a]

Yeah, I read the drudge report too ucrzymofo87.

http://drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

[Killfile]

Yap yap yap....

FISA specifically notes which searches can be preformed without the aforementioned warrant. Obviously FISA searches straddle a very narrow fence in the constitutional sense and the Congress and Presidents who crafted this legislation went out of their way to ensure that it would be quite explicit.

Now I have also spoken with some friends who work for NSA as to exactly what the language in FISA means. FISA allows these searches if the search is done for "Technical Intelligence" or on "Correspondence with a Foreign Power."

Translated from lawyer-speak (which is what I needed my NSA college buddies for) this means...

Technical Intelligence: The NSA or some other intelligence agency can conduct a warrantless search to prove it can be done. If NSA develops a new data-mining technology to sift through cell phone calls, it could deploy this technology against US cell networks as a proving ground - though any evidence gathered by these means would be inadmissible in a court of law.

Correspondence with a Foreign Power: Note the use of the word "power." If you're sending emails to the German Embassy, the NSA can tap into your correspondence without any need of a warrant. This is because you are communicating with a the government of a foreign power and it is explicitly within the NSA's charter to listen to those phone calls. If you send emails to your friend Hanz in Munich who works for BMW, the NSA can't listen in.

Clinton and Carter (and Reagan... though it's amusing how Drudge left that out) used the FISA warrantless searches as they were intended -- to observe correspondence with foreign powers. This is why their searches didn't make the New York Times and weren't labeled as ILLEGAL by the media, former officials of their administrations, former officials of other administrations, a bi-partisan group of members of the Congress of the United States, and numerous judges, lawyers, and other experts.

Seriously - apply a little logic. Do you really think it's sane to assume that Bush has been targeted by some vast conspiracy including the media, the Congress, his own party, and basically every legally educated adult in the country?

[ucrzymofo87]

Nice psi. Drudge is amazing in what he finds.

The reality is that the New York Times exposing the NSA program was an attempt to say that George W. Bush violated the law and the Constitution by ordering the wiretaps. The release of this story was craftily timed when a book titled State of War: the Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration by James Risen. It is a book designed to attack the President, and the New York Times published the NSA story to remove the wonderful news about the Iraqi election out of the headlines.

The fact remains the President violated no laws, and Congress was notified twelve times that this program was being used. If we look back in history we can see how legally and ethically George W. Bush has been fighting this war. During the Civil War, there were a group of Northerners opposed to the war. These people were known as Copperheads, which is the modern equivalent of the Democrat Party. A former Ohio Congressman named Clement Vallandigham declared that the war was cruel and wicked and he said that the Republicans under Lincoln were using the Civil War to establish a dictatorship (sound familiar?). Troops from the 115th Ohio Volunteer Infantry abducted him at his home without a warrant. A military commission tried him for treasonable utterances and handed him over to the Confederates. The Confederates threw him up to Canada where he eventually returned to the United States. Abraham Lincoln lamented, "Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert?" Other actions Lincoln took were the suspension of habeas corpus and he used that to throw reporters in prison because they spoke against him in the union. He jailed nine members of the Maryland legislature because they wanted Maryland to leave the union. Lincoln makes Bush look like a saint. Has President Bush suspended habeas corpus? Has President Bush jailed Senator Harry Reid and other modern day “copperheads”? Has the President jailed reporters of the New York Times? No.

This should give you and idea how legally and ethically this administration has fought the war on terrorism. The President did not act outside the law; therefore the Democrats will not be able to attempt to impeach him, like they have wanted to do for years. The Democrats and liberals in this country have the mindset which follows: Bush = Nixon, Iraq = Vietnam, NSA “spying” = Watergate. They will end up alongside the copperheads of the Civil War, which is on the wrong side of history.

[Killfile]

The reality is that the New York Times exposing the NSA program was an attempt to say that George W. Bush violated the law
and the Constitution by ordering the wiretaps.

That's because he did. Read the law. The cases where Clinton and Carter used it were expressly related to correspondence with a Foreign Power. That's why their use was legal and W's wasn't.

The release of this story was craftily timed when a book titled State of War: the Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration... the New York Times published the NSA story to remove the wonderful news about the Iraqi election out of the headlines.

What bullshit. The Times wanted to publish this story a year ago and held it at the President's request. READ THE DAMN ARTICLE.

The fact remains the President violated no laws

Is that your professional legal opinion? According to veritable legions of lawyers, congressmen, senators, and administration officials past and present he did. Oh, and lets not forget this guy, who incidentally is a FISA Judge and is not only in a position to know, but is a governmentally sanctioned authority on exactly which laws the President broke. Oh, didn't you know?

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation....Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Flawed comparison between Iraq and the US Civil War snipped

1 - Bush didn't claim Iraq as his supposed source of authority on this - he claimed the "War On Terror."
2 - A Civil War is not addressed in the US Constitution in any way, nor was FISA enacted until well after Lincoln - and his grandchildren - were dead.
3 - Comparing the Democrats to seditionists in the North is not only intellectually dishonest but insulting, ignorant, and infantile. The Democratic party objects to how this "war on terror" is being conducted - it does not seek defeat for the United States or the fragmentation of the Union. Get a grip.
4- "Has the President jailed reporters of the New York Times?" -- A better question would be: would we know if he had?

The President did not act outside the law; therefore the Democrats will not be able to attempt to impeach him

Is that your professional legal opinion showing through again? It's amazing that a teenager like yourself managed to acquire a law degree at such an early age. Incidentally, Professor Ra of Hollins University, who holds a PhD in Constitutional Law, thinks that you're wrong. Who to listen to.... I wonder....

Oh, and the Democrats won't be able to impeach him because the GOP holds a majority in both houses right now. While I'd trust the party of Lincoln to put the interests of the Nation ahead of partisan loyalty, the party of Delay, Bush, and Cheney doesn't have a strong track record in that regard.

If anyone would like to read the full text of the actual law in question, here it is.

1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

(1) 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 periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(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
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

The Emphasis is mine, but the text of the statute seems pretty clear on the part about foreign powers - that's not my opinion, it's the opinion of thousands of lawyers, judges, and even the Republican head of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[ucrzymofo87]

The law actually states that surveillance must be aimed at "the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers." ""the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers." The question remains is a terrorist group a foreign power? Yes, according to Section 1801, subsection (a) which states, "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor." Unfortunately contradicting your earlier statements Killfile, a terrorist group is a foreign power under the law.

Another question is whether or not international terrorism is the same as domestic terrorism? Section 1801 subsection (c) defines international terrorism as, among other things, terrorist actions that "occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum." That means if you are a terrorist inside the United States and have operatives abroad, then you are an international terrorist.

Then there is a section which states there be "no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." This is used to suggest that any surveillance that is domestic in its origin cannot be undertaken lawfully. However, section 1801, subsection (i): "United States person does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power."

That does mean that if you are an American citizen and you are involved with terrorists, then you have surrendered the aforementioned rights because you have become an "agent of a foreign power," which is defined under subsection (b)(2)(C). These types of agents are anybody who "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power [or terrorist group]."

This applies to all individuals, American citizens or otherwise. Subsection (b)(1) applies to foreigners and (b)(2) encompasses everybody. The whole point of this act is to find "foreign intelligence information," which is defined under section 1801 subsection (e)(1)(B) as "information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

This law is not a blank check for the President, even though it may look like it. The Attorney General must report to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 30 days prior to the surveillance, except in cases of emergency, when he must report immediately (which Bush has done). The Attorney General must also report twice yearly to the committees under section 1808 subsection (a). He must also send a copy of the surveillance authorization under seal to the so-called FISA Court as established in section 1803; not for a warrant, but to remain under seal unless certification is necessary under future court actions from aggrieved parties under section 1806 (f).

So, yes, the President acted within the law.

source

[Wandering_Mystic]

I do not claim to be an expert in law myself, but from what urcrzymofo just explained, the president would be within the law if and ONLY if the people under surveillance were actually terrorists, and only if urcrzymofo's interpretation is correct, which I think I reasonably doubt.

Looking specifically at the areas helpfully emphasized by Killfile, the issue of who can be defined as a terrorist or not becomes moot, because the rest of the terms are very strict. Urcrzymofo, I think you missed the meaning of the highlighted passages Killfile quoted, so let me just paraphrase them in a hopefully clear manner:

This subchapter states that the president can ONLY authorize surveillance without court order if ALL THREE of the conditions cited (A, B and C from the excerpt Killfile quoted) are met.

The first is condition is that the electronic surveillance is either solely directed at communications EXCLUSIVELY BETWEEN or AMONG foreign powers, or taken from the property that is exclusively AND openly under control by a foreign power. So even a person suspected of terrorism cannot be legally surveillanced without a warrant (because if they are only suspected, then it has not been proven, therefore, they would still be technically innocent, and not considered a foreign power). Or it has to be taken by a property or premise of a foreign power (i.e. an embassy)

The second condition that must be met is there is NO SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD that the surveillance will intercept communications by a normal US citizen. I hope that is already clear enough.

The third condition you already seem to understand, since you already made a mention of it in your attempts to defend the president's actions.

The key is that all three have to be met, meaning in the case of terrorism as I understand it, that such surveillance can only be legal without a warrant if the person is a known terrorist, not simply a suspect who hasn't been proven of anything. I don't know all the details behind the charges made against the president, but I find it disturbingly likely that he most probably didn't comply with all of those conditions. My 2 cents anyway

[Shisho]

Do you really think those that commit terrorist acts are jealous of the United States' "freedom"?

I think it has something to do with us getting in their way every fucking turn of the way and as often as possible.

[ucrzymofo87]

Here is an interesting development and a wonderful history lesson:

Under Clinton, NY Times called surveillance "a necessity"
January 12th, 2006

The controversy following revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored suspected terrorist related communications since 9/11 reflects a severe case of selective amnesia by the New York Times and other media opponents of President Bush. They certainly didn’t show the same outrage when a much more invasive and indiscriminate domestic surveillance program came to light during the Clinton administration in the 1990’s. At that time, the Times called the surveillance “a necessity.”

“If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency.” (Steve Kroft, CBS’ 60 Minutes)

Those words were aired on February 27, 2000 to describe the National Security Agency and an electronic surveillance program called Echelon whose mission, according to Kroft,

“is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon’s computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.”

Echelon was, or is (its existence has been under-reported in the American media), an electronic eavesdropping program conducted by the United States and a few select allies such as the United Kingdom.

Tellingly, the existence of the program was confirmed not by the New York Times or the Washington Post or by any other American media outlet – these were the Clinton years, after all, and the American media generally treats Democrat administrations far more gently than Republican administrations – but by an Australian government official in a statement made to an Australian television news show.

The Times actually defended the existence of Echelon when it reported on the program following the Australians’ revelations.

“Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists….”

And the Times article quoted an N.S.A. official in assuring readers

“...that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards.”

Of course, that was on May 27, 1999 and Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush, was president.

Even so, the article did admit that

“...many are concerned that the system could be abused to collect economic and political information.”

Despite the Times’ reluctance to emphasize those concerns, one of the sources used in that same article, Patrick Poole, a lecturer in government and economics at Bannock Burn College in Franklin, Tenn., had already concluded in a study cited by the Times story that the program had been abused in both ways.

“ECHELON is also being used for purposes well outside its original mission. The regular discovery of domestic surveillance targeted at American civilians for reasons of ‘unpopular’ political affiliation or for no probable cause at all… What was once designed to target a select list of communist countries and terrorist states is now indiscriminately directed against virtually every citizen in the world,” Poole concluded.

The Times article also referenced a European Union report on Echelon. The report was conducted after E.U. members became concerned that their citizens’ rights may have been violated. One of the revelations of that study was that the N.S.A. used partner countries’ intelligence agencies to routinely circumvent legal restrictions against domestic spying.

“For example, [author Nicky] Hager has described how New Zealand officials were instructed to remove the names of identifiable UKUSA citizens or companies from their reports, inserting instead words such as ‘a Canadian citizen’ or ‘a US company’. British Comint [Communications intelligence] staff have described following similar procedures in respect of US citizens following the introduction of legislation to limit NSA’s domestic intelligence activities in 1978.”

Further, the E.U. report concluded that intelligence agencies did not feel particularly constrained by legal restrictions requiring search warrants.

“Comint agencies conduct broad international communications ‘trawling’ activities, and operate under general warrants. Such operations do not require or even suppose that the parties they intercept are criminals.”

The current controversy follows a Times report that, since 9/11, U.S. intelligence agencies are eavesdropping at any time on up to 500 people in the U.S. suspected of conducting international communications with terrorists. Under Echelon, the Clinton administration was spying on just about everyone.

“The US National Security Agency (NSA) has created a global spy system, codename ECHELON, which captures and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax, email and telex message sent anywhere in the world,”

Poole summarized in his study on the program.

According to an April, 2000 article in PC World magazine, experts who studied Echelon concluded that

“Project Echelon’s equipment can process 1 million message inputs every 30 minutes.”

In the February, 2000 60 Minutes story, former spy Mike Frost made clear that Echelon monitored practically every conversation – no matter how seemingly innocent – during the Clinton years.

“A lady had been to a school play the night before, and her son was in the school play and she thought he did a-a lousy job. Next morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her friend something like this, ‘Oh, Danny really bombed last night,’ just like that. The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking at it was not too sure about what the conversation w-was referring to, so erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the database as a possible terrorist.”

“This is not urban legend you’re talking about. This actually happened?” Kroft asked.

“Factual. Absolutely fact. No legend here.”

Even as the Times defended Echelon as “a necessity” in 1999, evidence already existed that electronic surveillance had previously been misused by the Clinton Administration for political purposes. Intelligence officials told Insight Magazine in 1997 that a 1993 conference of Asian and Pacific world leaders hosted by Clinton in Seattle had been spied on by U.S. intelligence agencies. Further, the magazine reported that information obtained by the spying had been passed on to big Democrat corporate donors to use against their competitors. The Insight story added that the mis-use of the surveillance for political reasons caused the intelligence sources to reveal the operation.

“The only reason it has come to light is because of concerns raised by high-level sources within federal law-enforcement and intelligence circles that the operation was compromised by politicians—includingmid- and senior-level White House aides—either on behalf of or in support of President Clinton and major donor-friends who helped him and the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, raise money.”

So, during the Clinton Administration, evidence existed (all of the information used in this article was available at the time) that:

-an invasive, extensive domestic eavesdropping program was aimed at every U.S. citizen;

-intelligence agencies were using allies to circumvent constitutional restrictions;

-and the administration was selling at least some secret intelligence for political donations.

These revelations were met by the New York Times and others in the mainstream media by the sound of one hand clapping. Now, reports that the Bush Administration approved electronic eavesdropping, strictly limited to international communications, of a relative handful of suspected terrorists have created a media frenzy in the Times and elsewhere.

The Times has historically been referred to as “the Grey Lady.” That grey is beginning to look just plain grimy, and many of us can no longer consider her a lady.

source

[evilester_me]

...that was a long post. The longest posts are usually in politics.

If the above is true, then sure Clinton broke the law too, and did the same thing. But that doesn't make it any less wrong and it certainly doesn't justify Bush any. He still broke the law. He had the power to stop it but he didn't. And maybe Clinton had better control of the media, so what? That just means he was smart about it so the people wouldn't get mad at him. I guess there are more democrats working for the NY times too, so that helps lol.
But seriously, I really don't know if it's his fault but Bush could do better when it comes to his presentation to the people IMO. I mean, how many times have you watched him do something completely idiotic during or after a speech on TV? It's small, but if the guy can't even tell which door to exit out of or what hand is his left and right, the average american would take that as a direct messure of his intelligence.
So, Bush could have handeled the situation a little better I think, in how he approched it. And the "War on Terror" scapegoat is getting extremely old. If Bush dropped a nuke on us by accident now it would probably "be fight the war on terror".

[Killfile]

Two things - both of which are worth pointing out.

Republicans - and the Right in general - spent all eight years of the Clinton Presidency saying that Clinton was a disgrace to the country, a liar, a criminal, and deserved to be impeached. They said they stood against everything he did that was legally, ethically, or morally questionable.

But now that Bush, their golden child, is in hot water over this NSA spying scandal, they point at Clinton and day "but Clinton did it!" You can't have it both ways. EITHER what Clinton did was wrong, and so what George W. Bush did was EQUALLY wrong and thus EQUALLY deserving of scorn, condemnation, and impeachment, or what Clinton did was all right and in the best interests of the country - just as you assert was the case with Bush's spying. If that second one is the case, than what Clinton did, by your own standards wasn't bad, wasn't wrong, and the media wasn't remiss in letting him get away with it.

You can pick one or the other. But what you're trying to do now is hypocrisy - and by indulging in it and playing political games with my civil liberties, the GOP is certainly hurting me personally far more than any Islamist/Jihadist/Terroist ever has.

Of course, we on the Left don't have to deal with this rather sticky catch-22 you neo-cons have gotten yourselves into. Read over Clinton's executive orders - you'll find that Clinton's orders specifically mandate that the NSA exclude communications with US citizens from its search.

The story you quote twists the truth. ECHELON did sweep basically all communications that passed through its nets - but it did so because it was a data mining program. Data miners gather data and then analyze it according to specific parameters. Part of Echelon's operating parameters, as dictated by Clinton's executive order (which is part of the public record, so this isn't classified) were to exclude exchanges in which an Americans (citizen or otherwise) took part.

In short, Echelon gathered all phone calls, emails, etc - sorted them into "foreign" and "domestic," dropped the "domestic" side, and then analyzed the rest.

In other words, while your phone calls were probably gathered by Echelon, no one listened to them, read them, or incorporated them into any reports because to do so would have been ILLEGAL. Incidentally, that illegality would quite nicely explain the Play Bombing antidote – why would the technician be surprised if Echelon were monitoring every conversation in the US. Bombed is a common euphemism for failed or screwed up in the United States. He’d have been buried in results. The story stands out because it was an anomaly – and one in which improper and illegal action was taken.

Bush changed all that - and THAT is why he is the focus of media attention, and possibly a legal investigation.

Found any other lies the Right wants to sell us to try to cover its ass?

Edit: More news - the tally on how many US citizens Bush spied on (and continues to spy on) has been revised from hundreds to thousands, and now to millions. [source]

[ucrzymofo87]

First of all, the only one engaging in hypocrisy is the Left. While Clinton was President, he tapped telephone calls the same way that President Bush has done. No one on the Left raised it as an issue because Clinton was their president. The President and the ex-President both authorized the wire tapping of phones against suspected terrorists, which is the RIGHT thing to do.

During the CIA raids in Afghanistan in early 2002 that captured Abu Zubaydah and his terrorist associates, the government seized computers, cell phones, and personal phone books. Afterwards, the National Security Agency began trying to listen in on phone calls made to these Al Qaeda phone numbers. Even if you are an American citizen calling Al Qaeda from US territory, you would be wire tapped, like convicted al-Qaida associate Iyman Faris who, after being arrested, confessed to plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.

By intercepting phone calls to people on Zubaydah's speed-dial, the NSA arrested not only "American citizen" Faris, but other Arab terrorists, including al-Qaida members plotting to bomb British pubs and train stations.

The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al-Qaida is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia.

If the Democrats had any brains, they'd distance themselves from the cranks demanding Bush's impeachment for listening in on terrorists' phone calls to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any brains, they'd be Republicans.)

Democrats like Senator Barbara Boxer are trying to have Bush impeached for spying on people with Osama bin Laden's cell phone number.

That is all you need to know about the Democrats to remember that they cannot be trusted with national security. (That and Jimmy Carter.)

Laslty, Clinton is a liar and he admitted it. Does anyone recall the statement "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

[psi29a]

Doesn't matter who did it and when, if the NSA is spying on American Citizens, doesn't matter... people head's will roll. Should this goto court, I would happy to pull the lever, Clinton, Bush or Carter.

These are my civil liberties, and I don't care how 'safer' you feel. He may be my President, but he is not above the constitution, and he is NOT above me.

Everyone is equal under the lady justice.

If you believe differently then I suggest you start running, because there is only but so much that people will put up with before a lynching happens.

Democracts and Neo-cons need to get their heads out of their collective asses because they are pissing the rest of us off.

[Killfile]

I'm still not sure what part of "Clinton's executive order specificly forbade spying on, intercepting the phone calls of, or surveiling American citizens" you're unclear on.

Clinton's executive order SPECIFICLY states that all survalence is to be conducted in a manner consistant with Title 50 Chapter 36 Subchapter I Section 1802 of US Code, which states the At. Gen must certify that the intercepts do not affect US citizens.

Bush's executive order makes NO mention of these provisions and he has freely admitted to violating this section of the US code.

Now I don't know how clear you need this to be. The law says you can't spy on American Citizens. Clinton ordered that wiretaps comply with that law. Bush ordered wiretaps without the afforementioned mandate and specificly asked that they be placed on individuals in direct circumvention of US law.

Cliffs:
Clinton's wiretaps: legal, and within the scope of US law
Bush's wiretaps: illegal - blatently in violation of US law


Oh - and PLEASE stop waving the "Osama Bin Laden's" cell phone bullshit around. Besides Bush's own admission -- "I don't know
where [bin Laden] is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him," you can't honestly belive that we have that kind of information and haven't simply killed the asshole.

More accurately -- Democrats are mad because Bush is wiretaping people who are calling people who's sister's, cousin's, best friend's, daughter's, college roomate's, ex-boyfriend was once seen in the same cafe as someone we think MIGHT be a low level A-Q operative.

Why are they mad? Because you could NEVER get a warrant for that shit. If you couldn't get a warrent, why are you spying in the first place? Hell! FISA lets you get a warrent AFTER the fact, and Bush couldn't even be bothered to do THAT.

Oh - trust me. Democrats can run on this. This, blatent graft, and all the other nightmarish shitstorms the GOP has managed to bring about.