-
supervillain
Bush's "Snoopgate"
I seriously can not believe that the political savvy/hungry CL hasn't posted this quite yet...
Originally Posted by Newsweek
Bush’s Snoopgate
The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times’ eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper’s editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn’t just out of concern about national security.
Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.
No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.
The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.
No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.
What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow—as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way required extra-constitutional action.
This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.
In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor Turner Catledge that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba.
This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.
Story can be found here.
Meanwhile, I'll wait for this to be pushed to sometime deep into 2007, where jack**** will happen/come from this all. bleh.
-
Banned
heh. they probably were going to post something about it but quickly discovered that its public information that Clinton ordered the NSA to make several times more of these exact same actions without a warrant during his administration. nothing really new here.
-
Originally Posted by indivision
heh. they probably were going to post something about it but quickly discovered that its public information that Clinton ordered the NSA to make several times more of these exact same actions without a warrant during his administration. nothing really new here.
Personally I was interested to see how this played out through congress/legal proceedings or however your political system works in cases like this, however I'm perplexed how this issue in this particular instance has anything to do with Clinton??
Or is that the defence? " 'cos Clinton did it, I'm allowed to!"
Damn, if this is indeed illegal/impeachment material and they both did it I would be happy to see both prosecuted.
Meanwhile, I'll wait for this to be pushed to sometime deep into 2007, where jack**** will happen/come from this all.
You're probably right there...
Michezo Youth Initiative - donate | Into Kenya | Naked Chronicles | Mark Bingham - my friend, America's hero
To help new members fit into Flashkit, three rules they forgot to tell you on signup: Rule #1: Learn Group Think, and behave accordingly | Rule #2: Do as certain Mods say, not as they do. | Rule #3: If you're from outside the US, don't at any time criticise, allude or hyperlink to criticism of the US or any of their laws, policies or practices. | Enjoy your time at Flashkit!
-
Banned
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
Personally I was interested to see how this played out through congress/legal proceedings or however your political system works in cases like this, however I'm perplexed how this issue in this particular instance has anything to do with Clinton??
Or is that the defence? " 'cos Clinton did it, I'm allowed to!"
Damn, if this is indeed illegal/impeachment material and they both did it I would be happy to see both prosecuted.
I wouldn't be happy about any president having to be prosecuted. The relavence of Clinton to the story is that he, as well as Bush was legally justified to order the actions. The Times article states that Bush's actions were 'unprecedented' when, in fact, they were not. It's simple muckraking.
-
associate
I'm more interested in Snoop's Bushgate.
-
Will be interesting to see if it was "legally justified". I think I'd be concerned if the leader of my country was approving the bugging of citizens' phone calls and emails without a court warrant.
And I meant "happy" as in, if they have done something illegal, not hapopy as in it would make my day. They shouldn't be above the law is all...
But we'll see if it actually plays out with the public finding out the whole information - whatever that might be - or if it's swept under the carpet like so much from all political sides...
<tangent>
I'm actually starting to wonder if there's ever going to be such a thing as a politican who's a "normal" human being, as in having any sort of connection with the real world. Seems less and less likely as time goes on... and we're having that issue right now in Australia where we have a lier as Prime Minister, but a hopeless opposition as an alternative. Very depressing...
</tangent>
Michezo Youth Initiative - donate | Into Kenya | Naked Chronicles | Mark Bingham - my friend, America's hero
To help new members fit into Flashkit, three rules they forgot to tell you on signup: Rule #1: Learn Group Think, and behave accordingly | Rule #2: Do as certain Mods say, not as they do. | Rule #3: If you're from outside the US, don't at any time criticise, allude or hyperlink to criticism of the US or any of their laws, policies or practices. | Enjoy your time at Flashkit!
-
Nothing new, and nobody really cares.
Days after 9/11, it was reported that Al-Qaeda was known to be involved based on intercepted international cell phone calls. It's widely known (at least in technical circles) that the "NSA knows everything" - that a few taps were established is no big surprise, there were hundreds of streams that were likely recorded and never analyzed, just because that's how the NSA seems to operate.
Don't like it? Don't make unencrypted international communications.
-
Spartan Mop Warrior
The fact that the NSA does wiretaps either foreign or domestic isn't the issue here.
The whole problem with this situation is that Bush decided to ignore the laws we have in place for wiretapping.
::
"Just go make web and stfu already." - jAQUAN
"Twitter is a public display of verbal diarrhea that comes out in small squirts." - Gerbick
-
My point, though it may not be spelled out in pure black-and-white, is that the wiretaps aren't at all unusual, and that the NSA routinely records LOTS of data without warrants.
Case in point - there was a cell phone call intercepted and translated on 9/11 after the third plane crashed and before the fourth - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520830.shtml
Now, do you REALLY think they had a warrant for a phone call placed from Afghanistan to Georgia (Republic, not state), or would it be more reasonable to believe that the largest intelligence agency in the world pretty much monitors all international phone communications?
Therefore, what this "story" is really about is that Bush asked the agency to do something they were likely already doing, which really means that he wanted them to share information with the executive branch.
-
Originally Posted by Jeff2A
My point, though it may not be spelled out in pure black-and-white, is that the wiretaps aren't at all unusual, and that the NSA routinely records LOTS of data without warrants.
Case in point - there was a cell phone call intercepted and translated on 9/11 after the third plane crashed and before the fourth - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520830.shtml
Now, do you REALLY think they had a warrant for a phone call placed from Afghanistan to Georgia (Republic, not state), or would it be more reasonable to believe that the largest intelligence agency in the world pretty much monitors all international phone communications?
Therefore, what this "story" is really about is that Bush asked the agency to do something they were likely already doing, which really means that he wanted them to share information with the executive branch.
But then wouldn't the above scenario be covered under this legislation, from the article above:
"...the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four."
So isn't the issue - just from what I'm reading here - that even with this legislation in place, Bush ignored it? So does the NSA simply ignore it too, or do they use this legislation, which would seem to allow them quite a bit of freedom anyway, but at least it is monitored by the courts, even retrospectively?
I mean, I certainly understand the need for intelligence agencies to have certain powers that exceed some other areas of our government, but surely even getting retrospective court approval is a safety guard against corruption and abuse of that power, no?
So isn't the issue (and please correct me if I'm mistaken from the little I've read of this matter) not that he approved monitoring of calls and emails, but that he did so without then applying for the court approval - even after the fact - as required by the legislation in place, thereby in effect placing his actions above the law in his eyes?
Last edited by TheOriginalFlashDavo; 12-20-2005 at 11:41 PM.
Michezo Youth Initiative - donate | Into Kenya | Naked Chronicles | Mark Bingham - my friend, America's hero
To help new members fit into Flashkit, three rules they forgot to tell you on signup: Rule #1: Learn Group Think, and behave accordingly | Rule #2: Do as certain Mods say, not as they do. | Rule #3: If you're from outside the US, don't at any time criticise, allude or hyperlink to criticism of the US or any of their laws, policies or practices. | Enjoy your time at Flashkit!
-
Spartan Mop Warrior
Originally Posted by Jeff2A
Now, do you REALLY think they had a warrant for a phone call placed from Afghanistan to Georgia...
The provisions in the FISA law which governs wiretapping allows the government to immediately start a wiretap without court approval but the government is required to retroactively report it and get FISA court approval within 72 hours after starting the tap.
This system has been in place since 1978 and doesn't prevent an immediate wiretap if needed.
What it does prevent is abuse of wiretapping by requiring that a judge gets to review who was wiretapped and for what reason.
What Bush did was put himself above the law like a dictator and secretly wiretapped people without having any oversight by the FISA court at all.
::
"Just go make web and stfu already." - jAQUAN
"Twitter is a public display of verbal diarrhea that comes out in small squirts." - Gerbick
-
Spartan Mop Warrior
Beat me to it Davo.
Glad to see someone understands the law.
::
"Just go make web and stfu already." - jAQUAN
"Twitter is a public display of verbal diarrhea that comes out in small squirts." - Gerbick
-
FISA gave some pretty significant powers to the NSA/CIA, but it was amended by the Patriot act, and I'd be lying if I said I knew (off the top of my head) the exact ramifications of these amendments.
Based on the very public statements made by Rice et. al., my hunch is that there's some clause either in the original FISA statute or in the Patriot Act, or in either the 1995 or 2002 procedure amendments, that allows warrantless searches/interceptions (or delayed warrants) on international communication if the target was believed to be breaking the law.
-
FK's Geezer Mod
If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced.
Several people here have stated that I've changed my views over the last year. There's the reason, right there. The fact that this criminal is still running this country after breaking any number of laws that we knew about long before this came out. Exactly what does it take? Shouldn't matter what party you belong to, if the man is a criminal, he should be outed.
And please, no pandering to your party line. It's been proven more than once that this weasel broke numerous laws, yet no one in any government position from either side of the aisle has said peep one. That shows me we no longer have any form of government and we might as well "all put our wool back on and get over there with the other sheep".
Last edited by Ask The Geezer; 12-21-2005 at 12:10 AM.
-
Spartan Mop Warrior
Originally Posted by Jeff2A
...my hunch is that there's some clause either in the original FISA statute or in the Patriot Act, or in either the 1995 or 2002 procedure amendments, that allows warrantless searches/interceptions (or delayed warrants) on international communication if the target was believed to be breaking the law.
Actually that is a bit of a problem for Bush because there isn't anything covering wiretapping in the "Authorization to Use Military Force" law that congress passed after 9/11 which Bush and Gonzales are claiming gave him the right to do this.
Gonzales, who was White House counsel when the program was created, said just because Congress' war authorization doesn't mention electronic surveillance doesn't mean the law doesn't allow it. He cited a 2004 plurality opinion by Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to back him up. Although Congress never included the word "detention" in the war authorization, O'Connor said lawmakers gave the president power to detain enemy soldiers - even U.S. citizens - captured on the battlefield.
"That's ridiculous," said Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe. "O'Connor wasn't saying that anything not mentioned (in the authorization) is OK ... To use that to say it's OK to eavesdrop on people ... is to stretch the authorization completely beyond recognition."
article
This is a case of Bush and his lawyers interpreting something into the law which isn't there.
::
"Just go make web and stfu already." - jAQUAN
"Twitter is a public display of verbal diarrhea that comes out in small squirts." - Gerbick
-
Spartan Mop Warrior
Here is an interesting soundbite from one of Bush's campaign speeches back in April, 2004, before the election where he specifically talks about wiretapping.
http://www.agoodhost.com/flashkit/bush_wiretap_2004.MP3
Bear in mind that at the time he gave this speech he had already been illegally wiretapping for two years without a court order.
Last edited by Loyal Rogue; 12-21-2005 at 12:18 AM.
::
"Just go make web and stfu already." - jAQUAN
"Twitter is a public display of verbal diarrhea that comes out in small squirts." - Gerbick
-
I'm the good one!
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Title 50 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802, "Electronic surveillance authorization without court order," reads: "[T]he 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," provided a series of conditions are met. Surveillance must be directed only at agents of foreign powers; there can be no likely surveillance of a "U.S. person" (more on this term below); and there must be strict congressional oversight in the intelligence committees. Mr. Bush says he has complied with these laws.
The critics ignore the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force, enacted by Congress shortly after September 11, which can be viewed as a congressional declaration of war on the terrorists and a stamp of approval for the president's wartime actions.
And if the NSA ends up spying on a U.S. citizen? The "U.S. person" definition "does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power," according to the same law. An "agent of a foreign power" is anyone, citizen or otherwise, who "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power." Which means that people who do not help al-Qaeda or other terrorists are safe from surveillance. Anyone who does, however, forfeits his rights and can be targeted for eavesdropping.
There is little novel about the domestic-spying revelations, only that Mr. Bush has chosen to break precedent by harnessing the NSA's substantial resources.
From what I see it's the same people and civil liberties who complained that the patriot act would bring the end of the world et all.
The real story should be on the New York times motive and possible damage it has done to national security.....but then again anything that demonizes Bush will certainly have the support of it's readers.
iTony
-
Spartan Mop Warrior
Originally Posted by XU1
The real story should be on the New York times motive and possible damage it has done to national security...
I agree.
Why the hell did they hide this information from us until after Bush was reelected?!?
They knew this was an illegal and impeachable offense yet they allowed this criminal to retake office.
If this had come out before the election then he wouldn't be the president right now and we would be a lot safer.
::
"Just go make web and stfu already." - jAQUAN
"Twitter is a public display of verbal diarrhea that comes out in small squirts." - Gerbick
-
FK's Geezer Mod
From what I see it's the same people and civil liberties who complained that the patriot act would bring the end of the world et all.
Hey Tony. Give it time. When I first heard there was a bill called the Patriot Act, my hair stood on end. As anyone can see, the shrub regime is using it to cover all sorts of crimes and near crimes, and I have no doubt, we have only seen the tip of a large and nasty iceberg. There is nothing patriotic at all about taking people rights away, for any reason. And it leaves a nasty taste in my mouth for anyone in my government to call what he's doing patriotism. At best, he's a really poor businessman who'd run every company he ever had a hand in into the ground, at worst, he's a puppet for some other power group who does not have the best interests of my country in mind.
-
2008 Man of the Year
Honestly didn't read all that crap that EVERY one said but my point:
People give bush too much damn credit. This isn't a dictatorship, bush isn't sitting in his office with a crown saying how can I alone hurt the american people today. Bush only approves the proposals given to him by different parts of the government.
While it IS his fault he said ok lets do it, he really is just to stupid to know better. And I also think there are people far more educated than us, in places we'll never be, with power we'll never have discussing this.
Last edited by JWin; 12-21-2005 at 02:14 AM.
Reason: speeling
SAMedia Blog (general bs) :: jwinmedia (my music site)
"Think of an advertisement where the product you're marketing is Jesus!"
-From a work for hire ad
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width
|