PDA

View Full Version : Shhhhh, he's listening


gunns
12-16-2005, 06:32 PM
Bush 'backed spying on Americans'

One of Bush's top aides says he did not break the law
President Bush allowed security agents to eavesdrop on people inside the US without court approval after 9/11, the New York Times has reported.
Under a 2002 presidential order, the National Security Agency has been monitoring international communications of hundreds in the US, the paper says.

Before, the NSA had typically limited US surveillance to foreign embassies.

Questioned about the report, Condoleezza Rice said Mr Bush had never ordered anyone to do anything illegal.

But some NSA officials familiar with the operation have questioned whether the surveillance of calls and e-mails has crossed constitutional limits on legal searches, according to the Times.

American law usually requires a secret court, known as a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to give permission before intelligence officers can conduct surveillance on US soil.

When asked about the programme on US TV, the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said: "The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken".

"He takes absolutely seriously his constitutional responsibility both to defend Americans and to do it within the law," she said.

She declined to discuss details of the New York Times report.

'Sea change'

The newspaper said nearly a dozen current and former administration officials discussed the programme with reporters.

It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches

Unnamed ex-senior official

They were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the scheme.

Under the programme, the NSA has eavesdropped on as many as 500 people inside the US at any given time in its search for evidence of terrorist activity, the paper said.

Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.

"This is really a sea change," a former senior official who specialises in national security law told the paper.

"It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches."

The New York Times said it delayed publishing the information on the move for a year, in response to White House concerns it could jeopardise investigations.

Some officials said the programme had helped to uncover several terror plots, including one by an Ohio lorry driver who was jailed in 2003 for supporting al-Qaeda and targeting a New York bridge for sabotage.

'Above the law'

Officials cited by the paper said the Bush administration saw the scheme as necessary to disclose terror threats.

However, the paper reported that questions about the legality of the scheme led the Bush administration to suspend it temporarily last year and impose new restrictions.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said eavesdropping in the US without a court order and without complying with the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was "both illegal and unconstitutional".

"The administration is claiming extraordinary presidential powers at the expense of civil liberties and is putting the president above the law," director Caroline Fredrickson said.

The group called on Congress to investigate the report.

The Bush administration has faced opposition over some anti-terrorism initiatives in the past, such as the Patriot Act, which is up for renewal by Congress.

The law grants government agencies extraordinary powers to spy on and prosecute those suspected of terrorism.

Opponents say many of its provisions infringe civil liberties.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4534488.stm

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-16-2005, 11:35 PM
One of Bush's top aides says he did not break the law
President Bush allowed security agents to eavesdrop on people inside the US without court approval after 9/11, the New York Times has reported.


tsk tsk

They lie, and they lie, and they lie, don't they?

Bush Approved Eavesdropping, Official Says

WASHINGTON - President Bush has personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times since October 2001, a senior intelligence official said Friday night.

The disclosure follows angry demands by lawmakers earlier in the day for congressional inquiries into whether the monitoring by the highly secretive National Security Agency violated civil liberties.

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," declared Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He promised hearings early next year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_nsa

Champbaileystopsmoss
12-17-2005, 01:25 AM
:kiddingme This story is misleading, this was not "secret" by any means, senator Rockefeller of West Virginia( democrat) knew about it, there was a secret court( FISA court) that presided over these meetings. Another point being made is the writer of this article in the NYT(James Risen) has a book coming out and is being published by the same company that does Hillary's books and Richard Clarke's books. Im sure James Risen will be interviewed on 60 minutes for the slam bush book of the month club.This is just part of a book. They say they have been holding it for a year. Why publish it today? They say in the story, "The government asked us to hold it." BS! This is the New York Times. It just recently ran a fake story about forged ballots getting into Iraq prior to the election.Gonzales needs to take this opportunity to expand the jurisdiction of Patrick Fitzgerald, the independent counsel. He's investigating CIA leaks. Well, hey, there's a whole boatload of them that have unfolded here that make the Valerie Plame leak look like Romper Room in a sandbox! All I have to say is that this story will backfire on the dems and that it is way too errie for this to come out with two important things happening 1. the Iraqi Elections and 2. the Patriot Act vote. Seems too fishy to me.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-17-2005, 01:29 AM
This story is misleading, this was not "secret" by any means, senator Rockefeller of West Virginia( democrat) knew about it, there was a secret court( FISA court) that presided over these meetings.

Um, "secret" obviously doesn't mean no one else knew about it.

"Secret" means hidden from the American people.

Kind of like Iran-Contra, you know?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-17-2005, 01:30 AM
Looks like champ missed this detail:

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," declared Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He promised hearings early next year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/...pr_wh/bush_nsa

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-17-2005, 01:39 AM
Another point being made is the writer of this article in the NYT(James Risen) has a book coming out and is being published by the same company that does Hillary's books and Richard Clarke's books. Im sure James Risen will be interviewed on 60 minutes for the slam bush book of the month club.This is just part of a book. They say they have been holding it for a year. Why publish it today? They say in the story, "The government asked us to hold it." BS! This is the New York Times.

There's the usual "attack the messenger and pretend you've discredited the message" 'strategery' again.

:laugh:


It just recently ran a fake story about forged ballots getting into Iraq prior to the election. Gonzales needs to take this opportunity to expand the jurisdiction of Patrick Fitzgerald, the independent counsel. He's investigating CIA leaks. Well, hey, there's a whole boatload of them that have unfolded here that make the Valerie Plame leak look like Romper Room in a sandbox!

Links? Proof?

All I have to say is that this story will backfire on the dems...

Earth to champ:

WASHINGTON - President Bush has personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times since October 2001, a senior intelligence official said Friday night.

Did you get that?

It says "senior intelligence official" - not "the dems."

Champbaileystopsmoss
12-17-2005, 02:06 AM
Um, "secret" obviously doesn't mean no one else knew about it.

"Secret" means hidden from the American people.

Kind of like Iran-Contra, you know?
The story was headlined to make it look like Bush told the NSA directly to spy on the american people when in fact there were others involved in this. Yeah it was secret from the american people otherwise they would have talked about this in a PUBLIC court not a FISA court!


There's the usual "attack the messenger and pretend you've discredited the message" 'strategery' again.



Its obvious there is an agenda here.

Links? Proof?


link was pulled because the story was fake. Ill see if i can look for a rectraction of some sort or if some other media reported it...

- President Bush has personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times since October 2001, a senior intelligence official said Friday night.

See its designed to look like bush did it all by himself but he in fact went to a secret court(FISA) for it and rockefeller knew about it.

Did you get that?

It says "senior intelligence official" - not "the dems."

Who is the senior official? thats the problem and we need an ivestigation into this. If we are ivestigating CIA leaks we need to find this guy.

Um, "secret" obviously doesn't mean no one else knew about it.

"Secret" means hidden from the American people.

Kind of like Iran-Contra, you know?

or this.....

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2005/12/09/178552.html

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-18-2005, 03:02 AM
Why the NYT waited a year to publish the story

Indeed, it appears the information about Bush's secret spy order was leaked before Election 2004, but was kept from the American people because the Bush administration warned Times executives that the story's publication might endanger national security.

In finally publishing the story on Dec. 16, more than 13 months after President Bush won a second term, the Times gave few details about specifically why it withheld the story in 2004 and then decided to print it now.

The article stated that "the White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting."

http://consortiumnews.com/2005/121605.html

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-18-2005, 07:45 PM
NY Times Secretly Concealed Bush Spying in U.S.

The New York Times quietly laid to the rest the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in October 2004. In a belated obituary published December 15, 2005 the Times admitted its complicity in the death. It confessed to bowing under pressure from the Bush Administration to withhold explosive information concerning President Bush’s, and other members of his Administration’s, blatant abuse of the Constitution. Bush was currently running for reelection and did not want knowledge of his malfeasance to be made public.

Bush’s conduct was eerily reminiscent of the 1972 reelection campaign of Richard M. Nixon in which Nixon and his cronies constantly ignored the Constitution and broke several laws concerning individual rights and privacy. Bush’s handlers even copied the standard radical right defense of placing all bad news under the protective blanket of “National Security”, a defense implemented and used often by Nixon. Unfortunately the Times was either too afraid or too ignorant to withstand the pressure. Considering all the things that have happened at the Times the past few years perhaps it is time for them to change their masthead to, "Some of the news that's fit to print."

http://waywardsojourner.blogspot.com/2005/12/1st-amendment-r.html