Bush authorized spying multiple times (grace, attending, America, mission)

[standing_alone]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/ Whole article here

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 a congressional inquiry 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.

Bush on Friday refused to discuss whether he had authorized such domestic spying without obtaining warrants from a court, saying that to comment would tie his hands in fighting terrorists.

At each review, government officials have provided a fresh assessment of the terrorist threat, showing that there is a catastrophic risk to the country or government, the official said.
“Only if those conditions apply do we even begin to think about this,” he said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the intelligence operation.

“The president has authorized NSA to fully use its resources — let me underscore this now — consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution to defend the United States and its citizens,” the official said, adding that congressional leaders have also been briefed more than a dozen times.

Senior officials asserted that that the president would do everything in his power to protect the American people while safeguarding civil liberties.

“I will make this point,” Bush said in an interview with “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.” “That whatever I do to protect the American people — and I have an obligation to do so — that we will uphold the law, and decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people.”

Senators want more information
The surveillance, disclosed in Friday’s New York Times, is said to allow the agency to monitor international calls and e-mail messages of people inside the United States. But the paper said the agency would still seek warrants to snoop on purely domestic communications — for example, Americans’ calls between New York and California.

“I want to know precisely what they did,” said Specter. “How NSA utilized their technical equipment, whose conversations they overheard, how many conversations they overheard, what they did with the material, what purported justification there was.”

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he wanted to know exactly what is going on before deciding whether an investigation is called for. “Theoretically, I obviously wouldn’t like it,” he said of the program.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., a member of the Judiciary Committee, said, “This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every American.”

The intelligence official would not provide details on the operations or examples of success stories. He said senior national security officials are trying to fix problems raised by the Sept. 11 commission, which found that two of the suicide hijackers were communicating from San Diego with al-Qaida operatives overseas.

Some intelligence experts who believe in broad presidential power argued that Bush would have the authority to order searches without warrants under the Constitution.

Prior to 9/11, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance activities to foreign embassies and missions — and obtained court orders for such investigations. Much of its work was overseas, where thousands of people with suspected terrorist ties or other valuable intelligence may be monitored.

I personally think they should have to get warrants. If they assume someone is involved in terrorist activities and have good reasons to prove it, it shouldn't be too difficult to obtain the warrant. And if they are spying on a U.S. citizen without a warrant (I know the article said the gov't won't without a warrant) I feel it violates the fourth amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." With unchecked power like this, I think it is very easy for the government to misuse its power and I think this kind of power is easy to abuse. I also believe that it is more important to protect civil lberties from any threat (and I view this as a threat) over trying to provide security. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety diserve neither liberty nor safety." (But also, like McCain said, we should maybe wait until we know what's going on before getting heated up over it. But also, I think the government needs to answer to this more than they have)

What do you guys think? Is it okay to spy domestically (potentially on U.S. citizens) without obtaining a warrant? Or should they have to obtain a warrant in order to spy domestically?

[Sunstone]

This has the potential of becoming the sort of scandal that could cripple the Administration. It already seems to have played a part in the defeat of the Patriot Act.

[jamaesi]

(But also, like McCain said, we should maybe wait until we know what's going on before getting heated up over it. But also, I think the government needs to answer to this more than they have)

With the amount of secrecy and lying that goes on in the current administration, I doubt they will ever answer up to this.


Checks of power are there for a reason- and not to just be an annoyance, they are to protect our rights- they need to stay.

[standing_alone]

With the amount of secrecy and lying that goes on in the current administration, I doubt they will ever answer up to this.

I totally agree. And if they refuse to answer, I say, "Get outraged and demand an answer!"

[Scuba Pete]

Shrub has been out of control since the Towers came down. He is in WAY over his head and has done so many inappropriate things that it makes my head swim! I do have to say that he has come by his incompetence honestly and has employed MANY goons to keep him from being effective. They have advised him to do so MANY illegal things, and the guy is such a lightweight mentally that he just doesn't see how bad it really is.

[jamaesi]

Originally Posted by standing_alone

I totally agree. And if they refuse to answer, I say, "Get outraged and demand an answer!"

Oh, why oh why do you hate America?

[standing_alone]

Oh, why oh why do you hate America?

No, no! I don't hate America! Really! See, I have a flag! Wait, I'm serious, I do! I don't know where it went! Why are you taking me away, Mr. Agent guy?! I'm a patriot! I swear!

[Jaymes]

What fourth Amendment?

Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin

Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

It seems the more I look at the Bush administration, the more often I remember the words of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

[michel]

I think one of the telling sentenses is:-

Bush on Friday refused to discuss whether he had authorized such domestic spying without obtaining warrants from a court, saying that to comment would tie his hands in fighting terrorists.

That, surely, is not 'on' ?

[greatcalgarian]

This is just a replay of Watergate, nothing new, actually. Nixon left in disgrace. Wonder what is going to happen to GWB? I suppose nothing will happen to him, as he is a born again, and the American born again are giving him their full support no matter what he did.