PDA

View Full Version : Bush Approved Domestic Spying Through NSA



sws4420
12-17-2005, 06:44 PM
What do you guys think about President Bush approving domestic spying procedures?

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 followed 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.

In a broad defense of the program put forward hours later, however, a senior intelligence official said the eavesdropping was narrowly designed to go after possible terrorist threats in the United States.

The official said that since October 2001, the program has been renewed more than three dozen times. Each time, the White House counsel and the attorney general certified the lawfulness of the program, the official said. Bush then signed the authorization.

Bush: 'We will uphold the law'

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," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"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 said 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."

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 communications within the United States.

"I want to know precisely what they did," Specter said. "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."

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

Other intelligence veterans found difficulty with the program in light of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed after the intelligence community came under fire for spying on Americans. That law gives government - with approval from a secretive U.S. court - the authority to conduct covert wiretaps and surveillance of suspected terrorists and spies.


http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/12/17/100616.shtml

Rob - banned
12-17-2005, 11:21 PM
Well you already know I'm anti-Bush but I'll save that rant for another day and just address my quick opinion of what you posted.

Guess the "freedom" we supposedly have don't include the right to privacy anymore. Goodbye 5th Ammendment.

That's my general feeling.

sws4420
12-18-2005, 09:11 AM
There isn't one word in the Constitution that grants anyone the right to privacy.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Additionally, as a citizen that doesn't plot to kill people in America, I wouldn't care if someone was tapping anything I was doing. If you're doing something illegal you deserve to be caught. There's laws for reasons and they should be followed.

Rob - banned
12-19-2005, 01:30 AM
The right to privacy

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v. Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self- incrimination limit.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html)

Cutesunshine
12-19-2005, 08:24 AM
It doesnt have anything in that referring to being able to potentially be private when plotting to kill americans. From what I gather in what I've heard, even if someone's phone is tapped, etc... And other illegal activity is being done, nothing can be said, and it cant be used in prosecution in anything that isnt a threat to national security. Any other illegal activities have to go through the supeona, judges, warrents as per usual.

sws4420
12-19-2005, 08:35 AM
Abortion, interracial marriage, and contraception aren't exactly in the same ballpark as catching a terrorist that is trying to damage the American infrastructure and economy.

Plus keep in mind...

...we have a different Supreme Court than they had in the 80s and 90s. :biggrin: