Bush Lets US Spy On Callers Without Courts

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
As usual, things at the NYT are not as they seem:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm

NYT ‘SPYING’ SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE
Fri Dec 16 200 11:27:16 ET

Exclusive

Newspaper fails to inform readers “news break” is tied to book publication

On the front page of today’s NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter James Risen claims that “months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States… without the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.”

Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.

Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting.

But now comes word James Risen’s article is only one of many “explosive newsbreaking” stories that can be found – in his upcoming book!

The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale.

“STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration” is to be published by FREE PRESS in the coming weeks, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is being published.

The book editor of Bush critic Richard Clarke [AGAINST ALL ENEMIES] signed Risen to FREE PRESS.

Developing…
[/quote]

Uh, who cares if a book is tied with this? Does that mean we ignore the information? Perhaps they wanted to be sure of the story they were releasing. Was this supposed to erase the issue?

22

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
As usual, things at the NYT are not as they seem:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm

NYT ‘SPYING’ SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE
Fri Dec 16 200 11:27:16 ET

Exclusive

Newspaper fails to inform readers “news break” is tied to book publication

On the front page of today’s NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter James Risen claims that “months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States… without the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.”

Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.

Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting.

But now comes word James Risen’s article is only one of many “explosive newsbreaking” stories that can be found – in his upcoming book!

The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale.

“STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration” is to be published by FREE PRESS in the coming weeks, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is being published.

The book editor of Bush critic Richard Clarke [AGAINST ALL ENEMIES] signed Risen to FREE PRESS.

Developing…
[/quote]

So what? Your saying he made all this shit up? Just because its going to be in his book makes it less relevant somehow?

23

Some legal background, courtesy of Mark Levin:

Some brief background: The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens – 50 USC 1801, et seq. ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html ) A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

The reason the President probably had to sign an executive order is that the Justice Department office that processes FISA requests, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR), can take over 6 months to get a standard FISA request approved. It can become extremely bureaucratic, depending on who is handling the request. His executive order is not contrary to FISA if he believed, as he clearly did, that he needed to act quickly. The president has constitutional powers, too.

24

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Some legal background, courtesy of Mark Levin:
A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.[/quote]

So, no warrant is needed to spy on pretty much ANYONE else?? and you find nothing wrong with this??

25

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…

Uh, who cares if a book is tied with this? Does that mean we ignore the information? Perhaps they wanted to be sure of the story they were releasing. Was this supposed to erase the issue?
[/quote]

If it was important it should have been reported before. This makes it look like they are trying to manipulate a story to sell books, much like FoxNews is doing with the whole war against Christmas thing.

I am more concerned with traffic cameras that send you tickets via mail than I am with this.

26

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Some legal background, courtesy of Mark Levin:
A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

mmg_4 wrote:

So, no warrant is needed to spy on pretty much ANYONE else?? and you find nothing wrong with this??[/quote]

No, no warrant is needed to monitor other foreign communications under the Foreign Intelligence Security Act. BTW, FYI, FISA was passed in 1978.

Again, I recommend reviewing the legal analysis in this case: http://www.law.syr.edu/faculty/banks/terrorism/dummyfl/binladen_12_19_00.pdf .

ADDENDUM FOR CLARIFICATION:

Surveillance between two foreign actors located outside the United States is simply not a problem under U.S. law, either statutory or constitutional (since foreign actors abroad are not part of “the people” who are protected under the 4th Amendment). FISA doesn’t even apply.

Communications between two parties in the USA are subject to FISA, provided that we are dealing with an agent (or suspected agent) of a foreign power.

The 4th Amendment attaches to communications of U.S. citizens where ever they are, but note the intersection with the president’s powers regarding foreign matters that provide a large limitation to the 4th Amendment in the context of foreign communications of U.S. citizens that are suspected of being, or dealing with, foreign agents.

As an aside, the 4th Amendment, if it were in fact violated in the case of a U.S. citizen, would simply make evidence gathered resulting from the violation inadmissable in a criminal trial.

27

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Uh, who cares if a book is tied with this? Does that mean we ignore the information? Perhaps they wanted to be sure of the story they were releasing. Was this supposed to erase the issue?
[/quote]

It highlights the fact the the NYT has an agenda, and what they report should viewed with some sceptisism

28

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Uh, who cares if a book is tied with this? Does that mean we ignore the information? Perhaps they wanted to be sure of the story they were releasing. Was this supposed to erase the issue?

It highlights the fact the the NYT has an agenda, and what they report should viewed with some sceptisism
[/quote]

You mean, like any other news source? If you haven’t noticed, they aren’t the only ones reporting on this. Both CNN and Fox News had stories this morning on it.

29

Kind of scary that a story like this isn’t being seized on by the other party and blown up. They do it with any of the other mistakes Bush makes, why not this one? Oddly silent from the other party. Maybe there’s something to this Illuminati, One world gov’t stuff. Or could the story just be BS. YOU decide.

30

[quote]Professor X wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Uh, who cares if a book is tied with this? Does that mean we ignore the information? Perhaps they wanted to be sure of the story they were releasing. Was this supposed to erase the issue?

It highlights the fact the the NYT has an agenda, and what they report should viewed with some sceptisism

You mean, like any other news source? If you haven’t noticed, they aren’t the only ones reporting on this. Both CNN and Fox News had stories this morning on it.[/quote]

From what BB posted, it sounds like this has been legal for years, Bush just streamlined it. Which makes it appear that the NYT is hyping it for the purpose of selling books.

31

pox wrote"

“You mean, like any other news source? If you haven’t noticed, they aren’t the only ones reporting on this. Both CNN and Fox News had stories this morning on it.”

Both sources cited the nyt’s story.

I’m sure you took the time to read that part.

Oh, wait…

Anyway, before I comment, let’s see if they used Microsoft Word in 1972.

JeffR

32

[quote]btm62 wrote:
Kind of scary that a story like this isn’t being seized on by the other party and blown up. They do it with any of the other mistakes Bush makes, why not this one? Oddly silent from the other party. Maybe there’s something to this Illuminati, One world gov’t stuff. Or could the story just be BS. YOU decide.[/quote]

I think that’s because they already knew about it. The NYT article itself indicates Senator Rockefeller knew about this stuff, and I find it difficult to believe he kept that knowledge to himself (as opposed to sharing it with his fellow lawmakers in the Senate). Aside from that, the article indicates he knew about it due to his position on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which implies that the administration made at least certain committees aware of what it was doing – and I think it’s safe to assume if the administration was letting Senate committees know about what it was doing, it was also letting House committees know what it was doing. [ADDENDUM: Later in the article it specifically states Cheney briefed intelligence-related committees in both chambers on the use of the NSA to conduct warrantless searches.]

In other words, it may have been administration policy enacted by executive order, but Congress knew what was going on.

33

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
btm62 wrote:
Kind of scary that a story like this isn’t being seized on by the other party and blown up. They do it with any of the other mistakes Bush makes, why not this one? Oddly silent from the other party. Maybe there’s something to this Illuminati, One world gov’t stuff. Or could the story just be BS. YOU decide.

I think that’s because they already knew about it. The NYT article itself indicates Senator Rockefeller knew about this stuff, and I find it difficult to believe he kept that knowledge to himself (as opposed to sharing it with his fellow lawmakers in the Senate). Aside from that, the article indicates he knew about it due to his position on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which implies that the administration made at least certain committees aware of what it was doing – and I think it’s safe to assume if the administration was letting Senate committees know about what it was doing, it was also letting House committees know what it was doing.

In other words, it may have been administration policy enacted by executive order, but Congress knew what was going on.[/quote]

Reinforces my “They’re all cocksuckers” stand. I’m sure others knew about it.

34

irish wrote:

“Reinforces my “They’re all cocksuckers” stand. I’m sure others knew about it.”

That’s not GOOD ENOUGH IRISH!!! The fact that we knew exactly what was happening. The suspicion that the nyt is releasing this to coincide with books and/or the tremendous success of the Iraqi election to do sell books/dampen the President’s achievement must not get in the way of destroying the Republicans.

Signed,

dems/nyt.

35

No freaking kidding!

I’m sure my government is cooperating too. I’m waiting for that cesna to pick me up and take me to Uzbekistan or some place where I can be held for a little “not illegal according to US law” retraining.

Woohoo, party in Uzbekistan! There ought to be a t-shirt.

P.S. Do you think I could get a copy of my library records too?

36

[quote]JeffR wrote:
irish wrote:

“Reinforces my “They’re all cocksuckers” stand. I’m sure others knew about it.”

That’s not GOOD ENOUGH IRISH!!! The fact that we knew exactly what was happening. The suspicion that the nyt is releasing this to coincide with books and/or the tremendous success of the Iraqi election to do sell books/dampen the President’s achievement must not get in the way of destroying the Republicans.

Signed,

dems/nyt.

[/quote]

I just wonder what it actually will take before people’s eyes are opened…As for now , it seems this administration can do anything it pleases, and people will look for the smallest loophole or excuse to make it ok, while more and more ludicrous things are being done.

I, for one am sick of it, and no am not comfortable with the government listening in on my telephone or anything of that nature. Again, this has degenerated into if your a republican you support this and hate the NYT, and vice versa. Fucking ridiculous. Use some common sense instead of blindly following the fucking leader…

37

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I honestly can’t believe this happens at the applause of the American people. Is it just apathy or stupidity?[/quote]

While Professor X is an overbearing obnoxious egomaniac, I feel he’s right about this one. What are the feds doin spying on American citizens with no warrant or anything?

38

Hey, mmg.

Are you an American citizen?

Seriously, you seem extremely hostile.

If you are an American, who did you vote for in the last election?

I am interested in your opinion.

JeffR

39

It just occurred to me that all accross america’s homes workplaces/internet forums people are getting pissed off about this. on this particular forum only jeff is defending this rainjack /hedo won’t even touch it yet. Does anybody have any doubt that our president is a bad decision maker or just stupid- stupid is as stupid does even gump got that?? Im waiting for his response when IT comes out in the papers. What a dangerous mofo for our #1 leader…he’s turning into something like leader kim jong of korea or MAO in china.

It also occured to me that i actually feel a little scared of this story. Im sure that my phone isn’t tapped b/c im not political outside of voting and this forum but im still not going to talk about politics in public now that this broke out. Horrible feeling to be even slightly scared or aprehensive about living in america while your own government is doing this 1984 crap.

BTW - I read on cnn news that the pres isn’t discussing this story , for now. He seems to give these stories explaining his idiocy at what he thinks he can do a few days so his office can craft a official response or at least i noticed this happened with the story about kidnapping that suspected european al queda guy. So, we’ll have to wait a few days for him to give a response.

40

[quote]JeffR wrote:
pox wrote"

“You mean, like any other news source? If you haven’t noticed, they aren’t the only ones reporting on this. Both CNN and Fox News had stories this morning on it.”

Both sources cited the nyt’s story.

I’m sure you took the time to read that part.

Oh, wait…

Anyway, before I comment, let’s see if they used Microsoft Word in 1972.

JeffR

[/quote]

Honestly, are you on medication? Everything must turn into a battle of you defending the republicans at all costs no matter what type of shit hits the fan? Who gives a shit about a book being written? I hope the book does well. How does that erase the fact that our phones are being tapped? I swear, you would defend anything this administration did even if they were murdering your own children while you were typing out another cheer on this site.