Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Monday, January 02, 2006

Bush Standing Behind Domestic Spying

WASHINGTON - President Bush is standing firmly behind his domestic spying program, saying his decision to let the intelligence community listen in on phone calls Americans have with suspected terrorists is lawful and does not result in widespread domestic eavesdropping.

Bush, whose decision is facing congressional hearings on the surveillance, said Sunday that the program, run by the ultra-secret National Security Agency, is limited. He left little doubt that he intends to vigorously argue that he acted within the law.

"The NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers," the president told reporters after visiting with 51 wounded troops and their families at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas.

"In other words, the enemy is calling somebody and we want to know who they're calling and why," he said before returning to Washington.

Senators suggested, meanwhile, that congressional hearings were appropriate for considering Bush's assertion that he did not overstep his constitutional authority in authorizing the program after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. His order gave the NSA permission to eavesdrop without a warrant on communications between suspected terrorists overseas and people inside the United States.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., told CNN's "Late Edition" that Congress will focus in the new year on presidential powers in wartime. "The White House wants to expand that power in so many areas," he said. "Clearly, Congress is holding back."


So we're going to have a Congressional investigation. Not very surprising. It seems that these days if somone on Capitol Hill were to get their pen stolen we'd have a six month investigation complete with grandstanding Senators waxing poetic about the "importance of seeking the truth for the American people."

You know what I think will come of all this? Nothing much. We'll get all sorts of gloom and doom sound bites from Democrats talking about the seriousness of the charges against Bush. Leftist media types will act like they're working on the second coming of Watergate (just like they do with every controversy involving the President these days) then eventually the investigation will wind down and die a relatively quiet death largely unnoticed by the majority of Americans who are not obsessed with politics.

Here's one more interesting tid-bit from the article:



The New York Times disclosed last month that the NSA had been conducting the domestic surveillance since 2002. The Justice Department on Friday opened an investigation into who told reporters about the program.

"The fact that somebody leaked this program causes great harm to the United States," Bush said.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., appearing on "Fox News Sunday," said the Justice Department investigation should explore the motivation of the person who leaked the information.

"Was this somebody who had an ill purpose, trying to hurt the United States?" Schumer asked. "Or might it have been someone in the department who felt that this was wrong, legally wrong, that the law was being violated?"


I told you that this was how the left and the media were going to spin the leak part of the NSA story. They're going to play it off as a "courageous truth-teller bucking the system to do the right thing for America." Forget that there are legal channels through which to communicate concern over chief executives who may be overstepping their bounds without having to make illegal leaks to the press.

Comments

Avatar for FreeRepublicans.com

No matter how you look at it, you do have to admit there is a “slippery slope” argument to be made here.

FreeRepublicans.com on January 2, 2006 at 09:01 am
Avatar for Carrick

FreeRepublicans:

No matter how you look at it, you do have to admit there is a “slippery slope” argument to be made here.

I dunna if that’s true.  Looks to me like they were being pretty careful to stay within constitutional checks & balances, IF the White House did what they say they did.  However, I do welcome congressional oversight on this.  Advocating against that oversight is where the “slippery slope” begins.

What the White House admits to is the authorization of unwarranted intel intercepts to and from individuals or organizations who have been identified to fall under the AUMF, regardless of where these intercepts originated (the “domestic” part is that the communications could be directed towards or originating from the US), and regardless of whether the other party is a US citizen on US soil.  In all cases (they claim) the intercepts occurred outside of US territory, and in no cases were intercepts of domestic-to-domestic communications allowed without warrants.

IF Congress finds nothing to have occurred outside of this admitted behavior, then I think no violations will have occurred, and the system worked as it was supposed to.

If it turns out that a technical rather than substantive violation of the constitutionally applicable legislation occurred, I predict FISA will get modified to legalize such intercepts and prior intercepts will get grandfathered in.

If there is a substantive violation, then all bets are off.  Unlike a lot of democrats, I don’t automatically assume deliberate and willful negligence of appropriate constitutional and statutory law. 

“Trust, but verified” should be the operational policy here.

Carrick on January 2, 2006 at 10:01 am
Avatar for WOOF

George went to Congress to ask that the FISA rules be modified , they said no. The acting Atty General Comey said no, John laying in a hospital bed Ashcroft said no.
George decided to do it on his own dime.

Presidents get lots of lattitude, but the egomaniacs in congress defend their turf. Can’t see them modifying the rules after the fact.

It is going to come down to who NSA spied on,and with whom they shared the information.

Best not have listened to Congresscritters.

Though the Dept of Justice has said they will investigate, watch out for another Special Prosecutor or a Congressional commitee with subpena powers.

WOOF on January 2, 2006 at 11:01 am
Avatar for Doug Purdie

You are helping the Dems frame the debate by referring to this issue as “Domestic Spying”.  While it’s technically true that the spying occurs on US soil, that term implies that innocent Americans’ liberties are being trampled.

I like to refer to the issue as “Spying on the Enemy”.  Instead of “government abuse” it says “national security”.

Doug Purdie on January 3, 2006 at 09:02 am
Avatar for Carrick

Sight-reading has it’s price:

If it’s clear-cut wrong-doing and the leaking was purely politically [...]

should have read

If it’s clear-cut no wrong-doing and the leaking was purely politically [...]

Carrick on January 3, 2006 at 03:01 pm
Avatar for Carrick

Doug Purdie:

You are helping the Dems frame the debate by referring to this issue as “Domestic Spying”

It makes a very big difference whether any spying occurred on US versus international soil, and whether intercepts were of purely domestic-domestic or whether one leg lands on foreign soil.  And FINALLY, and most importantly, it’s critical whether a US citizen on US soil is involved.  It is the latter that triggers Forth-Ammendment protections for sure.

‘m not sure that I would have any expectation of privacy if I called up my friend Osama to plot the destruction of the capital building for example.  In such cases, I think the legal precedent is firmly on the administrations side.

Carrick on January 3, 2006 at 03:01 pm
Avatar for Carrick

WOOF:

It is going to come down to who NSA spied on,and with whom they shared the information.

I agree with the first part, though the location of the individual (US soil versus international location matters in that case as well). 

The “with whom they shared the information” part is puzzling.  Foreign intel seems to me to be perfectly reasonable grounds for obtaining a warrant on a US citizen.  You think US citizens should be protected from involvement with terrorist organizations for example? That’s just crackers.

Why shouldn’t they share the information with e.g. the FBi?  I’m speaking as a non-partisan here.  If Clinton authorized sharing of information between the CIA and the FBI, you would object?  Isn’t “breaking down the walls” one of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission???

WOOF:

Though the Dept of Justice has said they will investigate, watch out for another Special Prosecutor or a Congressional commitee with subpena powers.

My preference is a Congressional committee to investigate the legality of the administration’s actions.  I’d like to see this one resolved quickly.  If it’s clear-cut wrong-doing was done and the leaking was purely politically (or self-interest) motivated, then I advocate a special prosecutor to go after the leakers.

Put another, assholes don’t get an automatic hero status, especially when they have done real harm to the GWOT.

Carrick on January 3, 2006 at 03:02 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.