abuse of power?

[briannell]

I guess I am not surprised, actually not irritated either by this. I am not one to choose personal "privacy" over national security. I don't approve of doing the wire taps without going before the court initiated in 1978 to give the President a speedy way to achieve warrants for this purpose, however, if the US Government thinks I'm worth spying on i'll let them listen to my calls.




Bush Vigorously Defends Domestic Spying

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) Accused of acting above the law, President Bush forcefully defended a domestic spying program on Monday as an effective tool in disrupting terrorists and insisted it was not an abuse of Americans' civil liberties.

Bush said it was "a shameful act" for someone to have leaked details to the media. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said it was "probably the most classified program that exists in the United States government" _ involving electronic intercepts of telephone calls and e-mails in the U.S. of people with known ties to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

At a news conference, Bush bristled at the suggestion he was assuming unlimited powers.

"To say `unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject," he said angrily in a finger-pointing answer. "I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country."

Despite Bush's defense, there was a growing storm of criticism from Congress and calls for investigations, from Democrats and Republicans alike. West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, released a handwritten letter expressing concern to Vice President Dick Cheney after being briefed more than two years ago.

Rockefeller complained then that the information was so restricted he was "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities." He registered concern about the administration's direction on security, technology and surveillance issues.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he would ask Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, his views of the president's authority for spying without a warrant.

"Where does he find in the Constitution the authority to tap the wires and the phones of American citizens without any court oversight?" asked Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Bush's interpretation of the Constitution was "incorrect and dangerous."

Bush said he had asked, "Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely,"

The spying uproar was the latest controversy about Bush's handling of the war on terror, after questions about secret prisons in Eastern Europe, secrecy-cloaked government directives, torture allegations and a death toll of more than 2,150 Americans in Iraq. As a result, Bush's approval rating has slumped as has Americans' confidence in his leadership.

Appealing for support, Bush used the word "understand" 25 times in a nearly hour-long news conference. "I hope the American people understand _ there is still an enemy that would like to strike the United States of America, and they're very dangerous," he said. Similarly, he said he hoped that blacks who doubt his intentions "understand that I care about them."

Bush challenged Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. _ without naming them _ to allow a final vote on legislation renewing the anti-terror Patriot Act, saying it was inexcusable to let it expire. "I want senators from New York or Los Angeles or Las Vegas to go home and explain why these cities are safer" without the extension, he said.

Reid and Clinton both helped block passage of the legislation in the Senate last week.

Bush noted that U.S. intelligence agencies have been faulted for failing to "connect the dots" about threats to the nation's security. He said the Patriot Act and the spying program help take care of that problem.

Reid fired back: "The president and the Republican leadership should stop playing politics with the Patriot Act," he said in a statement that added he and other Democrats favor a three-month extension of the expiring law to allow time for a long-term compromise.

The legislation has cleared the House but Senate Democrats have blocked final passage and its prospects are uncertain in the congressional session's final days. Scolded by Bush, key lawmakers reopened talks by setting out the rough parameters of a deal: Extending the act for one to four years.

Bush said the electronic eavesdropping program, conducted by the National Security Agency, lets the government move faster than the standard practice of seeking a court-authorized warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent," the president said.

The president said the authority to bypass the court derived from the Constitution and Congress' vote authorizing the use of military force after the 2001 terror attacks.

"I can fully understand why members of Congress are expressing concerns about civil liberties," the president said. "I want to make sure the American people understand, however, that we have an obligation to protect you, and we're doing that, and at the same time, protecting your civil liberties."

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said he was briefed by the White House between 2002 and 2004 but was not told key details about the scope of the program. "Even with some of the more troublesome _ and potentially illegal _ details omitted, I still raised significant concern about these actions," Daschle said.

Daschle's successor, Reid, said he received a single briefing earlier this year and that important details were withheld. "We need to investigate this program and the president's legal authority to carry it out," Reid said.

Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., has been regularly briefed and believes the program is consistent with U.S. laws and the Constitution, his office said. A statement said he was talking with Senate leaders about how to expand Congress' oversight.

Bush was cool toward investigations, saying, "An open debate would say to the enemy, `Here is what we're going to do.' And this is an enemy which adjusts." He said the administration had consulted with Congress more than a dozen times.

On another issue, Bush acknowledged that a pre-war failure of intelligence _ claiming Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction _ has complicated the U.S. ability to confront other potential emerging threats such as Iran.

"Where it is going to be most difficult to make the case is in the public arena," Bush said. "People will say, if we're trying to make the case on Iran, `Well, if the intelligence failed in Iraq, therefore, how can we trust the intelligence on Iran?'"

___

On the Net:

Rockefeller's handwritten note: http://wid.ap.org/documents/051219rockefeller.pdf

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

[BWahlberg]

It is sooo damn easy to get a wiretap warrant with this secret court, so why didn't Bush do that?

This court has turned down something like 19 of thousands of requests. You can even authorize the wiretap and go back to the court to get the warrant at a later date. So why wouldn't Bush do that?

What I'd like Congress to see, is a list of all the wiretaps he ordered, and who they were. It'd be interesting to see what happenes after that, possibly nothing, possibly some really pissed of people.

A way out theory I heard from the Ed Schultz Show today was a pretty big "what if" but what if Bush used the wire tap to listen in on the Kerry camp during the election, or against any other political opponents? I know its a HUGE what if, but I wonder. I mean, something like that has been attempted before.

[SonomaCat]

The blog entries on this site kill me -- they're generally funny, but also very sharp. The open forum afterwards usually has some additional very funny and very bright people posting. This one addresses the subject of this thread:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/12 ... tml#012064

[SonomaCat]

A good explainer of a lot of the background behind the current revelations of Court order-free wire taps.

http://www.slate.com/id/2132810/

[SonomaCat]

Dahlia weighs in from the legal perspective:

http://www.slate.com/id/2132983/

['93HonoluluCat]

So...

...does it change anyone's mind that Clinton and his advisors were supporting Clinton's own authority over "No-Warrant Searches?"

To Wit:

The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General...It is important to understand that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities.

The very next day:

The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers.

(Emphasis added.)

Additionally, please visit these handy links:
Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
Calling al Qaeda: the Surveillance Question
President had legal authority to OK taps

I'll leave you with one final thought on the matter, from National Review Online:

If an al-Qaeda operative in Karachi phones someone in Paris, France and tells him to go to the US to carry out an act of terrorism – obviously the President would have the authority to listen to that conversation without a warrant.

But if an al-Qaeda operative in Karachi phones someone in Paris, Texas and tells him to go to Houston to carry out an act of terrorism -- the President would not have that authority to listen to that conversation without a warrant?

In other words, once a terrorist lands on American soil he must be given additional rights, including an expectation of privacy when he gets a phone call from Osama bin Laden.

That's what the administration’s critics are arguing.

[SonomaCat]

Not that anything that Clinton did or didn't do would impact whether what Bush does is right or wrong, but it appears that we are talking about two different animals completely.

The above items note that Clinton was considering going to Congress to ask for approval of warrantless searches of embassies. So he was 1. seeking approval from another branch of government (Bush did not, and actually went to great lengths to keep it secret), 2. Was not targeting individuals, just foreign government embassies (something the NSA has traditionally done), and 3. Was being public about the entire process to allow for public debate.

So yes, the words "warrantless searches" came up during the Clinton years according to what you've posted, but the situations appear to be vastly different in terms of what was actually done and how it was approached.

['93HonoluluCat]

Not that anything that Clinton did or didn't do would impact whether what Bush does is right or wrong, but it appears that we are talking about two different animals completely.

The above items note that Clinton was considering going to Congress to ask for approval of warrantless searches of embassies. So he was 1. seeking approval from another branch of government (Bush did not, and actually went to great lengths to keep it secret), 2. Was not targeting individuals, just foreign government embassies (something the NSA has traditionally done), and 3. Was being public about the entire process to allow for public debate.

So yes, the words "warrantless searches" came up during the Clinton years according to what you've posted, but the situations appear to be vastly different in terms of what was actually done and how it was approached.

In response to your list, here's mine:
1. The "why" may be different, but the "what" is definitely the same thing. So, no, Clinton's claim is about the same basic power as Bush is getting hammered for.
2. Do you wiretap an entire nation? Come on, BAC, at some point you have to watch/listen to an individual. That's no different now than it was 11 years ago. The only thing that has changed is that the individuals are from terror groups, rather than sovreign nations.
3. Do you really hear everything that goes on in Washington every day? If so, you must have more free time at work than you think.

[SonomaCat]

Not that anything that Clinton did or didn't do would impact whether what Bush does is right or wrong, but it appears that we are talking about two different animals completely.

The above items note that Clinton was considering going to Congress to ask for approval of warrantless searches of embassies. So he was 1. seeking approval from another branch of government (Bush did not, and actually went to great lengths to keep it secret), 2. Was not targeting individuals, just foreign government embassies (something the NSA has traditionally done), and 3. Was being public about the entire process to allow for public debate.

So yes, the words "warrantless searches" came up during the Clinton years according to what you've posted, but the situations appear to be vastly different in terms of what was actually done and how it was approached.

In response to your list, here's mine:
1. The "why" may be different, but the "what" is definitely the same thing. So, no, Clinton's claim is about the same basic power as Bush is getting hammered for.
2. Do you wiretap an entire nation? Come on, BAC, at some point you have to watch/listen to an individual. That's no different now than it was 11 years ago. The only thing that has changed is that the individuals are from terror groups, rather than sovreign nations.
3. Do you really hear everything that goes on in Washington every day? If so, you must have more free time at work than you think.

You're saying that Clinton asked for the power to do these things from Congress ... and apparently never actually got permission and never did them.

Bush DID these things without asking anyone, and Gonzales has admitted that they didn't ask Congress for permission because they knew that Congress would say no ... so they just did it secretly.

And if Clinton, or Carter, or any other President engaged in domestic spying beyond the powers granted to them by Congress, I would be 100% in favor or prosecuting them for it. I'm not an apologist for any of them -- they all should be held to a standard worthy of our country.

We are not a monarchy or a dictatorship (ironic in the sense that we are preaching to the rest of the world about the wonders of democracy and parliaments while Cheney and Co. internally preach the virtues of an all-powerful executive branch) ... and no President of either party should ever forget that. The executive branch must work within the powers granted to it. I shudder at the thought of either party having a President who thinks that he has the power to do whatever he/she wants without regard to Congressional or Judicial oversight.

If you want a wiretap, get a warrant. The system is already very, very streamlined and allows for such warrants almost instantly. The only reason to avoid getting a warrant is that the evidence upon which they are basing their wiretaps is so flimsy that it wouldn't justify a warrant. In other words, they have no evidence at all.