wiretaps

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:54 pm

Gonzales defends wiretaps amid protest
Congress understood scope of program, attorney general says

(CNN) -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had trouble tapping into a group of hooded protesters at Georgetown Law School in Washington on Tuesday.

The university was one of the stops on Gonzales' circuit as he attempts to diffuse criticism of the National Security Agency's domestic spying program.

But as the attorney general tried to convey that the extraordinary circumstances of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks justified the program, the protesters turned to one of America's founding fathers for their rebuttal.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" -- the words of Benjamin Franklin -- had been scrawled in capital letters on a sign that required four protesters to hold it up.

Gonzales didn't acknowledge the sign nor did he stop his speech as 22 protesters, including the four with the sign, stood with their backs to him during the address. Five people left the room during the speech. (Watch Gonzales defend the program -- 4:17)

Gonzales said that Congress was aware of the program's scope and that it had been approved "under the authorization to use military force" against terrorism.

His remarks echoed the comments of President Bush, who said Monday that he had briefed key members of Congress on the program.

Many Democrats and some Republicans have disagreed with the president's authorization of the National Security Agency to spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

Some lawmakers have said they weren't informed of the program's scope during briefings -- nor were they allowed to go public with concerns because of the program's sensitive nature.

The attorney general disagreed with the claim that legislators weren't told enough about the program.

"As far as I'm concerned, we have briefed the Congress," he said. "They're aware of the scope of the program."

In a speech Tuesday morning, Gonzales said the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, which bars wiretaps on Americans at home without a court warrant, did not prevent the NSA program.

"It is simply not the case that Congress in 1978 anticipated all the ways that the president might need to act in times of armed conflict to protect the United States," he said during his speech at Georgetown. "FISA, by its own terms, was not intended to be the last word on these critical issues."

Critics have questioned the administration's legal rationale, pointing to the 1978 FISA law, which requires executive branch agencies to get approval for domestic surveillance requests from a special court, whose proceedings are secret to protect national security.

They say the administration could accomplish the same goals legally by taking requests for warrants before the court under FISA. Even if the case is time sensitive, the act allows authorities to administer wiretaps immediately, as long as they go before the court within three days of the start of surveillance, they say.

Gonzales said warrantless wiretaps had been authorized by presidents in wartime since the Civil War.

"We have to remember that we're talking about a wartime foreign intelligence program," he said. "It is an early warning system with only one purpose: to detect and prevent the next attack on the United States from foreign agents hiding in our midst."

Earlier Tuesday on CNN, Gonzales sought to ease concerns that the program was tantamount to spying on Americans.

The program is aimed at "gathering up intelligence regarding al Qaeda," he said. "We're talking about communications where one end of the call is outside the United States and where there's a reasonable basis to believe that a person on the call is either a member of al Qaeda or affiliated with al Qaeda."

Gonzales said any member of Congress who thought the program was illegal "had an obligation" to say something publicly at the time they learned about it.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights filed lawsuits last week against the government to stop the program. ( Full story)

But Gonzales said he saw no reason to believe the program would raise legal issues in the administration's war on terrorism.

"I can't speak to specific cases," he said. "What I can say is we believe the program is lawful, the information was gathered in a lawful manner and will not jeopardize any ongoing cases.

On Monday, Bush told an audience at Kansas State University in Manhattan that the congressional resolution passed in the wake of the September 11 attacks that authorized the invasion of Afghanistan and other counterterrorism measures gave him the legal authority to initiate the program.

Some critics -- including former Vice President Al Gore -- call the program illegal, contending it threatens civil liberties and privacy rights. (Full story)

"You know, it's amazing that people say to me, 'Well, he was just breaking the law.' If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" Bush said. (Full story)

"I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all kinds of lawyers review the process," he said. "We briefed members of the United States Congress."

Former NSA chief defends wiretaps
Bush reportedly authorized the NSA to intercept communications between people inside the United States, including American citizens, and terrorist suspects overseas without obtaining a court warrant.

Bush and Gonzales weren't the only officials to stand by the program Monday. In Washington, Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, the former NSA chief when Bush first authorized the surveillance program after 9/11, staunchly came to its defense.

"Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such," said Hayden, who now is principal deputy director of national intelligence.

High-level administration officials are set to make public appearances about the program this week, culminating with the president's visit Wednesday to NSA headquarters outside Washington.

The attorney general also is set to appear next month before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/24/ ... index.html

SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close

Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.

Stevicat · Post by **Stevicat** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:35 pm

The 9/11 hijackers were all in the US making their plans. If we could have had the ability to spy on them, we could have stoped them.

These protesters are probably the same people who criticized Bush for not "connecting the dots" before 9/11. Now that he is trying to "connect the dots", they are all over him for that. They will just go after him no matter what he does. They are so filled with hate for him they can't see past it and are making fools of themselves, in my opinion.

Hey, if my neighbor is taking or making calls to suspected or known terrorists, I want George and the NSA to know about it. Seems to be resonable and it seems to be working.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:59 pm

Stevicat wrote:The 9/11 hijackers were all in the US making their plans. If we could have had the ability to spy on them, we could have stoped them.

These protesters are probably the same people who criticized Bush for not "connecting the dots" before 9/11. Now that he is trying to "connect the dots", they are all over him for that. They will just go after him no matter what he does. They are so filled with hate for him they can't see past it and are making fools of themselves, in my opinion.

Hey, if my neighbor is taking or making calls to suspected or known terrorists, I want George and the NSA to know about it. Seems to be resonable and it seems to be working.

And if we suspect that people are making calls to terrorist organizations, we simply spend the ten minutes it takes to get a warrant, and then it will be legal. It's not too much to ask for our government to operate within the laws of our country.

And to put things into perspective ... this "war on terror" is essentially open-ended, and if we are going to take the legal opinion that the President can do whatever they want in the name of fighting terror, then let's all be ready to support any and every reason a future Democratic President chooses to use this unlimited power (lest you be accused of being "so filled with hate for him they can't see past it and are making fools of yourself"). Do you trust a Democratic president to use the NSA for whatever purposes he/she desires, with no accountability or oversight? I don't ... nor do I trust a Republican for that matter.

I'm thinking that we might all start to come to the conclusion that our checks and balances are once again a good thing when "our guy" is no longer the one with unlimited authority.

We have a good system in place that has controls built into it to prevent abuse. Why should we not use it? And further, why should we encourage our President to break the law when there is absolutely no reason for him to do so? Just get a warrant. It works every time. The only reason not to is if you are doing things you shouldn't be doing (no reasonable cause).

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:29 pm

Stevicat wrote:The 9/11 hijackers were all in the US making their plans. If we could have had the ability to spy on them, we could have stoped them.

These protesters are probably the same people who criticized Bush for not "connecting the dots" before 9/11. Now that he is trying to "connect the dots", they are all over him for that. They will just go after him no matter what he does. They are so filled with hate for him they can't see past it and are making fools of themselves, in my opinion.

Hey, if my neighbor is taking or making calls to suspected or known terrorists, I want George and the NSA to know about it. Seems to be resonable and it seems to be working.

Wow...

Its not the wiretaps thats the issue, its that they were ordered without a warrant. Apparently its REALLY easy to get wiretap warrants, so why didn't Bush do that?

If there's a suspicion of terrorism, a wiretap warrant for the NSA is super easy, I'm sure people have been approved to be 'taped just because of their last name or national origin.

You don't mind your government spying on you huh? Ugh, this is a slippery slope...

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:21 am

Re/Max Griz wrote:
Stevicat wrote:The 9/11 hijackers were all in the US making their plans. If we could have had the ability to spy on them, we could have stoped them.

These protesters are probably the same people who criticized Bush for not "connecting the dots" before 9/11. Now that he is trying to "connect the dots", they are all over him for that. They will just go after him no matter what he does. They are so filled with hate for him they can't see past it and are making fools of themselves, in my opinion.

Hey, if my neighbor is taking or making calls to suspected or known terrorists, I want George and the NSA to know about it. Seems to be resonable and it seems to be working.
Wow...

Its not the wiretaps thats the issue, its that they were ordered without a warrant. Apparently its REALLY easy to get wiretap warrants, so why didn't Bush do that?

If there's a suspicion of terrorism, a wiretap warrant for the NSA is super easy, I'm sure people have been approved to be 'taped just because of their last name or national origin.

You don't mind your government spying on you huh? Ugh, this is a slippery slope...

i think the way i understand it now the bush administration saw it this way

1) we did have congresses authorization to do this, several members in high ranking offices on both sides of the isle were briefed on this as early as 2002
2) this sorta thing has been done by other presidents
3) i guess they tried that once but the court would just try and change the warrent...for example they would *the bush administration for a lame example* want a wiretap on coach hauck's office but instead it would get rewritten for the coach of adams states football team *well...kinda similer bear mascot*

Stevicat · Post by **Stevicat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:31 am

I certainly don't like the idea of the government having the ability to spy on americans without any oversight or checks. However, I am not uncomfortable in this situation because of the following.

To get a warrant issued from the 11 member FISA court, officials have to provide probable cause. If they find a phone number in a known or suspected terrorists phone book, there is no way to prove probable cause because the owner of the phone number is unknown.

From what I understand, FISA turned down warrents to wiretap and search the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui because there was no probable cause. Had the gov been able to do so, the 9/11 plans would have been known months ahead of time and probably would have been averted.

The courts have sided with the executive branch for decades in cases of spying without warrents as long as the threat is foreign. In regards to domestic threats, however, the gov must go to the courts and get a warrent.

Look up the majority opinion in United States vs Duggan (1984) “…virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the president had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillance constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.”

In 1980, Carter's administration argued, successfully, that it had authority to wiretap a US citizen w/o a warrent. Truong Dinh Hung was passing US intelligence to the North Vietnamese during the peace talks in the 70s.

In 1994, Clinton's Deputy Attorney General Janie Gorelick testified “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.”

So this has been done by both Democrats and Republicans and we still have our civil rights. Regardless party, the President is protecting his country against foreign threats. I may be naive but I trust that they all had/have the best interest in protecting their country.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:37 am

As long as you feel the same way when Hillary Clinton is running the show, then I respect your opinion.

I had read that the FISA had turned down only one request in 10,000, or some other virtually zero amount. The Act also allows the wiretaps to be done without prior approval, and they can retroactively ask for the warrant. The system works, and needs to be followed. If we don't like the laws, we change the laws (in the open view of the public) ... we don't just ignore them. That's my opinion, anyway.

Post by **rtb** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:51 am

Ok, this is very closed minded I know, but I really don't have a problem with the government listening to my phone calls if they want. I am sure they most likely will fall asleep or disconnect if they listen to my boring conversations, but I think this is a very effective way to catch the terrorists that are operating in the United State. I am a big proponent of spying as it is the best way to gather intel. I know this is a slippery slope that we probably shouldn't give the government more and more power, but the phone tapping really doesn't bother me.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:59 am

Rtb: I know a lot of people feel the way you do ... and that's a perfectly reasonable position to take. But should those people who do feel uncomfortable with it be given a chance to opt-out? Or, more appropriately, should opening yourself up to government evesdropping without a warrant be something that people should opt-in for, instead? I know that would defeat the whole point, but it would effectively protect those who didn't feel like giving up their civil liberties while exposing those who wanted to be exposed.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:59 am

Here's a discussion about the topic that stevicat mentioned above:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/01 ... tml#012377

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:03 pm

And a discussion about the "briefing of Congress":

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/01 ... tml#012375

Post by **rtb** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:31 pm

BAC: I see where some people might be concerned but is the government really going to come after you if you talk about stealing a CD or smoking dope on the phone? I highly doubt it, they have much bigger fish to fry so that is why it doesn't concern me. However, I do see where it is a mess regarding civil liberties.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:42 pm

rtb wrote:BAC: I see where some people might be concerned but is the government really going to come after you if you talk about stealing a CD or smoking dope on the phone? I highly doubt it, they have much bigger fish to fry so that is why it doesn't concern me. However, I do see where it is a mess regarding civil liberties.

The government has already used the Patriot Act to pursue drug crimes, as they use the extended logic that drugs encourage international illegal trade which in turn causes violence which in turn creates terrorist groups in South America. So yeah, I could see the system being abused really easily. That's why I want the very minor, but very important, independent oversight of these kinds of activities. I don't want a government to have limitless power, which is exactly what these activities are. When someone says "Just trust us, we'd never abuse this unlimited power we have bestowed upon ourselves," my first reaction is to know that they shouldn't be trusted.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:53 pm

To me, this issue goes a lot deeper than simply asking the question "Do I trust Bush/Hillary/whoever not to abuse this power." The fact is, I do trust Bush not to use a warrantless wiretap in a way that violates my civil liberties; I would also trust Hillary and pretty much any other foreseeable candidate in the same way.

But Constitutional safeguards serve a purpose far greater than that. It's well and good to say that we trust both Bush and Hillary not to violate our civil liberties, but the Constitutional protections are there so that regardless of who may someday be in office (and whether or not they are trustworthy), there will always be a process in place (i.e., the warrant requirement) to offer some assurance that our rights will not be violated. Removing that process opens the door to abuses of our rights. It may not be Bush or Hillary (or any other foreseeable candidate) that abuses this power, but if history is any indicator, such a leader will be in office at some future date, and it seems to me that requiring the government to obtain a warrant before they spy on a U.S. citizen is a small price to pay for the peace of mind of knowing that my rights will not be violated.

--GL

Post by **rtb** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:00 pm

You are right, the Constitution needs to be respected and applied in every case regarding the law. So you do need to follow that.

I do think they should have to get warrants based on the constitution, but it doesn't concern me if they have "spied" on me or others in the past.

ChiOCat · Post by **ChiOCat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:14 pm

Was it Legal? I think it was.

Should he have done it? I don't think so, but I don't think we get enough info through the media to really make that call.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:17 pm

ChiOCat wrote:Was it Legal? I think it was.

Should he have done it? I don't think so, but I don't think we get enough info through the media to really make that call.

It was only legal if you accept the argument that the executive branch is not currently subject to the laws of the United States. In which case ... nothing is illegal if you happen to be the President. It's good to be the President.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 11:28 am

And it's not just liberals/democrats/anti-Bush people who are upset about the illegal wiretaps:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... GTB8O1.DTL

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:15 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
ChiOCat wrote:Was it Legal? I think it was.

Should he have done it? I don't think so, but I don't think we get enough info through the media to really make that call.
It was only legal if you accept the argument that the executive branch is not currently subject to the laws of the United States. In which case ... nothing is illegal if you happen to be the President. It's good to be the President.

Exactly! BAC, you beat me to the punch there, the president basically put himself above the law.

People are forgetting the real issue. Wiretapping happens all the time, this was wiretapping WITHOUT a warrant. There is a secret court that gives wiretap warrants with probable cause. To make things easy they'll even give warrants AFTER THE FACT in case you're in a hurry!!!!

What makes me absolutley sick is the line, "If Al Quaida is calling you we want to know about it." Well no sh*t (sorry) and if AQ is calling someone it would be damn easy to get a warrant and wiretap that phone. This issue goes beyond Al Queida and terrorism, if there was suspicion of terrorist activities, a wiretap warrant would be super easy. SO WHY did they order these wiretaps without a warrant, if it is so simple to get one, even after the fact.

RTB - you said you didn't mind them listening in on your calls. I don't mind them listening in on mine, if there is suspicion and evidence of terrorism. If they're listening in on me just to do so, then I have HUGE problem with that.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:49 pm

somthing to think about

senitors reid (D) and McCain (media

) are all out saying that "if president bush needs the tools he should ask and we shall deliver" *this is a paraphrase*

any comments?