RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Bush does the (wire)tap dance

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
Please America, don't listen in on suspected terrorists phone calls.... or at least if you're going to let them know first. My tollerance for this nonsenses is dissipating daily. We are at war. There acctually ARE people who want to kill us.... that's me, you, your family.

As much as you all like to make jokes about 9-11 it did happen and when it did tehy didn't pat themselves on teh back and say, "well, we made our point, lets move on" They went right back to the drawing board and started planning again for the next attack and the next one.

We have been successfull at thwarting alot of attempts to attack us, but slowly but surely some people have forgotten and want to chip away at the tools that we use to defeat them, slowly inching closer and closer to the dog house just to see ho wlong that leash really is.

All teh Democrats seem to want to do is defeat Bush as though he's the enemy of America (and teh only one at that) When the Gorrelic (sp?) wall was resurected teh press touted it as a defeat for Bush, well, it was a deafeat for national sucurity, wich means it was a defeat for the American people.

They'll do anything to get at W, even leak CIA information that interfears with our execution of the war and endangers us and our troops (who we're sure you all support soooo much). It seems the only kind of CIA leak they care about are those that DON'T compromise national security.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

Uschi said:
...
My Mom says it's okay to do what he did because we're at war and sometimes you have to give up some of your rights for the war. She said it's okay that Bush did it because she trusts Bush to do it right.

---

It never ceases to amaze me how quick some people are willing to chuck their rights just so that they can feel safe.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
Why avoid a judge? Could it be that he's wiretapping folks that a judge wouldn't OK?

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
...could it be because they wanted to minimise the chance that the opperation would get leaked?

---

Byron York, NR's White House correspondent reports that especially before, and even after, passage of the Patriot Act, the FISA bureaucracy and the agencies that dealt with it were too unwieldy to handle some fast-moving intelligence cases:

In 2002, when the president made his decision, there was widespread, bipartisan frustration with the slowness and inefficiency of the bureaucracy involved in seeking warrants from the special intelligence court, known as the FISA court.

Even later, after the provisions of the Patriot Act had had time to take effect, there were still problems with the FISA court — problems examined by members of the September 11 Commission — and questions about whether the court can deal effectively with the fastest-changing cases in the war on terror.

People familiar with the process say the problem is not so much with the court itself as with the process required to bring a case before the court.

"It takes days, sometimes weeks, to get the application for FISA together," says one source. "It's not so much that the court doesn't grant them quickly, it's that it takes a long time to get to the court. Even after the Patriot Act, it's still a very cumbersome process. It is not built for speed, it is not built to be efficient. It is built with an eye to keeping [investigators] in check."

And even though the attorney general has the authority in some cases to undertake surveillance immediately, and then seek an emergency warrant, that process is just as cumbersome as the normal way of doing things.

Lawmakers of both parties recognized the problem in the months after the September 11 terrorist attacks. They pointed to the case of Coleen Rowley, the FBI agent who ran up against a number roadblocks in her effort to secure a FISA warrant in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the al Qaeda operative who had taken flight training in preparation for the hijackings. Investigators wanted to study the contents of Moussaoui's laptop computer, but the FBI bureaucracy involved in applying for a FISA warrant was stifling, and there were real questions about whether investigators could meet the FISA court's probable-cause standard for granting a warrant. FBI agents became so frustrated that they considered flying Moussaoui to France, where his computer could be examined.

But then the attacks came, and it was too late.

It was in the context of such bureaucratic bottlenecks that the president first authorized, and then renewed, the program to bypass the FISA court in cases of international communications of people with known al Qaeda links.

---

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:
If this is the case, then perhaps a better solution is to somehow streamline the bureaucratic process so that a judge can still approve the wire-tap or whatever else needs to be done in a timely manner instead of bypassing them completely. If it can be done properly, everybody wins except the terrorists.

Yes, going through courts and obtaining permits is time consuming, but it is the law, if I understand correctly. And considering a law to be inconvenient is a lousy excuse to violate it.

---

Quote:

---

Bush's "Need for Speed" Argument Runs Into the Truth
by David Sirota
In his news conference today, President Bush invoked the need for speed in the War on Terror as the reason he is illegally ordering the National Security Agency to conduct domestic surveillance without search warrants. Sounds like a compelling argument, right? In the fast-moving world of information age technology, we can't really afford to make our law enforcers take the time to go get a warrant, right?

It's true – Bush might have had a point, except for one tiny little detail he refused to discuss at his press conference: namely, the fact that current law is so lax that he is already permitted to get a search warrant 72 hours after surveillance is conducted. Put another way, the law currently allows Bush to order surveillance as fast as he possibly can, and allows surveillance operations to take place immediately. The only thing that is required is a court-issued warrant that can be ussed retroactively within 72 hours of when the operation started. And, as I've noted earlier, the special court that grants these warrants has only rejected 4 government requests in a quarter century, meaning getting a warrant is about as easy as it gets...that is, as long as you aren't trying to do something wholly outrageous and unrelated to the War on Terror.

And so we're back to the same question: why did the President order domestic surveillance operations without even asking retroactively for warrants? In his press conference, Bush tried to ramrod the entire issue into one of him working to defend America, and critics supposedly being weak on national security. But he frontally refused to answer the very simple question when a reporter put it to him:
...
There really is only one explanation that a sane, rational person could come up with: The surveillance operations Bush is ordering are so outrageous, so unrelated to the War on Terror and such an unconstitutional breach of authority that he knows that even a court that has rejected just 4 warrant requests in 25 years will reject what he's doing. All you have to do is look at recent news reports about federal law enforcement and military assets being deployed against domestic anti-war and peace groups to know that this is well within what the Bush White House sees as acceptable behavior.
...

---

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
Please America, don't listen in on suspected terrorists phone calls.... or at least if you're going to let them know first. My tollerance for this nonsenses is dissipating daily. We are at war. There acctually ARE people who want to kill us.... that's me, you, your family.

As much as you all like to make jokes about 9-11 it did happen and when it did tehy didn't pat themselves on teh back and say, "well, we made our point, lets move on" They went right back to the drawing board and started planning again for the next attack and the next one.

We have been successfull at thwarting alot of attempts to attack us, but slowly but surely some people have forgotten and want to chip away at the tools that we use to defeat them, slowly inching closer and closer to the dog house just to see ho wlong that leash really is.

All teh Democrats seem to want to do is defeat Bush as though he's the enemy of America (and teh only one at that) When the Gorrelic (sp?) wall was resurected teh press touted it as a defeat for Bush, well, it was a deafeat for national sucurity, wich means it was a defeat for the American people.

They'll do anything to get at W, even leak CIA information that interfears with our execution of the war and endangers us and our troops (who we're sure you all support soooo much). It seems the only kind of CIA leak they care about are those that DON'T compromise national security.

---

With all due respect, your comments distort the concerns of many wiretapping critics.

As MEM has mentioned, many of us who have voice concerns over wiretapping aren't out to see it scrapped completely. If it needs to be done, and in certain cases when dealing with certain people, it probably does, it should be done with just cause, to the letter of clearly written laws, and with proper oversight in place to prevent abuses of power. And many of use are concerned that this isn't happening.

Also, it wouldn't be a bad idea to make sure that the government's not wasting time, effort, or taxpayers dollars to spy on people who pose no threat to the country at the expense of not devoting enough manpower or resources to tag the real bad guys.

And be careful about comments like "you all like to make jokes about 9/11."

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
In response to G-man's speed argument...Bush might have had a point, except for one tiny little detail he refused to discuss at his press conference: namely, the fact that current law is so lax that he is already permitted to get a search warrant 72 hours after surveillance is conducted.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:even though the attorney general has the authority in some cases to undertake surveillance immediately, and then seek an emergency warrant, that process is just as cumbersome as the normal way of doing things.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
...
the G-man said:even though the attorney general has the authority in some cases to undertake surveillance immediately, and then seek an emergency warrant, that process is just as cumbersome as the normal way of doing things.

---

Quote:

---

...Sen. Boxer said she decided to investigate the "impeachment" possibilities after Richard Nixon's former White House Counsel John Dean commented that Bush had admitted to an "impeachable offense."
"I take very seriously Mr. Dean's comments, as I view him to be an expert on presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future," Boxer said in a statement on her website.

---

Quote:

---

...Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:even though the attorney general has the authority in some cases to undertake surveillance immediately, and then seek an emergency warrant, that process is just as cumbersome as the normal way of doing things.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:Even if that is true, it's not a good reason to go around a judge. It was the President's job to then go to Congress to get something less cumbersome. Cumbersome is not an acceptable excuse to circumvent our system of checks & balances.

---

Quote:

---

PJP said:
If you aren't doing anything wrong than you have nothing to worry about.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

PJP said:
If you aren't doing anything wrong than you have nothing to worry about.

---

In fact, as noted above, "the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties."

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
Here's what he told us in 2004...

Quote:

---

...Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

---

whitehouse.gov

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
Bush has lied ...This has to be investigated.

---

Quote:

---

PJP said:
To all the people bitching about the wirte taps........grow up. If you aren't doing anything wrong than you have nothing to worry about.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
...
And THAT, my friends, is the only plan the Democrats have to combat terrorism.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
Yea, forget about terrorists, lets get Bush instead.

Just so the Dems know the American people are taking names and when we get hit again we're gonna be pissed.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
Yea, forget about terrorists, lets get Bush instead.

---

Quote:

---

Jim Jackson said:
Ben Stein said In any event, Bush's main goal has been to save the nation. Why doesn't he get some credit for that?

It's a laudable goal. He does get credit for it. It's called his re-election. Does Ben forget that Bush was re-elected just a little over a year ago? Is that not Bush getting "some credit"?

But what further needs to be said to address Ben's question is this:

(a) where was Bush in summer, 2001? If Ben wants to know if people forget 9-11, my answer is no. We don't forget this administration's failure that let 9-11 happen; that cannot be overlooked. It was on Bush's watch. He was in office 8 months. Did he let it happen? I won't say that. But it did happen on Bush's time. Until bin Laden is brought to justice over it, that cannot be forgotten.

(b) Many of us are not convinced he's saving the nation. We remain unconvinced that one of his main goals is not the re-making of the United States more in line with his own ways of thinking.

---

Quote:

---

Jim Jackson said:
And of course Ben Stein would say all that.

He used to work for Nixon.

---

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Three Democratic and two Republican senators have sent a letter to the leaders of the Senate's Judiciary and Intelligence committees, asking for an "immediate inquiry" into President Bush's authorization of a secret wiretapping program.

"We write to express our profound concern about recent revelations that the United States government may have engaged in domestic electronic surveillance without appropriate legal authority," says the letter, which was signed by Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Carl Levin and Ron Wyden, as well as GOP Sens. Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe.

"We must determine the facts," says the letter, which was sent Monday.
...
Senators 'deeply troubled'

On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and the ranking Democrats on the Intelligence and Judiciary committees, Sens. Jay Rockefeller and Patrick Leahy, sent a separate letter to Bush asking for more information on the program's scope and legal rationale.

The trio said they were "deeply troubled" by Bush's assertion Monday that both his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief and a congressional resolution passed after the September 11, 2001, attacks allowed him to authorize the program.

"In your public statements to date, you have not made a convincing legal argument for the authority to do so," the senators said.

The three senators asked for detailed information about congressional briefings on the program.

They also asked for an explanation of why administration officials didn't pursue changes in the procedures for obtaining warrants, if they found them insufficient "to protect Americans from terrorism."

The final decision on whether the Republican-controlled Congress will hold hearings on the surveillance program rests with its GOP leadership.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man keeps saying nothing but:
Bush Lied....this has to be investigated."

---

Quote:

---

Experts Say Wiretap Fight May Taint Cases
By TED BRIDIS
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration's decision to sometimes bypass the secretive U.S. court that governs terrorism wiretaps could threaten cases against terror suspects that rely on evidence uncovered during the disputed eavesdropping, some legal experts cautioned.

These experts pointed to this week's unprecedented resignation from the government's spy court by U.S. District Judge James Robertson as an indicator of the judiciary's unease over domestic wiretaps ordered without warrants under a highly classified domestic spying program authorized by
President Bush.

Neither Robertson nor the White House would comment Wednesday on his abrupt resignation from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the little-known panel of 11 U.S. judges that secretively approves wiretaps and searches in the most sensitive terrorism and espionage cases. But legal experts were astonished.

"This is a very big deal. Judges get upset with government lawyers all the time, but they don't resign in protest unless they're really offended to the point of saying they're being misused," said Kenneth C. Bass, a former senior Justice Department lawyer who oversaw such wiretap requests during the Carter administration.

"This was definitely a statement of protest," agreed Scott Silliman, a former Air Force attorney and Duke University law professor. "It is unusual because it signifies that at least one member of the court believes that the president has exceeded his legal authority."

Robertson's surprise resignation added to a chorus of pointed questions in Washington over the propriety of the surveillance, which the White House said had successfully detected and prevented attacks inside the United States.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he intends to begin oversight hearings in January to assess the stated justifications for the spying.

"When the attorney general says the force resolution gives the president the power to conduct these surveillances, I have grave doubts about that," Specter said.

Separately, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman of California, said she was informed about the program in 2003 and believes it is "essential to U.S. national security." But Harman also complained it was inappropriate for the White House to discuss the secret program only with leaders of the intelligence committees.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (news, bio, voting record), R-Mich., the committee chairman, said he participated in at least six briefings on the spying program since August 2004. He said he is comfortable the surveillance was aimed at al-Qaida terrorists and people associated with al-Qaida inside the United States. Hoekstra also said lawmakers who were notified about the surveillance won't resign like Robertson.

"We all decided that we are going to stay, and we are going to keep our jobs," he said.

Under the spying program, secretly authorized by President Bush in October 2001, the National Security Agency was permitted to eavesdrop without a judge's approval on communications between suspected terrorists overseas and people inside the United States.

Officials have said they only performed such wiretaps when there was a reasonable basis to conclude that the conversation included a suspected terrorist and one party was overseas. Citing national security, officials have declined to say how many times they have done so.

A court-approved wiretap under traditional surveillance law requires a higher legal standard, demonstrating probable cause to the spy court that the target is an agent of a foreign power, such as a terrorist group. That law also says no such wiretaps can be performed except under its provisions.

Since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, the government has focused on preventing and disrupting attacks rather than building court cases against suspected terrorists. But experts cautioned that future legal prosecutions could be tainted if evidence was uncovered about a terror plot using a wiretap determined to be improper.

"Imagine if there is evidence critical to a criminal prosecution and the defendant challenges the evidence because it is constitutionally suspect," said Beryl Howell, former general counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It could jeopardize any criminal case."

---

Quote:

---

Jim Jackson said:
(a) where was Bush in summer, 2001? If Ben wants to know if people forget 9-11, my answer is no. We don't forget this administration's failure that let 9-11 happen; that cannot be overlooked. It was on Bush's watch. He was in office 8 months. Did he purposely let it happen? I don't believe that he did. But it did happen on Bush's time and he's been more than able at exploiting it. Until bin Laden is brought to justice over it, that cannot be overlooked.

---

Quote:

---

To summarize: it looks like evidence obtained from wiretapping without a warrant or judicial approval may not hold up in court. This could lead the acquittal of terrorists who are brought to trial because their lawyers can claim that the evidence against them was improperly gathered, and they can be set loose to strike again.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

To summarize: it looks like evidence obtained from wiretapping without a warrant or judicial approval may not hold up in court. This could lead the acquittal of terrorists who are brought to trial because their lawyers can claim that the evidence against them was improperly gathered, and they can be set loose to strike again.

---

First off, there is a great deal of suppostion in both their analysis and your summary: "looks like," "may not," "could lead to", etc.

---

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:
Besides, why do we have to choose between obeying the rules or following proper procedure, and protecting American lives? Why can't we figure out a way to do both instead of stalemating over "either-or" scenarios?

---

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:
Wow...nice way to twist and distort my comments.

I wasn't talking lawsuits, genius, and screw you for manipulating my comments to claim that I was. I was talking criminal court. We arrest people who not only commit crimes, but also attempt to do so (attempted murder is a crime, is it not?) And again, if we convict a terrorist who plots to commit such a crime, we keep them behind bars where they can't do any harm. If, however, the legal analysts' hypotheses are indeed correct and a case against a suspected terrorist falls apart because a wiretap without a judge's approval is considered grounds for dismissal, then said terrorist would most likely be free to go and plot and maybe even commit more terrorist activity.

We could have had a reasonable debate on this if you hadn't decided to toss in that last comment, which I found to be belittling, manipulative, and in all honesty, idiotic. If you want to debate with me, debate with me about what I actually say, not about your manipulations of what I say.

---

Quote:

---

So your saying Bush is more important than the Constitution?

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

So your saying Bush is more important than the Constitution?

---

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying it wasn't unconstitutional. Just like you guys didn't seem to have any constitutional issues with unwarrented wire taps from Clinton or Carter (when BTW, we weren't even at war).

---