home

Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance

President Bush held a news conference today that was dominated by recent news that after 9/11 he ordered electronic surveillance without a warrant or court order.

President Bush offered a vigorous and detailed defense of his previously secret wiretap program today, calling it a legal and essential tool in the battle against terrorism and saying that whoever disclosed it had committed a "shameful act."

Mr. Bush said the surveillance would continue, that it was being conducted under appropriate safeguards and that Congress had been kept informed about it. He rejected any suggestion that the surveillance program was symptomatic of unchecked power in the presidency.

It's important to note here that people in this country have been subjected to the warrantless surveillance, not just foreign nationals.

But Mr. Bush noted that it has been used only to monitor communications between someone in the United States and someone else in another country - not to intercept calls between, say, Houston and Los Angeles.

There will be a rebuttal shortly.

Three Democratic senators, Carl Levin of Michigan, Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, scheduled a midday news conference at the Capitol to rebut Mr. Bush on Iraq and other issues.

The President also lobbied for a renewal of the Patriot Act today. He continues to show his lack of understanding or concern for the true issue. He said,

I want senators from New York or Los Angeles or Las Vegas to explain why these cities are safer" without the extension.

The issue is that these cities and their residents are not any safer with the extension, only less free.

< Welcome to the New TalkLeft | Lawyer of the Year: Patrick Fitzgerald >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 10:31:56 AM EST
    When the president says he is staying the course it reminds me of the man who has just jumped from the Empire State Building. Half-way down he says, I am still on course. Well, I would not want to be on course with a man who will lie splattered in the street.
    --Stay the Crooked Course

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 10:42:57 AM EST
    The President claimed in his speech that timely survillance sometimes precluded getting a warrant. I am disturbed by a few things here, If the reports are correct getting a warrant from FISA is not burdensome process. Secondly and most importantly, a question asked of the President that he did not answer was: Why did he not get warrants retroactive to these "emergencies" as I understand is allowed(required?)by FISA.

    So when is anyone in the Bush administration going to float an explanation why they couldn't do this evesdropping through the FISA court?

    In other words, I agree entirely with Dan who is a minute faster than me.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#6)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 10:50:04 AM EST
    American democracy, that great experiment, is dead. Those who swore to uphold and protect the Constitution have failed in their duty. We now have an imperial president, a messiah on a mission from God, who has ripped asunder the protections provided by that document and, with the complicity of the nation's chief law enforcement officer, has ascribed to the president the power to: Make anyone, anywhere, "disappear" to suffer torture and/or confinement forever without a warrant; Spy upon and accumulate dossiers on innocent citizens without a warrant; Monitor the phone calls of innocent persons without a warrant; Search, copy, distribute the medical, tax, legal matters, papers, files, and effects of private citizens innocent of any crime without warrant or judicial review. How long will it be before Martial Law is declared to halt next year's elections so Republicans retain control to support their rogue president? Think it can't happen. BUSH HAS PRONOUNCED HIMSELF A GOD UNFETTERED IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS UNLIMITED WAR POWERS (AND REMEMBER, BUSH SAYS HE CAN ALONE DECLARE WAR, THEREBY ASSUMING THESE POWERS FOREVER).

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#7)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 10:51:03 AM EST
    American democracy, that great experiment, is dead. Those who swore to uphold and protect the Constitution have failed in their duty. We now have an imperial president, a messiah on a mission from God, who has ripped asunder the protections provided by that document and, with the complicity of the nation's chief law enforcement officer, has ascribed to the president the power to: Make anyone, anywhere, "disappear" to suffer torture and/or confinement forever without a warrant; Spy upon and accumulate dossiers on innocent citizens without a warrant; Monitor the phone calls of innocent persons without a warrant; Search, copy, distribute the medical, tax, legal matters, papers, files, and effects of private citizens innocent of any crime without warrant or judicial review. How long will it be before Martial Law is declared to halt next year's elections so Republicans retain control to support their rogue president? Think it can't happen. BUSH HAS PRONOUNCED HIMSELF A GOD UNFETTERED IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS UNLIMITED WAR POWERS (AND REMEMBER, BUSH SAYS HE CAN ALONE DECLARE WAR, THEREBY ASSUMING THESE POWERS FOREVER).

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 10:52:07 AM EST
    Someone should ask Bush if he would support domestic spying if John Kerry or Al Gore were president. For that matter I'd like to meet any Republican who would support such tyranny in the hands of a Democrat. The GOP must really be planning for permanent, one-party rule.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 10:58:57 AM EST
    "How long will it be before Martial Law is declared ..." Hadn't you heard? Bush is waiting for a case of bird flu to be discovered so he can declare martial law and bring in the troops.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#10)
    by John Mann on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 12:00:02 PM EST
    I used to think the war on Iraq was about oil, but with these latest revelations about Mr. Bush's extraordinarily un-American conduct, it seems that his true motives are beginning to emerge from the shadows. Iraq is apparently a diversion. While we argue and fuss over whether democracy has been born in Iraq, Mr. Bush and his soulless cohorts have been busy as little bees, eviscerating the one he is supposed to defend at home. The United States is rotting from the inside out. It's like biting into a shiny red apple only to find it filled with worms that look remarkably like Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and all the rest of the pathetic fools who mindlessly dance to Bush's tunes.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#11)
    by Slado on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 12:19:11 PM EST
    The posts by the left on this matter would be hilarious if they weren't so depressing. What part of "War on Terror" don't you understand? I've heard/read no resonable arguments against these taps, only big picture worst case scenario whining and declarations that we're all doomed to concentration camps. Serious debate on this subject is warranted but until those opposing the president come up with alternatives they will be on the losing end of this argument. I talked to a very liberal freind today who said "You know what do I care if they hear me ordering a pizza? I don't have anything to hide, in fact I'd be mad if the NSA wasn't listening to people taking calls from Pakistan?" Exactly. The same people who are up in arms are the same ones who blamed Bush for not being serious about Al Queda before 9/11. Here's a great editorial from The Sun NYSUN

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#12)
    by roger on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 12:19:48 PM EST
    All heil King George!

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#13)
    by Andreas on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 12:22:11 PM EST
    The WSWS writes:
    Bush’s open defense of illegality and assertion of quasi-dictatorial powers bring the political crisis in the US to the boiling point. His defiance of Congress, the law and the Constitution are the culmination of a record of criminality. But the Bush administration has concluded, with good reason, that it will face no serious opposition from any section of the political establishment. Every official US institution is implicated in the conspiracy against the democratic rights of the American people. The mass media has systematically functioned to propagate the administration’s lies and cover up for its crimes. The New York Times, in its article revealing the secret NSA spying operation, admitted that it had withheld its report for a full year, after meeting with White House officials who demanded that it suppress the information. The Democratic Party, from its refusal to expose the conspiracy behind the Clinton impeachment, to its acceptance of a stolen election in 2000, to its collusion in covering up the facts surrounding 9/11, to its collaboration in the “war on terror” and the invasion and occupation of Iraq has demonstrated conclusively its indifference to democratic rights. Whatever its tactical differences with the Bush administration, the Democratic Party fundamentally defends the drive of US imperialism for global domination, with all of its brutal implications for the American people and the entire world.
    Bush defends illegal spying on Americans: the specter of presidential dictatorship By Barry Grey, 19 December 2005

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#14)
    by roger on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 12:25:33 PM EST
    Slado, That is the stupidest op-ed that I have read in a long time. It would fill a book to show how off their examples are. "Those who are willing to trade freedom for safety get, and deserve, neither"

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 12:35:08 PM EST
    And whom have they been surveiling? Filmaker Michael Moore? Actor Tim Robbins. Howard Dean? Other political enemies? I'd like to know.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 12:44:34 PM EST
    I've heard/read no resonable arguments against these taps
    The FACT that such wiretaps are illegal isn't reasonable? C'mon man. American citizenship comes with certain inalienable rights, one of which is to be free of govt. surveillance absent a warrant. I always thought this was one of the main reasons this country is so great. I guess the "Bush can do no wrong" crowd approves of such Stalin-esque measures. Not me. All the admin. had to do was seek court approval AFTER THE TAPS WERE IN PLACE, and they would be within the law. They didn't, hence they belong in jail. It's very cut and dried to me.

    You're missing the point, Slado. There's a process for conducting wiretaps, it's clearly written in federal law, and it grants lots of leeway to the federal government. The President decided to completely ignore that law. Simple question: Why?

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 01:12:01 PM EST
    kdog, you are dead right, FISA already permits secret monitoring, it just needs to be approved. Even the issue of urgency is addressed by allowing retroactive approval. So the fact that Bush is still not willing to follow the law says everything about his motives. Earlier Dan posted:
    A question asked of the President that he did not answer was: Why did he not get warrants retroactive to these "emergencies" as I understand is allowed ... by FISA.
    Unless this question is answered convincingly, we can reasonably conclude that Bush has a hidden motive for wanting to skirt the law, a motive that he knows would not obtain approval under the legal FISA process.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 01:28:55 PM EST
    I'd like to suggest a scenario and see if anyone thinks a FISA warrant is, uh, warranted. Suppose I could monitor a million phone conversations at once and screen them for the phrase, "kill all the jews." Not listen mind you, but when the phrase pops up, I could go back, see who the conversants were, where they lived, and what they might be up to. Suppose that one end of the conversation was in Syria and the other was in LA? What do I have to do? Do I need a warrant for each of my millions of screens? I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, but this seems impractical in the extreme. But then, most law seems like an extreme exercise in avoiding the truth. Very respectfully, Jimbo

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 01:35:03 PM EST
    Slado: What part of "War on Terror" don't you understand? "The war on terror is the “seminal lie” from which all the administration’s criminal excesses are mere tributaries. America’s unprovoked aggression in Iraq, as well as the appalling assault on civil liberties, has been carried out in the name of the war on terror. In fact, it has been used as to mask everything from police-state legislation at home to massive human rights violations abroad. The war on terror is an all-consuming fraud that poses the greatest threat to personal freedom and global security the world has ever seen. If unchallenged, the dictatorial-powers of the president will continue to increase and the world to be plunged into another century of war. The war on terror is a fabrication so large and all-encompassing that it includes both political parties, the Pentagon, the main-body of corporate and financial elites, and virtually the entire western media."

    Suppose I could monitor a million phone conversations at once and screen them
    Does this have anything to do with the evesdropping program the President has authorized?

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 01:48:51 PM EST
    QIB, Yes. I was trying to create a dialog on the technological possibilities vice the legal requirements in surveillance. I'm pretty sure that the scenario I sketched out is what is going on. Do you really think some NSA employee is setting around with a pair of headphones listening to a tape? V/r, Jimbo

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:02:09 PM EST
    Et al – From the post:
    It's important to note here that people in this country have been subjected to the warrantless surveillance, not just foreign nationals.
    Could someone give us a link to provide names of the “United States persons” named in the following excerpt?
    (i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
    Now, let’s go one step further. Is a warrant required?
    (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
    Now, let’s take another step. What if a “United States person” might be overheard?
    (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately
    BTW – Anyone heard anything from Senator Rockefeller??

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:06:47 PM EST
    Slado: "Serious debate on this subject is warranted but until those opposing the president come up with alternatives they will be on the losing end of this argument." Quite possibly the dumbest thing I've seen written in defense of the administration. How can you debate something they have fought to keep secret? How can alternatives be proposed when they won't fess up to the extent and specific reasons for doing what they do?

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:09:34 PM EST
    Jimbo, it sounds to me like you're proposing that the govt. listen to *everything*, but that for their convenience, they would use various filters to sift out "conversations of interest." Just because I have nothing to hide, it doesn't follow that I'm okay with the govt. looking into my private papers, email, or phone conversations. I can't imagine saying "kill all the Jews," but I can easily imagine saying things in private to my friends that could get me into hot water. Will this become like the situation in airports where it's a felony to tell a joke (e.g. about a bomb), but extending it to private communications? We *can* look into the affairs of those who have given us probable cause to believe that they are committing an illegal act, but there has to be a warrant from a cognizant court. That's not some ACLU fantasy; it's the fourth amendment. . . . jim strain in san diego.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#26)
    by soccerdad on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:09:56 PM EST
    PPJ your are indeed scum for continuing to ignore the part I posted.
    They can also spy on an agent of a foreign government. Which is defined to be: (2) any person who? (A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; (B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; (C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power; (D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or (E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B),


    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#27)
    by Al on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:11:02 PM EST
    Slado expresses the standard line for those who have passively supported dictatorships throughout history: "I have nothing to fear. They can listen to me order pizza all they want". The converse is the frightening part: "If the government arrests someone, they must have done something bad." The problem with that is that the government is unchecked. There is ample precedent that people have been detained without being charged for a very long time. It is a very real possibility that someone can be arrested on the basis of a phone conversation overheard on a secret wiretap, and detained without charging, even whisked off to some secret prison elsewhere on the planet where not even the International Red Cross has access, let alone the US justice system. And incredible though it may seem, the system does make mistakes. My question for the Slado's of this world is this: Surely you understand this? Who do you think you're kidding?

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#28)
    by yudel on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:18:45 PM EST
    Jimbo, I'm glad you're so confident that that scenario is what's going on. If that were the case, the president would have asked for a warrant, been refused a warrant and then, rather then go to Congress to modify the law to suit the new circumstances, done an end-run around it. However, given that the President chose to conduct wiretaps without any warrant or congressional authority, the question is, why? Was it really to stop terrorism? Or was he drawing up his own Nixonian list of journalists, political opponents, and enemies of major Republican party donors? I don't about you, but it bothers me that the President is operating under a series of legal theories according to which he can send an agent to break into my house and execute me and my family subject to no legal oversight. To be cleaer: I don't believe that Bush has authorized death squads. However, according to his reading of the Constitution, he seems to believe that he has the power to institute them whenever he wants.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:19:24 PM EST
    jim strain, Now we are getting somewhere. How about a warrant that allows you to listen to any screened call that contains "kill all the (fill in the blank)" Or you could have a judge issue a warrant that would be like the list of viruses in the antivirus software that would allow listening to the actual conversation containing words or phrases that triggered the warrant. My whole point is that technology is bypassing the FISA scheme. I want all the Dems to be on record as opposing use of the technology that is capable of protecting the USA. V/r, Jimbo

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:21:41 PM EST
    Coercive interrogations. A gulag of secret prisons. And now warrantless surveillance. "I believe that there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." --James Madison Some will say that we need to make trade-offs between liberty and security. But liberty has a price and taking risks is the price we all have to pay if liberty is to be preserved. Of the Founders who pledged "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor" as signers to the Declaration of Independence, five were captured as traitors and tortured before they died; twelve had their homes ransacked and burned; two lost their sons in the Revolutionary War; another had two sons captured; and nine died from wounds or the hardship of the war. But too many want to trade their sacrifices away for a mess of security pottage.
    --Stephen Bainbridge at UCLA

    I want all the Dems to be on record as opposing use of the technology that is capable of protecting the USA.
    And I'll take Republicans on record as saying our Constitution is expendable for votes.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:34:53 PM EST
    Jimbo:
    Suppose I could monitor a million phone conversations at once and screen them for the phrase, "kill all the jews." Not listen mind you, but when the phrase pops up, I could go back, see who the conversants were, where they lived, and what they might be up to. ... I'm pretty sure that the scenario I sketched out is what is going on. Do you really think some NSA employee is setting around with a pair of headphones listening to a tape?
    jim strain:
    Jimbo, it sounds to me like you're proposing that the govt. listen to *everything*, but that for their convenience, they would use various filters to sift out "conversations of interest."
    jim strain, I think you are missing Jimbo's point. Technically what he is discussing IS already feasible today. And it's becoming ever simpler to implement with the growth of digital transmission of voice (VoIP), and increases in computing power. So what Jimbo is getting at is this: What would Bush do if the NSA had implemented such a monitoring program, and wanted to obtain legal cover for it? How would he request such approval using the present FISA process? If FISA does not allow blanket surveillance of that kind, that explains why he is insisting on his right to bypass the FISA process.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:36:56 PM EST
    Every federal official – including the President – who takes an oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States." “I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.” “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
    Happy now, wingnuts?

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:38:26 PM EST
    Jimbo and Jim, I see you clarified this while I was typing. Sorry, I type slowly!

    Aw, edger. That was Capitol Hill Blue. They're not exactly a reliable source.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:44:38 PM EST
    QIB, True, but probably ever so slightly more so than many of the sources quoted by our resident wingies...

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:44:53 PM EST
    Cymro, No problemo. I'm glad that you understood what I was getting at. V/r, Jimbo

    Jimbo, The article in the NY Times that broke the story describes it thusly:
    While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands since the program began, several officials said.
    How does your scenario line up with that?

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:56:18 PM EST
    QIB, Pretty neatly, I'd say. And it warrants some kind of blanket authority to use the technology. V/r, Jimbo

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:57:44 PM EST
    And whom have they been surveiling? Filmaker Michael Moore? Actor Tim Robbins. Howard Dean?
    I'd like to know too. The last time our govt. so rampantly abused their power, they were listening to John Lennon's phone calls and staking out his apartment. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn the govt. was spying on the likes of Cindy Sheehan or anyone who questions their power. That is the main "threat" they are concerned with, the threat to their power. You think Rove or Bush or Cheney go to work everyday to thwart a terrorist attack? They go to work everyday to thwart the days bad press, and preserve power. Little else.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 03:05:59 PM EST
    This is really simple. The job of the President is defined in the Constitution. Artcle II, Sec. 1, clause 8 specifically provides: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:- "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." The 4th Amendment provides that:"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath..." Bush has violated his oath of office repeatedly. Ironically, in his press conference he disagreed thar he has unchecked power stating that the check is his oath of office! This has nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terra, or Iraq. It has to do with Democracy and the Constitution. One either believes in them or they don't. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the President the power to violate it based on it being inconvenient. The rights of Americans belong to each individual American. Rights and liberties do not belong to the Government. The Constitution limits the powers of the Government and defines the rights of individuals so that they cannot be taken away by the government. To paraphrase King George: "You're either with the constitution or you're against it." Personally, I'm with it, whether any dingbat doesn't care that the govt hears ordering pizza or not.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 03:26:10 PM EST
    SD writes:
    PPJ your are indeed scum for continuing to ignore the part I posted.
    SD, since you have, numerous times, said that I should have my comments ignored, I can only conclude that you are calling yourself, "scum." BTW - Why should I comment on this?
    They can also spy on an agent of a foreign government. Which is defined to be: (2) any person who? (A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power,
    I mean, what's your point? What would you do? Just ignore'em? Al - Have you lost any civil rights? If you have, tell us. Jim Strain - The 4th applies in criminal matters. I am not sure it holds in matters of war, especially in matters concerning people who are NOT "United States persons." See my lengthy comments re FISA. Dick no ... no Dick ... No not that one... anyone? ;-) See my comments to Jim Strain. Agan note: "United States person(s)." QIB - How does the "500 persons" match up against "United States person(s)" qualifications. edgey - Talent. Real talent. Now, do you have anything of substance to comment?

    Jimbo: The article talks about a list of names--specific individuals with suspected links to terrorist organizations. That doesn't square at all with the pluck-the-words-out-of-a-million-calls scenario you described. If they can put the names on a list, they can get a warrant. PPJ: No idea. That's a different question entirely and one on which I offer no opinion.

    BTW – Anyone heard anything from Senator Rockefeller??
    As a matter of fact, yes.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 03:47:56 PM EST
    PPJ, The 4th Amendment has no limitation to criminal cases, read it sometime. The exclusionary rule applies to criminal cases when the govt seeks to use evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment. You might wish to read the case of US v. US Dist. Crt 407 U.S. 297 wherein the govt argued that the warrantlees search was because of national security. The US Supreme Crt held unanimously: " These Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot be properly guaranteed if domestic security surveillance may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch."

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 04:37:35 PM EST
    Maybe this will help people to think about this subject based on its technical aspects, which may help to shed light on the political debate. QiB stated:
    The article talks about a list of names -- specific individuals with suspected links to terrorist oorganizations. That doesn't square at all with the pluck-the-words-out-of-a-million-calls scenario you described. If they can put the names on a list, they can get a warrant.
    True, but from a technical viewpoint, the optimal strategy would be to first use computer-based blanket screening of ALL calls to create a short list of the callers (or callees) of interest, and then to request approval for the more traditional surveillance of those on the list. This approach would allow the use of sophisticated statistical analysis techniques to assess the probability of a person being worthy of surveillance. Think of it as analogous to the way Google indexes the entire Web and then selects the most appropriate match for your search. I know this is a scary thought, but anyone with a computer science background would be thinking along these lines when asked to solve the technical problem of identifying a proverbial terrorist needle in the haystack of humanity. I believe that this is the real source of the issue which we must confront if we are to preserve our privacy and our freedoms in the face of a government that is determined to exploit the latest technology to undermine them, and will use any pretext to get its way. And not even impeaching Bush, and passing laws to outlaw blanket screening, will really make this problem go away. As with the A-bomb, once technology makes something feasible it is impossible to 'put the genie back in the bottle'. But impeaching Bush would be a good start.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 04:47:43 PM EST
    Cymro: ...not even impeaching Bush, and passing laws to outlaw blanket screening, will really make this problem go away. As with the A-bomb, once technology makes something feasible it is impossible to 'put the genie back in the bottle'. I agree with most of what you had to say there. Two thoughts to add... 1) It's a good idea for people to educate themselves enough about information technology to be aware of it's darker potential uses and implications, and to guard their privacy and how much information about themselves they reveal. 2) Regardless, we have a choice always: Live life, or live in fear. We've always had that choice, still do, and always will...

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 05:22:29 PM EST
    Go back and reread Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince" and you begin to realize what has ALWAYS been going on here - a slow coup. In other words, Lincoln was quite prescient: the only true enemy that we, as Americans, have to fear is from within - the co-opting of our democracy. It's not so much happening as happened. We have one king too many and not enough regicide.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 05:26:41 PM EST
    Dick no yes maybe that one... ;-) The issue is simple. The Left wants the war fought on a criminal justice basis. That did not work as the increasing number of attacks, ending on 9/11, proved. Bush wanted a pre-emptive military strategy. And Congress agreed. The FISA clearly defines who may be warrant-less wire tapped, and who may not The "may nots" are called "United States persons." In addition, it further allows wiretaps when:
    B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;
    So the whole thing is very broad and open ended. Basically, anyone in the country on a visa, unlawfully (illegal alien, green card received by lying about intent or other facts), thought to be a spy (hat tip to SD) can be wire tapped. Then we have the “substantial likelihood” excuse if the NSA goofs. What the Left needs to do is prove that a “United States person” has been wire tapped without a warrant and doesn’t meet the “substantial likelihood” escape clause. I keep asking for someone to provide that person, but so far I haven’t seen it. The further issue is the “72 hour” requirement for an “after the fact” approval by a judge. Bush argues that, if I understand correctly, that his constitutional duties to defend the country require him to ignore that. From a practical view point, given that the intercept could be picked up in a “batch” in a remote location and not recognized for what it was for weeks, he has a strong point. BTW – I love your moniker. Are you referring to “Tricky” or “Head?” ;-) cymro writes: Given your “genie out of the bottle” statement, why would you want to impeach Bush, outside of pure hatred? I mean the scars created in the political and cultural fabric would last years. I think the statement: “Cut off your nose to spite your face,” applies. (I felt the same way about Clinton.) Plus, if you lost, which is very likely, the country would shift further to the Right. Just not worth it. Bush will be mostly gone in two years. Hey, win some elections and let's get busy on national health care, gay rights, etc. But you can't do that by being seen as soft on terrorism.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 05:30:18 PM EST
    edger -- right! But your two points highlight the dilemma we face. If we really wanted to guard our privacy by not revealing information about ourselves, then we would not even be posting our opinions here -- I have no illusions about my identity being protected against discovery. But that would amount to living in fear, wouldn't it.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 05:51:01 PM EST
    Of course he HAS to say what he did was legal. Otherwise he'd be admitting to sh*tting on the constitution like he has. So he'll play the fear card: I did it to protect my dear subject. [last sentence deleted.]

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 05:53:49 PM EST
    Dadler [and site owner...] Powers that be take a dim view of direct threats against the commander in chief. i'm rather surprised that the comment, the first one made above, has been allowed to remain posted. i mean, i'm all for the First Amendment and i recognize pure rhetoric, but still: be looking over your shoulder. [Ed. I didn't see the comment until you pointed it out. I have deleted the objectionable phrase. Thanks.]

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 05:57:18 PM EST
    PPJ:
    Given your “genie out of the bottle” statement, why would you want to impeach Bush, outside of pure hatred? I mean the scars created in the political and cultural fabric would last years. I think the statement: “Cut off your nose to spite your face,” applies. (I felt the same way about Clinton.) Plus, if you lost, which is very likely, the country would shift further to the Right. Just not worth it. Bush will be mostly gone in two years. Hey, win some elections and let's get busy on national health care, gay rights, etc.
    jim, I know you are just trying to get a rise out of me, but I can't bear to see such a load of tripe go unrefuted. Come on! Surely you can distinguish between the damage to society caused by criminal behavior (e.g. illegal eavedropping by Bush) and the recognition of a challenge to be faced by society in the framing of laws (e.g. the legal aspects of modern communications technology). You might just as well argue that it serves no purpose to arrest husbands who beat their wives, because doing so will not put an end to the problem of spousal abuse, and only serves to break up families and create more problems of single parenthood. And as to all your imagined negative consequences, thanks but no thanks for the advice. It says something about the insecurity of right-wingers where Bush is concerned that you are now reduced to trying to scare people about the negative consequences of his impeachment.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 06:23:31 PM EST
    Cymro: If we really wanted to guard our privacy by not revealing information about ourselves...that would amount to living in fear, wouldn't it. I don't think so, really, Cymro. Life, and the world, is dangerous. We know that. But we live our lives anyway. And in the long run life will kill us, or at least end, one way or the other. But we still live our lives anyway. We don't cower in fear and strike out trying to kill people who design and build cars for example, in spite of the fact that car accidents killed 15 times as many Americans in 2001 as terrorism did, do we? When I said we all have a choice: to live life or to live in fear, I meant that it is a daily, even a moment to moment choice, in how we conduct ourselves and relate to the world around us and to other people. We can live life... really live it, and enjoy the unpredictable wonder of the moment and the incredible diversity and differences of these amazing beings all around us, knowing that we could die in the next momement... Or we can live in constant fear of death, or of something else, let that fear control and determine how we act, and by doing so be always ready to strike out and destroy anything and anyone we do not understand. I choose the former...

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 07:37:31 PM EST
    You should see Harry Reid's entanglement with the NSA right here.

    So after reading Jimbo's comments one comes to the realization that the War on Terror has rendered the Constitution of the United States just as "quaint" as the Geneva Convention in the eyes of wingnuts. So with the 4th Amendment gone, all eyes are on the First...

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 06:57:52 AM EST
    cymro - Not at all. You are comparing a person to person crime, and using that to justify what you think is a crime against the country by the President. First, there has been no crime proven. Not even close. (I am still waiting for someone to provide that list of names of United States persons that have been spied on, including the "sunstantial numbers" out.) My note was that an impeachment trial would leave scars for years, and you would probably lose, anyway. So why not focus on winning elections? You can't win on anti-defense issues. And that is how the argument is framed. And in the meantime other pressing issues aren't being addressed. Remember I am a social liberal. ;-) edgey - I love you comparing terrorists to auto workers. Now I see the connection. Car bombers are not terrorists because it is autoworkers that build cars that kill people. ernie - Changing the subject, eh? That means you've lost the argument.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 07:42:45 AM EST
    PPJ, Bringing a strawman into the argument adds nothing. Your statement that "the Left" wants to fight terrorism on a criminal law basis means nothing. There is no "Left" in this debate. You can bring up the spooky terrorists all the time to rationalize anything, any abuse of power. It used to be the Soviet Union. McCarthy scared evryone with communists behind every door. Before that it was the Japanese living in the US. There is always a boogeyman out there. This isn't a debate about terrorism, though. It's a debate about the Constitution. The President doesn't get to ignore the Constitution because it's unwieldy. It's supposed to be unwieldy. If you are willing to give up your rights for some supposed security, then you prefer to live in a dictatorship. It's much more efficient for spying on citizens. Dictatorships always use fear and security to justify their power. You're also saying that what "the Left used before didn't work and resulted in 9/11. You sure do have a short memory. Richard Clarke was well aware that Bin Laden was preparing to attack the US. He wrote a book about it. The problem was the King and Condi didn't want to hear about it. Tenet was running around with his "hair on fire" about the imminent threat. The FBI agents in Phoenix and Minneapolis couldn't get their superiors to listen to them about Arabs taking flight lessons. A PDB was given to Bush by the security agencies titled "Bin LAden determined to strike in U.S.". Bush went golfing and Condi thought it was an historical document. All this intelligence was gathered without breaking the law or violating the Constitution. King George and his cronies ignored it because it was vacation time. The left and the Constitution didn't allow 9/11 to happen, it was incompetence in the Administration. The same incompetence that led to the execution of the war in Iraq, the Katrina response, and just about anything else. You're either for the Constitution or you're against it. Finally, you're right;I haven't produced an American citizen who was spied upon without a warrant. That's because the whole operation was top secret! My security clearance doesn't go quite that high. However, Bush admitted he did so in his press conference. I don't generally believe anything he says, but I will in this one instance

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 08:02:45 AM EST
    By the way, the NY Times this morning has an article about the FBI's counterterrorism department spending their time investigating terrorism groups like PETA, and the Catholic Workers anti-poverty group. Godd to see that "the Right" is keeping us safe from terrorism by using all their valuable resources in the right way. I guess we're all safe from those pesky anti-poverty terrorists that "the Left" just want to coddle.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 07:45:31 AM EST
    Dick - I's at the end of post's time, so you probably won't read this. The debate is about Bush's innocence/guilt not the constitution. And if the Left had a person, they'd use it. So they don't. This is just pure politics. Read this link for Clarke's pre book comments.
    And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent. And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided...... So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
    That clearly demonstrates the administration was working the problem, not acting as characterized by you. And then we have this.
    "At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."
    And you write:
    All this intelligence was gathered without breaking the law or violating the Constitution.
    First of all, we know that the Clinton administration was doing the same as Bush. So, by your claims against Bush, the law was being broken. Secondly, the work was not acceptable because the Gorelick memo prevented the various agencies from sharing information. And if you do not understand that the major difference between the two strategies, the CJ approach of the Left and the military/pre-emptive of Bush then you haven't been paying attention. Everything flows from this. The Patroit Act, the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, the FISA approach.

    Re: Bush Again Defends Warrantless Surveillance (none / 0) (#60)
    by Sailor on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 08:29:02 AM EST
    Even wingnuts should realize how dangerous and deluded these folks are:
    "Watergate and a lot of things around Watergate and Vietnam, both during the '70s served, I think, to erode the authority ... the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area," Cheney told reporters aboard the Air Force Two aircraft after a visit to Pakistan.

    But the vice-president said he thought the Bush administration has been able to restore some of "the legitimate authority of the presidency." He also said he believes that the U.S. War Powers Act, which gives the U.S. Congress the power to be fully engaged in a president's decision to go to war is unconstitutional.

    "I am one of those who believe that was an infringement on the authority of the president," he said.
    He is admitting to wanting to overthrow the Constitution:
    Section 8 - Powers of Congress To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;