Bush authorized NSA to spy on private citizens

[Uhtrinity]

More and more excuses coming out, damn privacy in the process.

Bush officials ratchet up defense of domestic eavesdropping

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration on Monday intensified its defense of a domestic surveillance program that supporters say protects against terrorism and critics say threatens civil liberties.

During a Washington address, Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who headed the National Security Agency when President Bush first authorized the surveillance program after September 11, 2001, staunchly defended it. "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 serves as principal deputy director of national intelligence.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
More and more excuses coming out, damn privacy in the process.

Bush officials ratchet up defense of domestic eavesdropping

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration on Monday intensified its defense of a domestic surveillance program that supporters say protects against terrorism and critics say threatens civil liberties.

During a Washington address, Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who headed the National Security Agency when President Bush first authorized the surveillance program after September 11, 2001, staunchly defended it. "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 serves as principal deputy director of national intelligence.

Ohhh that kind of rhetoric about preventing 9/11 just makes my damn blood boil.

what a fuggin JOKE!@

 

[Engineer]

Specter doesn't think that the spying was legal.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Ohhh that kind of rhetoric about preventing 9/11 just makes my damn blood boil.

what a fuggin JOKE!@

On This Week with George Stephanopolous, the man who designed the program, Gen. Michael Hayden, was invited onto the show to talk about the program. Almost every answer he gave was vague... or he wouldn't answer it because, according to him, it would reveal too much about the program. It was pretty much the whole, "We can't tell you anything, but trust us... we're not breaking the law".

Yeahhh. :roll:

 

[GhostDoggy]

What's the difference between a private and corporate citizen? <shakes head>

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Specter doesn't think that the spying was legal.

Man, those crazy, America-hating liberals who just have it in for Bush...

 

[totalcommand]

Well, looks like the Republicans REFUSED to put Attorney Gonzales under oath.

So, basically, he can be sitting in that chair lying through his teeth and not face any consequences. Compound that with the fact that he says he can't reveal certain aspects of the program (likely the most damning aspects), and there's no reason to believe any word that comes out of his mouth. And, yet, he's still struggling to answer the Senators questions on both sides. THAT should tell you something about this program.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Well, looks like the Republicans REFUSED to put Attorney Gonzales under oath.

So, basically, he can be sitting in that chair lying through his teeth and not face any consequences. Compound that with the fact that he says he can't reveal certain aspects of the program (likely the most damning aspects), and there's no reason to believe any word that comes out of his mouth. And, yet, he's still struggling to answer the Senators questions on both sides. THAT should tell you something about this program.

His performance was staggeringly lacking. Basically he sat there and said over and over again how the president has the authority, and congress was made aware, and he can't get into specifics.

rinse/repeat.

But he wasn't even remotely convincing. What is worse, is that the senators on the committee only appeared half interested. There was no fight in any of them.

after watching this circus I think the administration is going to get away with it.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: OrByte

after watching this circus I think the administration is going to get away with it.

You mean at one point you actually thought different?

 

[totalcommand]

This Q & A gives the whole truth about the matter. This is the reason why warrants are needed:

Senator Joe Biden (D-NJ): ?Can you assure us, General, you are fully, totally informed and confident that you know the absolute detail with which this program is being conducted? Can you assure us you personally can assure us no one is being eavesdropped upon in the United States other than -- other than someone who has a communication that is emanating from foreign soil by a suspected terrorist, al Qaeda, or otherwise??

Attorney General Gonzales: ?Sir, I can't give you absolute assurance.?

Gonzales, you're not even under oath! Imagine what the REAL truth is.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Well, looks like the Republicans REFUSED to put Attorney Gonzales under oath.

So, basically, he can be sitting in that chair lying through his teeth and not face any consequences. Compound that with the fact that he says he can't reveal certain aspects of the program (likely the most damning aspects), and there's no reason to believe any word that comes out of his mouth. And, yet, he's still struggling to answer the Senators questions on both sides. THAT should tell you something about this program.

The blog Wonkette had a great summary of Gonzales' testimony.

1) Trust us.
2) I am not at liberty to discuss point 2.

Seriously, I was starting to get some respect for the Republicans back, but it appears that they are just doing this whole mostly for the sake of looking like they are doing something.

 

[shira]

Did you read the bottom-dwelling sludge this Administration is spewing to rationalize Gonzales' lies?

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., was expected to press Gonzales on why, during Gonzales' confirmation hearings last year to be attorney general, he dismissed as "hypothetical" a situation in which the government conducted warrantless eavesdropping. The NSA program was long in place by then, and Gonzales was White House counsel.

Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, in a letter Friday to Feingold, said Gonzales was referring to as "hypothetical" the idea that Bush would allow warrantless monitoring that was illegal.

That statement is accurate, Moschella wrote in a letter obtained by the AP, because the administration's position is that Bush had legal authority under the 2001 congressional resolution.

But here is the actual question and answer:

FEINGOLD:And I also would like you to answer this: does the president, in your opinion, have the authority acting as commander in chief to authorize warrantless searches of Americans? homes and wiretaps of their conversations in violation of the criminal and foreign intelligence surveillance statutes of this country?
.
.
.
I?m asking you whether in general the president has the constitutional authority, does he at least in theory have the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he?s commander in chief? Does he ? does he have that power?

MR. GONZALES: Senator, I ? you ? in my judgment, you phrase it sort of a hypothetical situation. I would have to know what ? what is the ? what is the national interest that the president may have to consider. What I?m saying is, it is impossible to me, based upon the question as you?ve presented it to me, to answer that question. I can say, is that there is a presumption of constitutionality with respect to any statute passed by Congress. I will take an oath to defend the statutes. And to the extent that there is a decision made to ignore a statute, I consider that a very significant decision, and one that I would personally be involved with, I commit to you on that, and one we will take with a great deal of care and seriousness.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, that sounds to me like the president still remains above the law.

MR. GONZALES: No, sir.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Again, you know, if this is something where ? where it ? you take a good look at it, you give a presumption that the president ought to follow the law, that ? you know, that?s ? to me, that?s not good enough under our system of government.

MR. GONZALES: Senator, if I might respond to that, the president is not above the law. Of course he?s not above the law. But he has an obligation, too. He takes an oath as well. And if Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, there is a practice and a tradition recognized by presidents of both parties that he may elect to decide not to enforce that law. Now, I think that that would be ?

SEN. FEINGOLD: I recognize that, and I tried to make that distinction, Judge, between electing not to enforce as opposed to affirmatively telling people they can do certain things in contravention of the law.

MR. GONZALES: Senator, this president is not ? I ? it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Finally, will you commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it?

MR. GONZALES: I will to advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes, sir.

Note that at the time Gonzales answered these questions, he KNEW that the President had already authorized warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the FISA act. Even if Gonzales believed that FISA could not constitutionally limit the President's power, that opinion would have been beside the point: The President did in fact "authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes" - Feingold's EXACT words. Thus, it was not "hypothetical" at all. It was a reality.

And Gonzales knew PRECISELY that he believed Bush DID have "that power", since Bush had already exercised "that power" in accordance with Gonzales' approval. So the ONLY truthful answer from Gonzales would have been, "Yes, the President does have that power under certain circumstances." But what he actually said was, "you phrase it [as] sort of a hypothetical situation."

Lies, lies, and more lies. Will it ever stop?

 

[conjur]

Looks like a *second* wiretapping program that is even more encompassing than the Propagandist's warrantless wiretapping has been going on:
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060214-053955-9494r

 

[conjur]

So, the justification was "weak", eh?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060309/index.htm


Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: conjur
So, the justification was "weak", eh?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060309/index.htm


Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

Bush is like a spoiled child who wants a piece of candy. He must have his way. No amount of reason or explaining how it's harmful will deter his tantrum. The only way to stop him is strong adult supervision, something his administration and Congress are unwilling to provide.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur
Looks like a *second* wiretapping program that is even more encompassing than the Propagandist's warrantless wiretapping has been going on:
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060214-053955-9494r

And is this what that 2nd program was?

http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/GopEchelon.htm

The intelligence revelations may shed further light on how such financial transactions permitted those with prior knowledge of the September 11 attacks to profit from the deaths of 3,000 people at the World Trade Center via insider trading.

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann (8 pm & Midnight nightly) partially confirmed the NSA spy reports Monday, revealing that GOP Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter is now aware of new revelations regarding additional activities concerning the Bush Administration spy program; however, GOP senators are reportedly rejecting an investigation for fear of what might become public knowledge.

The NSA citizen-based financial and industrial dragnet is also reportedly being used to spy on all American domestic and foreign financial transactions, including downloading bank accounts and intra bank currency transactions?both foreign and domestic.

According to national security expert and federal whistleblower Thomas Heneghan, leaked intelligence reports are alleging that U.S. media executives and talk show hosts were given favors and tips on currency movements along with the ability to unobtrusively trade offshore using the Singapore Stock Exchange (SYMEX) in order to provide cover for their transactions away from U.S. jurisdiction.

Heneghan said that NBC?General Electric [GE owns 80 % of NBC] is heavily involved in the offshore trading activity according to the intelligence reports.

According to the sources, congressional investigators have discovered that media executives are also allowing the NSA a 7-10 second delay mechanism or trigger which allows the national security group to have some control over content in media reports and what is said by certain hosts, controversial guests and other individuals during national broadcasts.

Members of the congressional team probing the Bush spy program also know that major U.S. networks have been helping the NSA with phone numbers of ?activists who complain about media coverage or the lack thereof? regarding important issues.

Specter took issue with a Monday New York Times editorial which criticized his new spy program bill for ?granting legal cover retroactively, to the one spying program that Mr. Bush has acknowledged,? and that the Specter bill ?covers any other illegal wiretapping we don?t know about.?

:Q :Q