• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush authorized NSA to spy on private citizens

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: lanche
Originally posted by: rickn
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: mrphones
Politics...Got a love it...Even on Anandtech you guys will find a way to spin everything.... I hope they continue to eavesdrop on anyone they find suspicious. You really think they are spying on us average citizens? No, they are spying on people who have "any" correspondence of any form with anyone outside the US or within it that may see as a threat to our security. Get used to; it's what will keep you and your family from ever seeing another terrorist act committed on US soil.

Many posters here suffer from more than a little superstitious paranoia. They see spys behind every tree. I could care less who listens to my communications. If I have anything to hide, I hide it, I don't blubber it over a telephone or on a keyboard. I can't imagine many of the posters here actually have abything to hide either. They are just looking for something else to "get Bush" with.

that's the best you can come up with? how pathetic. the terrorists are smarter than you are, they probably don't make phone calls from their home phones, so what good did spying on american citizens accomplish? I just see this whole sham as the beginning of bigger troubles. You know the saying, give an inch and they'll take a mile. Bush's actions may be criminal, he's not above the law



Bush authorized the NSA to listen to info originating OUTSIDE the US only and on only suspected persons with terrorist ties. And thank god he has continued to practice this tried and true method of preventing further terrorist attacks. Bush did nothing illegal and it did not start with this administration.

Here are a couple of Executive Orders from Clinton & Carter..

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Wow...there's a whole other thread on this started by Zendari. He already made a fool out of himself, and now looks like it's your turn.

The key words are Pursuant to Section... and only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section

Below is Jimmy Carter's EO, which Clinton based his off of, even using the same words. And it's all debunked.

Basically, these executive orders are all stating that we MUST follow FISA.

By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and 104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

Lets, see, Section 102(a)(1), yes here it is:
"(a)
(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?
(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."

1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section 103 of that Act to obtain orders for electronic surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information.

"Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications of any United States person."

1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or defense, is designated to make the certifications required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct electronic surveillance:

(a) Secretary of State.
(b) Secretary of Defense.
(c) Director of Central Intelligence.
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(e) Deputy Secretary of State.
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

1-104. [Deleted]

1-105. [Deleted]

[Secs. 1-104 and 1-105 amended Executive Order 12036 of Jan. 24, 1978, which was revoked by Executive Order 12333 of Dec. 4, 1981.]

Jimmy Carter
1978
 
Originally posted by: lanche
Originally posted by: lanche
Originally posted by: rickn
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: mrphones
Politics...Got a love it...Even on Anandtech you guys will find a way to spin everything.... I hope they continue to eavesdrop on anyone they find suspicious. You really think they are spying on us average citizens? No, they are spying on people who have "any" correspondence of any form with anyone outside the US or within it that may see as a threat to our security. Get used to; it's what will keep you and your family from ever seeing another terrorist act committed on US soil.

Many posters here suffer from more than a little superstitious paranoia. They see spys behind every tree. I could care less who listens to my communications. If I have anything to hide, I hide it, I don't blubber it over a telephone or on a keyboard. I can't imagine many of the posters here actually have abything to hide either. They are just looking for something else to "get Bush" with.

that's the best you can come up with? how pathetic. the terrorists are smarter than you are, they probably don't make phone calls from their home phones, so what good did spying on american citizens accomplish? I just see this whole sham as the beginning of bigger troubles. You know the saying, give an inch and they'll take a mile. Bush's actions may be criminal, he's not above the law



Bush authorized the NSA to listen to info originating OUTSIDE the US only and on only suspected persons with terrorist ties. And thank god he has continued to practice this tried and true method of preventing further terrorist attacks. Bush did nothing illegal and it did not start with this administration.

Here are a couple of Executive Orders from Clinton & Carter..

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm


1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

ROFLMAO! you highlighted the wrong part!!!!

I put it in for you now...
 
Originally posted by: mrphones
Politics...Got a love it...Even on Anandtech you guys will find a way to spin everything.... I hope they continue to eavesdrop on anyone they find suspicious. You really think they are spying on us average citizens? No, they are spying on people who have "any" correspondence of any form with anyone outside the US or within it that may see as a threat to our security. Get used to; it's what will keep you and your family from ever seeing another terrorist act committed on US soil.

I don't think they're spying on average citizens. I KNOW they're spying on average citizens.

From the Washington Post reprinted on GNN FROM OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR...

FBI Papers Reveal Illegal Surveillance Of U.S. Citizens

By Dan Eggen
Republished from The Washington Post

Secret Surveillance Lacked Oversight



The FBI has conducted clandestine surveillance on some U.S. residents for as long as 18 months at a time without proper paperwork or oversight, according to previously classified documents to be released today.

Records turned over as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit also indicate that the FBI has investigated hundreds of potential violations related to its use of secret surveillance operations, which have been stepped up dramatically since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks but are largely hidden from public view.

In one case, FBI agents kept an unidentified target under surveillance for at least five years?including more than 15 months without notifying Justice Department lawyers after the subject had moved from New York to Detroit. An FBI investigation concluded that the delay was a violation of Justice guidelines and prevented the department ?from exercising its responsibility for oversight and approval of an ongoing foreign counterintelligence investigation of a U.S. person.?

In other cases, agents obtained e-mails after a warrant expired, seized bank records without proper authority and conducted an improper ?unconsented physical search,? according to the documents.

Although heavily censored, the documents provide a rare glimpse into the world of domestic spying, which is governed by a secret court and overseen by a presidential board that does not publicize its deliberations. The records are also emerging as the House and Senate battle over whether to put new restrictions on the controversial USA Patriot Act, which made it easier for the government to conduct secret searches and surveillance but has come under attack from civil liberties groups.

The records were provided to The Washington Post by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group that has sued the Justice Department for records relating to the Patriot Act.

David Sobel, EPIC?s general counsel, said the new documents raise questions about the extent of possible misconduct in counterintelligence investigations and underscore the need for greater congressional oversight of clandestine surveillance within the United States.

?We?re seeing what might be the tip of the iceberg at the FBI and across the intelligence community,? Sobel said. ?It indicates that the existing mechanisms do not appear adequate to prevent abuses or to ensure the public that abuses that are identified are treated seriously and remedied.?

FBI officials disagreed, saying that none of the cases have involved major violations and most amount to administrative errors. The officials also said that any information obtained from improper searches or eavesdropping is quarantined and eventually destroyed.

?Every investigator wants to make sure that their investigation is handled appropriately, because they?re not going to be allowed to keep information that they didn?t have the proper authority to obtain,? said one senior FBI official, who declined to be identified by name because of the ongoing litigation. ?But that is a relatively uncommon occurrence. The vast majority of the potential [violations] reported have to do with administrative timelines and time frames for renewing orders.?

The documents provided to EPIC focus on 13 cases from 2002 to 2004 that were referred to the Intelligence Oversight Board, an arm of the President?s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board that is charged with examining violations of the laws and directives governing clandestine surveillance. Case numbers on the documents indicate that a minimum of 287 potential violations were identified by the FBI during those three years, but the actual number is certainly higher because the records are incomplete.

FBI officials declined to say how many alleged violations they have identified or how many were found to be serious enough to refer to the oversight board.

Catherine Lotrionte, the presidential board?s counsel, said most of its work is classified and covered by executive privilege. The board?s investigations range from ?technical violations to more substantive violations of statutes or executive orders,? Lotrionte said.

Most such cases involve powers granted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs the use of secret warrants, wiretaps and other methods as part of investigations of agents of foreign powers or terrorist groups. The threshold for such surveillance is lower than for traditional criminal warrants. More than 1,700 new cases were opened by the court last year, according to an administration report to Congress.

In several of the cases outlined in the documents released to EPIC, FBI agents failed to file annual updates on ongoing surveillance, which are required by Justice Department guidelines and presidential directives, and which allow Justice lawyers to monitor the progress of a case. Others included a violation of bank privacy statutes and an improper physical search, though the details of the transgressions are edited out. At least two others involve e-mails that were improperly collected after the authority to do so had expired.

Some of the case details provide a rare peek into the world of FBI counterintelligence. In 2002, for example, the Pittsburgh field office opened a preliminary inquiry on a person to ?determine his/her suitability as an asset for foreign counterintelligence matters? ? in other words, to become an informant. The violation occurred when the agent failed to extend the inquiry while maintaining contact with the potential asset, the documents show.

The FBI general counsel?s office oversees investigations of alleged misconduct in counterintelligence probes, deciding whether the violation is serious enough to be reported to the oversight board and to personnel departments within Justice and the FBI. The senior FBI official said those cases not referred to the oversight board generally involve missed deadlines of 30 days or fewer with no potential infringement of the civil rights of U.S. persons, who are defined as either citizens or legal U.S. resident aliens.

?The FBI and the people who work in the FBI are very cognizant of the fact that people are watching us to make sure we?re doing the right thing,? the senior FBI official said. ?We also want to do the right thing. We have set up procedures to do the right thing.?

But in a letter to be sent today to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sobel and other EPIC officials argue that the documents show how little Congress and the public know about the use of clandestine surveillance by the FBI and other agencies. The group advocates legislation requiring the attorney general to report violations to the Senate.

The documents, EPIC writes, ?suggest that there may be at least thirteen instances of unlawful intelligence investigations that were never disclosed to Congress.?
 
And check this out for WAPO...

Even the FISA judges are beginning to revolt against Bush's illegal, impeachable offenses. And two Republican senators are joining the call for a congressional investigation into Bush's crimes.

Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest

Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; Page A01

A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Robertson, who was appointed to the federal bench in Washington by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday.

Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.

Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.

Hagel and Snowe joined Democrats Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate judiciary and intelligence panels into the classified program.

The hearings would occur at the start of a midterm election year during which the prosecution of the Iraq war could figure prominently in House and Senate races.

Not all Republicans agreed with the need for hearings and backed White House assertions that the program is a vital tool in the war against al Qaeda.

"I am personally comfortable with everything I know about it," Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a phone interview.

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "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." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act.

Revelation of the program last week by the New York Times also spurred considerable debate among federal judges, including some who serve on the secret FISA court. For more than a quarter-century, that court had been seen as the only body that could legally authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects, and only when the Justice Department could show probable cause that its targets were foreign governments or their agents.

Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants -- to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."

Robertson is considered a liberal judge who has often ruled against the Bush administration's assertions of broad powers in the terrorism fight, most notably in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld . Robertson held in that case that the Pentagon's military commissions for prosecuting terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were illegal and stacked against the detainees.

Some FISA judges said they were saddened by the news of Robertson's resignation and want to hear more about the president's program.

"I guess that's a decision he's made and I respect him," said Judge George P. Kazen, another FISA judge. "But it's just too quick for me to say I've got it all figured out."

Bush said Monday that the White House briefed Congress more than a dozen times. But those briefings were conducted with only a handful of lawmakers who were sworn to secrecy and prevented from discussing the matter with anyone or from seeking outside legal opinions.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) revealed Monday that he had written to Vice President Cheney the day he was first briefed on the program in July 2003, raising serious concerns about the surveillance effort. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she also expressed concerns in a letter to Cheney, which she did not make public.

The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), issued a public rebuke of Rockefeller for making his letter public.

In response to a question about the letter, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested that Rockefeller should have done more if he was seriously concerned. "If I thought someone was breaking the law, I don't care if it was classified or unclassified, I would stand up and say 'the law's being broken here.' "

But Rockefeller said the secrecy surrounding the briefings left him with no other choice. "I made my concerns known to the vice president and to others who were briefed," Rockefeller said. "The White House never addressed my concerns."
 
More from Democracy Now! on domestic spying...

FBI Spied on Greenpeace, PETA, Catholic Worker
In Washington, newly released documents show counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been monitoring domestic activist groups including Greenpeace, Catholic Worker, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and PETA, the People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The documents indicate the F.B.I. monitored protests organized by the groups and used confidential informants inside the organizations to gain intelligence. In one case, government records show the FBI launched a terrorism investigation of PETA in Norfolk, Virginia.

Documents Show FBI Agents Tracked PETA For Years
According to the Washington Post, the documents offer no proof of PETA's involvement in illegal activity. But more than 100 pages of heavily censored FBI files show the agency used secret informants and tracked the group's events for years. The FBI also monitored political activities on college campuses. One FBI file included a contact list for students and peace activists who attended a 2002 conference at Stanford University aimed at ending sanctions then in place in Iraq.

Reports Expose Growing Domestic Surveillance
This is the third major recent revelation about domestic spying. Last week NBC News revealed the Pentagon has been monitoring peaceful anti-war protesters and the New York Times exposed how President Bush ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without court-approved warrants. Ann Beeson, of the American Civil Liberties Union said "It's clear that this administration has engaged every possible agency, from the Pentagon to N.S.A. to the F.B.I., to engage in spying on Americans."

See link in sig.
 
Did Bush actually say that he can spy on Americans by using the constitution as validation? Wow. Say what you want about the man, but certainly never mistake him for a bureaucrat. Why have 9 Justices to intrepret the constitution when Bush can do it all by himself!
 
Originally posted by: Generator
Did Bush actually say that he can spy on Americans by using the constitution as validation? Wow. Say what you want about the man, but certainly never mistake him for a bureaucrat. Why have 9 Justices to intrepret the constitution when Bush can do it all by himself!

And there he was, worried about some silly litmus test. :roll:

 
Funny thing is, they were following and eavsedropping on the 911 group - so obviously Clinton was allowing this. Sadly, when it came down to prosecution he had so hamstrung the powers that be that no one could do anything. We basically watched these men plan 911 and could do nothing.

Which is the real crime here. The fake crime of violating your false rigth to privacy (as every president has) or standing by and knowingly preventing the prosecution of a known terror cell on our very shores...



If this right to privacy is so important (and real) the Democrats should immediately denounce FDR and JFK for imposing even greater violations not only on common people but political enemies. Those are your heros, the pioneers of this field.
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
Funny thing is, they were following and eavsedropping on the 911 group - so obviously Clinton was allowing this. Sadly, when it came down to prosecution he had so hamstrung the powers that be that no one could do anything. We basically watched these men plan 911 and could do nothing.

Which is the real crime here. The fake crime of violating your false rigth to privacy (as every president has) or standing by and knowingly preventing the prosecution of a known terror cell on our very shores...



If this right to privacy is so important (and real) the Democrats should immediately denounce FDR and JFK for imposing even greater violations not only on common people but political enemies. Those are your heros, the pioneers of this field.


Your ignorance and stubborn unwillingness to admit President Bush might have done something wrong is depressing.

How, specifically, did President Clinton "hamstring the powers that be that noone could do anything"? That is simply a lie.

What evidence do you have that President Clinton authorized wiretaps outside FISA? If he did, how was his authority to do so any different than Bush's? Do you support Bush's actions in authorizing warrantless wiretaps? If so, why not Clinton's?
 
Originally posted by: NJDevil
Originally posted by: db
In April 2004 Bush had this to say about wiretaps:

"Now, by the way," he said, "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."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Hah
Was Bush lying then or is he lying now??

 
Originally posted by: HomerJS
Originally posted by: NJDevil
Originally posted by: db
In April 2004 Bush had this to say about wiretaps:

"Now, by the way," he said, "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."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Hah
Was Bush lying then or is he lying now??
Yes.
 
How, specifically, did President Clinton "hamstring the powers that be that noone could do anything"? That is simply a lie.

He allowed the prevention of communication between the CIA and FBI. He also made it a policy to prosecute terrorists which requires data gathering. Well, you can't gather data if your national agencies are not allowed to collect it.

So in essence, under the Clinton poliocy, if you were a terrorist and on US soil, you were virtually invincible. No one, and I mean no one had access to you or had the ability to pass along knowledge of your activities. Even local authorities were limited to passing data to only the FBI who in turn could not pass it to the NSA or CIA - hence the limitation.

Your ignorance and stubborn unwillingness to admit President Bush might have done something wrong is depressing.

What ignorance. I stated fact. Name me a president that has not allowed covert monitoring of one group or another. We know FDR did it, we know JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton did it - the documents are there.

Now who is being ignorant - or should I say blind to the facts.

Every new issue to come from the NYT's is not a world ending revelation. They are hit pieces. In this case they are revealed national security secrets. i for one think that the editors, authors, and leakers should be prosecuted for crimes of high treason. The leaker should be hung as that is punishment for such disregard for our national security.


The burden is one you. Simple, stupi one line answers will not hold water here.
 
What evidence do you have that President Clinton authorized wiretaps outside FISA?

He authorized the use of a DoD spy sattelite to monitor the activities of a militia group shortly after the McVeigh bombing. This is well beyond what Bush did since the law specifically forbids DoD spy sattelites from being used for domestic uses.

However, the resource and the situation called for more than the normal measures.


I do not think that Clinton was wrong when he did this. Not at all. The situation called for it and while it was technically illegal it was the best option at the time to prevent the loss of more life. National preservation and the life of citizens always trumps privacy concerns.
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
How, specifically, did President Clinton "hamstring the powers that be that noone could do anything"? That is simply a lie.

He allowed the prevention of communication between the CIA and FBI. He also made it a policy to prosecute terrorists which requires data gathering. Well, you can't gather data if your national agencies are not allowed to collect it.

So in essence, under the Clinton poliocy, if you were a terrorist and on US soil, you were virtually invincible. No one, and I mean no one had access to you or had the ability to pass along knowledge of your activities. Even local authorities were limited to passing data to only the FBI who in turn could not pass it to the NSA or CIA - hence the limitation.

That is a lie. President Clinton in no way "allowed the prevention of communication between the CIA and FBI." The barrier, to the extent one existed, was created following the Church Commission in 1975, and it was imposed because of the misdeeds of these agencies in the early '70s, under Nixon. If Clinton was guilty of "allowing" this, so was Reagan and GHWB, and, according to you, terrorist activities were unchecked under their presidencies as well. Remember the Beirut bombing in 1983? Reagan and GHWB had 10 years after that to correct this situation, but didn't do so, regardless of the fact that GHWB, as a former CIA director, presumably knew the ins and outs of the situation as well as any man alive. But wait, I forgot, it's all Clinton's fault . . .

I'll also point out that the President is not a legislator. To the extent intelligence reforms were needed, that was largely the responsibility of Congress, which had a Republican majority during 6 of the 8 years he held office.

 
So if there is a war, we can throw away the constitution during the war. Then we can prosecute the media who let the public know that we threw away the constitution. Our excuse is that we saved American lives (No proof required!). Under the same argument, we can also throw away the constitution to persecute people who oppose the administration's continuation of the war or the start of the next war.

Then we can throw away the constitution to apprehend pedophiles. After that, why do rapists need rights or drug dealers or looters or burglars or peace activists or environmentalists?
 
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: mrphones
Politics...Got a love it...Even on Anandtech you guys will find a way to spin everything.... I hope they continue to eavesdrop on anyone they find suspicious. You really think they are spying on us average citizens? No, they are spying on people who have "any" correspondence of any form with anyone outside the US or within it that may see as a threat to our security. Get used to; it's what will keep you and your family from ever seeing another terrorist act committed on US soil.

Many posters here suffer from more than a little superstitious paranoia. They see spys behind every tree. I could care less who listens to my communications. If I have anything to hide, I hide it, I don't blubber it over a telephone or on a keyboard. I can't imagine many of the posters here actually have abything to hide either. They are just looking for something else to "get Bush" with.
Wow, your posts are consistantly the text equivalent of empty calories. I want my ten seconds back. Truth is, Bush deserves to be "gotten" just on this narrow topic alone. He's done more to erode civil liberties than any other president in recent memory.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Condor

Many posters here suffer from more than a little superstitious paranoia. They see spys behind every tree. I could care less who listens to my communications. If I have anything to hide, I hide it, I don't blubber it over a telephone or on a keyboard. I can't imagine many of the posters here actually have abything to hide either. They are just looking for something else to "get Bush" with.
Wow, your posts are consistantly the text equivalent of empty calories. I want my ten seconds back. Truth is, Bush deserves to be "gotten" just on this narrow topic alone. He's done more to erode civil liberties than any other president in recent memory.


No kidding. It's amazing to me that the same people who enthusiastically support going to war to protect our Constitution and way of life are so willing to give up the protections untold thousands of Americans have died for. Morons.
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
What evidence do you have that President Clinton authorized wiretaps outside FISA?

He authorized the use of a DoD spy sattelite to monitor the activities of a militia group shortly after the McVeigh bombing. This is well beyond what Bush did since the law specifically forbids DoD spy sattelites from being used for domestic uses.

However, the resource and the situation called for more than the normal measures.


I do not think that Clinton was wrong when he did this. Not at all. The situation called for it and while it was technically illegal it was the best option at the time to prevent the loss of more life. National preservation and the life of citizens always trumps privacy concerns.
But Clinton isnt president anymore. And the political right had their chances with "getting him" and all they came up with is a lie over a BJ.

bringing us BACK to Mr Bush and his spying issues. But thanks for the digression.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Condor

Many posters here suffer from more than a little superstitious paranoia. They see spys behind every tree. I could care less who listens to my communications. If I have anything to hide, I hide it, I don't blubber it over a telephone or on a keyboard. I can't imagine many of the posters here actually have abything to hide either. They are just looking for something else to "get Bush" with.
Wow, your posts are consistantly the text equivalent of empty calories. I want my ten seconds back. Truth is, Bush deserves to be "gotten" just on this narrow topic alone. He's done more to erode civil liberties than any other president in recent memory.
No kidding. It's amazing to me that the same people who enthusiastically support going to war to protect our Constitution and way of life are so willing to give up the protections untold thousands of Americans have died for. Morons.
"Freedom isn't free", right?
 
Cheney said no one raised concerns or objections about the spying, right? Well, we've already seen Sen. Rockefeller's handwritten letter that had been kept in a safe. Now, Rep. Pelosi is requesting declassification of her letter stating her concerns:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/21/124114/69
WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on her request to the director of National Intelligence to declassify a letter she wrote to the Bush Administration expressing concerns about the activities of the National Security Agency.

"When I learned that the National Security Agency had been authorized to conduct the activities that President Bush referred to in his December 17 radio address, I expressed my strong concerns in a classified letter to the Administration and later verbally.

"Today, in an effort to shed light on my concerns, I requested that the director of National Intelligence quickly declassify my letter and the Administration's response to it and make them both available to the public.

"The president must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people. That intelligence, however, must be produced in a manner consistent with our Constitution and our laws, and in a manner that reflects our values as a nation to protect the American people and our freedoms."
 
Back
Top