SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (719281)12/21/2005 12:57:23 PM
From: DizzyG  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
President Carter issued an executive order on May 23rd, 1979, stating, 'pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.'

You're losing it, Kenneth.

Diz-



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (719281)12/21/2005 1:09:52 PM
From: steve harris  Respond to of 769670
 
Echelon, Carnivore, what is the definition of "IS"?



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (719281)12/21/2005 1:12:21 PM
From: Srexley  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
"Clinton wanted authority for physical searches, not electronic eavesdropping"

Got it. So if Bush was actively searching houses it would be ok. And since you would not answer my primary and more basic question I can only assume that you feel if a leak hurts our President, it is ok. If a non-leak hurts Joseph Wilson (forget that it actually helped him), then folks should go to jail.

You are part of a vile group of folks who actively undermine our country and our President. At the same time you are helping the terrorists and attempting (but failing) to demoralize our troops. I would say you should be ashamed, but I am sure that you are proud of your anti-American efforts. To assert that it is ok to search houses without a warrant for Clinton and illegal to monitor International electronic communications of known Al Quida enemies we are at war with if they call too or from U.S. says just about all anyone needs to know about you.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (719281)12/21/2005 7:41:22 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
Domestic Spying Is Old News

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Pacific News Service
Posted on December 21, 2005
alternet.org

The big puzzle is why anyone is shocked that President Bush eavesdropped on Americans. The National Security Agency for decades has routinely monitored the phone calls and telegrams of thousands of Americans. The rationale has always been the same, and Bush said it again in defending his spying, that it was done to protect Americans from foreign threat or attack.

The named targets in the past have been Muslim extremists, Communists, peace activists, black radicals, civil rights leaders, and drug peddlers. Even before President Harry Truman established the NSA in a Cold War era directive in 1952, government cryptologists jumped in the domestic spy hunt with Operation Shamrock. That was a super-secret operation that forced private telegraph companies to turn over the telegraphic correspondence of Americans to the government.

The NSA kicked its spy campaign into high gear in the 1960s. The FBI demanded that the NSA monitor antiwar activists, civil rights leaders, and drug peddlers. The Senate Select Committee that investigated government domestic spying in 1976 pried open a tiny public window into the scope of NSA spying. But the agency slammed the window shut fast when it refused to cough up documents to the committee that would tell more about its surveillance of Americans. The NSA claimed that disclosure would compromise national security.

The few feeble Congressional attempts over the years to probe NSA domestic spying have gone nowhere. Even though rumors swirled that NSA eyes were riveted on more than a few Americans, Congressional investigators showed no stomach to fight the NSA's entrenched code of silence.

There was a huge warning sign in 2002 that government agencies would jump deeper into the domestic spy business. President Bush scrapped the old 1970s guidelines that banned FBI spying on domestic organizations. The directive gave the FBI carte blanche authority to surveil, and plant agents in churches, mosques, and political groups, and ransack the Internet to hunt for potential subversives, without the need or requirement to show probable cause of criminal wrongdoing.

The revised Bush administration spy guidelines, along with the anti-terrorist provisions of the Patriot Act, also gave local agents even wider discretion to determine what groups or individuals they can investigate and what tactics they can use to investigate them. The FBI wasted little time in flexing its new found intelligence muscle. It mounted a secret campaign to monitor and harass Iraq war protestors in Washington D.C. and San Francisco in October 2003.

Another sign that government domestic spying was back in full swing came during Condeleezza Rice's finger point at the FBI in her testimony before the 9/11 Commission in 2004. Rice blamed the FBI for allegedly failing to follow up on its investigation of Al-Qaeda operatives in the United States U.S. prior to the September 11 terror attacks. That increased the clamor for an independent domestic spy agency. FBI Director Robert Mueller made an impassioned plea against a separate agency, and the reason was simple. Domestic spying was an established fact and the FBI and the NSA had long been engaged in it.

The September 11 terror attacks, and the heat Bush administration took for its towering intelligence lapses, gave Bush the excuse to plunge even deeper into domestic spying. But Bush also recognized that if word got out about NSA domestic spying, it would ignite a firestorm of protest. Fortunately it did.

Despite Bush's weak and self-serving national security excuse that it thwarted potential terrorist attacks, none of which is verifiable, the Supreme Court, the NSA's own mandate and past executive orders explicitly bar domestic spying without court authorization. The exception is if there is a grave and imminent terror threat. That's the shaky legal dodge that Bush used to justify domestic spying. Bush and his defenders discount the monumental threat and damage that spying on Americans poses to civil liberties. But it can't and shouldn't be shrugged off.

During the debate over the creation of a domestic spy agency in 2002, even proponents recognized the potential threat of such an agency to civil liberties. As a safeguard they recommended that the agency not have expanded wiretap and surveillance powers or law enforcement authority, and that the Senate and House intelligence committees have strict oversight over its activities.

These supposed fail-safe measures were hardly ironclad safeguards against abuses, but they understood that domestic spying is a civil liberties nightmare minefield that has blown up and wreaked havoc on American's lives in the past. The FBI is the prime example. During the 1950s and 1960s, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover kicked FBI domestic spying into high gear. FBI agents compiled secret dossiers, illegally wiretapped, used undercover plants, and agent provocateurs, sent poison pen letters, and staged black bag jobs against black activists and anti-war groups.

Bush's claim that domestic spying poses no risk to civil liberties is laughable. Congress should demand that Bush and the NSA come clean on domestic spying, and then promptly end it.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is the author of 'The Crisis in Black and Black' (Middle Passage Press).
© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: alternet.org



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (719281)12/21/2005 9:21:04 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
A Government of Laws

Dear A-Letter Reader:

When I first read an alleged quotation from President Bush a week ago I doubted its accuracy. It was a shocker. Surely, I thought, this is a malicious distortion from someone who probably got some gossip third hand. No president would ever say, or even think, such a thing, I mused.

The exact quotation, by the editor of a publication called Capitol Hill Blue , was alleged to have occurred in the White House Oval Office attended by congressional leaders discussing the extension of the PATRIOT Act, in trouble because of its lack of constitutional safeguards. Many provisions of the Act, rushed through Congress only weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, have caused so much concern that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have joined forces with prominent conservatives like ex-US Rep. Bob Barr and the American Conservative Union to oppose renewal in the harsh form Bush has demanded.

According to Capitol Hill Blue , Republican leaders told Bush that his unyielding push to renew the worst provisions of the Act without safeguards might fail (as, thankfully, they did in the US Senate last week) and could further alienate conservatives: "I don't give a goddamn," Bush is reported to have said. "I'm the president and the commander-in-chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," an aide in the meeting supposedly said; "There is a valid case that some of 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!"

Aside from the fact that I doubt that the President "screamed" at all, and that he, a born-again evangelical Christian, would say "goddamn" to a group -- until last Friday, I assumed he respected the Constitution, even though to me he always has seemed enormously ignorant about that sacred document and its meaning. (While he is not a lawyer, there really is no excuse for such ignorance in one who occupies his exalted position).

Now comes the stunning revelation, which he admitted last Saturday, that the President personally and repeatedly since 9-11 has secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on telephone calls and read e-mails of people within the United States without obtaining judicial warrants as specifically required by law. That law grew out of the scandalous abuse by the FBI of Americans' civil liberties in the 1970s, curtailing domestic spying by US intelligence agencies and providing a system under which federal police agencies can covertly obtain warrants to eavesdrop on suspected spies (and terrorists too) in the US. This is the law that Bush has brushed aside.

As one US Senator noted, a president, this one or any other, has no power to disregard laws that he doesn't like or finds inconvenient. If he does, then the rule of law has ended in America
. If Watergate established nothing else, it affirmed that a president is subject to the law, just as are all Americans. Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., the only senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act when it passed in 2001, reminded Mr. Bush that he is president, not a king.

The president sought to justify his unconstitutional, possibly even criminal, action on the grounds that as commander in chief in the "war on terrorism" he has a duty to defend America against another 9-11. Thus he thinks he can simply waive a law he believes stands in the way of this goal. But this is a president who also claims many extraordinary powers; to hold persons captive in prison for years without charges or access to counsel, without allowing their families to know where they are; a president who condones torture in contravention of US and international law; a president who allows the Pentagon to create massive personal data bases on millions of innocent Americans; a president who advocates letting the military spy on citizens, who allows the FBI to grab bank and financial records in secret. One must wonder how many other Americans illegally have been eavesdropped on, for whatever reason the president feels justified.

The Fourth Amendment was written out of a revulsion against warrants that let British soldiers search anywhere they chose. It specifically requires government to demonstrate to a judge, and the judge specifically to find, the existence of probable cause of criminal activity on the part of the person whose property the government wishes to search. The Fourth Amendment commands that only a judge can authorize a search warrant. Certainly the President has no power to waive the Fourth Amendment or any other part of the US Constitution.

Perhaps, as The Los Angeles Times suggests, these astounding events may be "the tipping point in the American public's attitude, one that will cause the administration to reverse its encroachment on rights in the name of security."

We hope the US Congress and the courts will assert their powers against this presidential usurpation, and do so immediately, especially since the president defiantly has said he will continue to violate the law -- and the Constitution. The charges in the impeachments of both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were based on far less than is involved here.

For myself, as a conservative and as a former Member of Congress who swore to uphold the Constitution, I believe George W. Bush needs to be taught that the Constitution is a lot more than just "a piece of paper" -- that it's words are the embodiment and the central protection of our hard won liberties and freedoms -- and that no president can ever be allowed to ignore it at will
.

That's the way that it looks from here.
BOB BAUMAN, Editor

* COMMENT Links:
* U.S. Constitution, Art. II Sec. 2, Powers of the President.
LINK: law.cornell.edu
* Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'
LINK: capitolhillblue.com
* Bush defends eavesdropping, blasts senators on Patriot Act. LINK:
sfgate.com
* Sen. Feingold's remarks on ending debate on PATRIOT Act.
LINK: commondreams.org
* Bigger Brother, Los Angeles Times editorial. LINK:
latimes.com