Bush and illegal wiretaps

Dec 27 23:55 UTC 2005

from UPI wire report:

This is a continuation of the item in fall agora on Bush and his 
authorization of illegal and/or unethical spying.  Here's the latest 
scoop in this scandal:

"WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush decided to 
skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was 
challenging him at an unprecedented rate. 

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by Hearst newspapers 
shows the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified 
more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four 
previous presidential administrations combined. 

The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps modified only two 
search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications approved over the 
first 22 years of the court's operation. 

But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for 
surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 
173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 
2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six 
requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright 
rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history. "


So the Court exercises its legal authority to block questionable 
surveillance requets, and Bush simply decides to go ahead and authorize 
them anyway.  This is a shocking abuse of power.

response 2 of 404:

Dec 28 01:10 UTC 2005

I agree this is a shocking abuse of power, and I agree he ought to be
impeached under the circumstances.  The abuse is at the level of "high
crimes and misdemeanors".

However, he's not going to be impeached by his own party.  It's
unfortunate but it's also true.

response 4 of 404:

Dec 28 01:52 UTC 2005

First of all, despite your rantings and the claims of the left-wing
media, according to the constitution and the federal courts there is
nothing illegal or unethical about the wiretapping.  

Suppose, for instance, that the country had been invaded.  Would you be
so foolish as to claim that the President (the commander-in-chief who
has sworn to protect and defent the country) did not have the authority
to monitor and intercept communications (whether by courier, by wire, or
by satellite) that took place between one camp of invaders (and its
sympathizers) and another??

Well, guess what?  The country has been invaded and the President - any
President - is duty-bound to use his powers to counter plots to attack
the citizens and the government.


But, be my guest and go ahead with your silly talk about impeachment. 
Not only is it mildly amusing; it's that kind of irrationality that
will, once again, lead the Democrats down the road to electoral defeat
because the American people simply aren't that stupid to believe their
mishugas.

response 6 of 404:

Dec 28 02:16 UTC 2005

klg, bush committed a federal CRIME when he ordered those wiretaps.  
Does that even matter to you?

George W. Bush committed a federal crime by violating the 1978 Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act. The act outlines procedures for 
requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and 
physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international 
terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power. 

The act authorizes a secret court to issue warrants to eavesdrop on 
potential suspects, or anyone even remotely connected to them, inside 
the United States. The bar to obtain a FISA warrant is low; more than 
15,000 have been granted, with only four requests denied since 1979 as 
best as I can find. In emergency situations, the government can even 
apply for FISA warrants retroactively within 72 hours. 

Bush has conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed 
that order at least 30 times. This should satisfy the standard of high 
crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment. 
Nevertheless, Bush chose not to comply with FISA's minimal 
requirements: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa

response 8 of 404:

Dec 28 02:52 UTC 2005

re #7 nharmon what part of this didn't you understand:

"George W. Bush committed a federal crime by violating the 1978 Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act. The act outlines procedures for 
requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and 
physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international 
terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power."

He explicitly violated that act, and if you violate a federal act you 
have committed a crime.  Bush cannot decide himself that he is not 
bound by that act, the president doesn't define his own duties and 
doesn't define what laws he must abide by and what laws he doesn't have 
to abide by.  

response 10 of 404:

Dec 28 03:50 UTC 2005

Ummm, Bush authorized wiretaps that under FISA all he had to do was apply 
for a warrant retroactively. He didn't do that. He violated FISA. What 
about that is hard for you to undertand?

response 12 of 404:

Dec 28 04:19 UTC 2005

Were these wiretaps that he didn't have to apply for warrants on? Thats
what I'm asking. What about the fact that the president doesn't always
need a warrant don't YOU understand?

response 14 of 404:

Dec 28 11:33 UTC 2005

Leave it to a dittohead to equate "War President" fearmongering with Martial
Law (i.e. law of constitutional rights for citizens) to justify Executive
abuses.

response 16 of 404:

Dec 28 11:56 UTC 2005

re #15
FISA is intended for foreign intelligence gathering by the NSA.  It is NOT
intended as a free-for-all to tap THOUSANDS of American citizens.  The NSA
is barred from domestic spying and FISA is the one lever available in times
of emergency.  GW utilized FISA over 30 times.  That's unacceptable.  While
you stomp your foot and say its "legal" well so is Martial Law when it comes
down to it.  Let's talk about morality and integrity first, though.

response 18 of 404:

Dec 28 12:55 UTC 2005

Enjoy it!  Not everyone gets the luxury of a captive audience.

response 20 of 404:

Dec 28 15:16 UTC 2005

klg said:

"No.  Federal courtS, including the FISA court, have ruled that the 
President has authority to order warrantless wiretaps in the 
performance of his constitutionally-mandated duties.  (That is despite 
Richard's Rantings.)"

That is not true.  klg is lying.  The FISA court would never rule that 
the President could bypass its authority.  That would be tantamount to 
the FISA court saying it has no reason to exist.  That would be like 
Congress giving the authority to make laws without them being 
involved.   

response 22 of 404:

Dec 28 15:43 UTC 2005

ACLU calls for action.  This could get uglier than Watergate before its 
all over.  Bush can't just decide which laws apply to him and which 
don't:

WASHINGTON - In a formal request to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 
the American Civil Liberties Union today called for the immediate 
appointment of an outside special counsel to investigate and prosecute 
any criminal acts and violations of laws as a result of the National 
Security Agency s surveillance of domestic targets as authorized by 
President Bush. 

"President Bush s disregard and disrespect for the Constitution are 
evident, but in America, we are all bound by the rule of law," said 
Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "The president took an oath 
to  preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United 
States.  He cannot use a claim of seeking to preserve our nation to 
undermine the rules that serve as our foundation. The Attorney General, 
who may have been involved with the formulation of this policy, must 
appoint an outside special counsel to let justice be served."

In its letter, the ACLU called on the Attorney General to "appoint an 
outside special counsel with the independence to investigate and 
prosecute any and all criminal acts committed by any member of the 
Executive Branch in the warrantless electronic surveillance of people 
in the United States over the past four years by the NSA," noting 
that, "such crimes are serious felonies and they need to be fully and 
independently investigated."

An outside special counsel is the only way to ensure that all those who 
authorized the warrantless electronic surveillance, or engaged in this 
electronic interception or monitoring, are held accountable for 
committing serious violations of the law. The Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act of 1978 states that electronic surveillance is only 
permissible following "a search warrant or court order." The statements 
of the president and other officials make it clear that domestic 
surveillance, without court approval or review, has occurred and will 
continue to occur.

The ACLU also rejected the White House position that the "Authorization 
for Use of Military Force" resolutions passed by Congress granted the 
president the broad authority to circumvent the Fourth Amendment. As 
then-White House Counsel, Attorney General Gonzales may have, along 
with other legal advisors to the president, offered interpretations of 
the law to encourage the president to authorize the NSA to engage in 
domestic surveillance. His possible involvement only further 
underscores the need for an independent investigation.

Additionally, the ACLU noted warrantless domestic surveillance was 
unnecessary, as well as illegal. FISA already contains a provision to 
permit the government to retroactively apply for a wiretap order in 
cases of emergencies. The government had legal means at its disposal to 
engage in the very surveillance it conducted through the NSA, 
procedures that had some judicial oversight and review.

There have already been some calls from Congress that the legality of 
the president s actions must be examined. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), 
chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has committed to conduct 
oversight hearings on the NSA's actions. However, no other 
Congressional committees, particularly the Intelligence committees, 
have committed to conducting inquiries or oversight hearings into the 
matter.

The ACLU s call for an independent special counsel follows its 
expedited records request on Tuesday, under the Freedom of Information 
Act, to the NSA, the Department of Justice and the Central Intelligence 
Agency for information about the NSA's program of warrantless spying on 
Americans.

"The president cannot use the pursuit of national security as a carte 
blanche to undermine the very freedoms that define America," said 
Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative 
Office. "This administration - like that of President Nixon - has 
apparently secretly adopted a legal view of the Executive Branch s 
power that is unbounded. A commitment to the Constitution and our laws 
demand an independent investigation."