Re: My Thoughts On Bush's Latest Actions
- Your very question is the heart of the matter. There are existing
measures in place for any President (even prior to 9/11) to seek out
info on a person prior to getting a federal judge to OK a warrant.
The government can use 72 hours to track and research a person. If a
warrant is then given, fine. If not then the info must be destroyed
and the wire-tapping etc. stopped.
Since no warrants were given for perhaps thousands of
Americans...well this is total BS!
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Greg Cannon
> I agree with you completely, Gregory. There's one
> thing about this that's particularly confusing to me
> about all this: why didn't they seek warrants? Is it
> just laziness, or are they spying on someone other
> than terrorist suspects and don't want a court to know
> about it? The Defense Tech site puts it better than I
> Wiretaps' Fishy Rationale
> It's no surprise that the President defended the NSA's
> domestic eavesdropping this morning; the guy backs
> every decision he makes, to the death. And it's no
> surprise to learn that the President had "reauthorized
> the program more than 30 times since the terrorist
> attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and plans to continue doing
> so," according to the AP.
> But what's odd is why the Administration felt they
> needed to avoid geting warrants for the wiretaps, in
> the first place. As Josh notes:
> [T]he prime rationale for this program appears to
> have been to avoid the time and bureaucratic hurdles
> involved in getting warrants.
> In the abstract, there sounds like there might be
> some merit in that argument, especially considering
> the importance of speed in counter-terrorism work.
> The problem is that the FISA Court -- the secret
> court set up to handle just such warrant requests --
> is designed for speed. And it is known for being
> extremely indulgent of government applications for
> It turns out that FISA specifically empowers the
> Attorney General or his designee to start wiretapping
> on an emergency basis even without a warrant so long
> as a retroactive application is made for one "as soon
> as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the
> Attorney General authorizes such surveillance." (see
> specific citation, here)...
> All of this, of course, is separate from the issue
> of the president overruling a federal statute by
> executive order -- something that by definition a
> president cannot do. But something seems fishy about
> the rationale itself.
> But that's not the only fishy thing here. In his radio
> address today, the President said:
> The existence of this secret program was revealed
> in media reports after being improperly provided to
> news organizations. As a result, our enemies have
> learned information they should not have, and the
> unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our
> national security and puts our citizens at risk.
> Which implies that, somehow, suspected jihadists might
> not have known before that the government could be
> eavesdropping on them. Realistically, what are the
> chances of that?
> UPDATE 2:05 PM EST: Also, if the Administration thinks
> it basically has the power to do whatever it damn
> pleases -- detain Americans indefinitely, torture
> terror suspects, eavesdrop without a warrant -- then
> why bother pushing for the Patriot Act? What do you
> need new laws for, if you're already allowed to use
> every trick in the book?
> UPDATE 12/18/05: Ryan says the same thing, but better.
> And be sure to check out this WaPo page one analysis:
> In his four-year campaign against al Qaeda,
> President Bush has turned the U.S. national security
> apparatus inward to secretly collect information on
> American citizens on a scale unmatched since the
> intelligence reforms of the 1970s.
> December 17, 2005 12:33 PM
> --- Gregory <greggolopry@c...> wrote:
> > It just keeps getting worse.
> > I already thought I knew of the very worst decisions
> > and polices from
> > the Bush White House, and nothing could happen that
> > would make me
> > surprised anymore. I was wrong.
> > I am shocked to learn that there is now an even more
> > perplexing and
> > blatantly unconstitutional attack on Americans being
> > waged by this
> > utterly corrupt Administration. By using the
> > National Security
> > Administration (NSA) to obtain information on
> > citizens, without
> > utilizing existing judicial procedures, should
> > outrage all who still
> > believe in a place called America.
> > Bush has never had any use for constitutional law
> > and clearly has
> > only contempt for civil liberties. It is imperative
> > that sober-minded
> > citizens stand up and rebuke in the clearest words
> > possible, so that
> > even Bush can understand, that we will not condone
> > this horrific
> > action.
> > No American needs to be told of the horrors of
> > terrorism. We lived
> > through the days of 9/11 and do not require the fear
> > tactics from
> > Karl Rove and company to explain their "rationale"
> > for these
> > unwarranted and illegal NSA activities. There is no
> > explanation.
> > There is no justification.
> > A President does not destroy our constitutional
> > safeguards and civil
> > liberties in the guise of trying to "protect
> > America". If our
> > country's democratic foundations are good enough to
> > export to Iraq
> > with the aid of our blood-soaked soldiers, they are
> > good enough for
> > Americans who live here, pay their taxes, still
> > believe in law and
> > order, and due process.
> > George Bush is doing more harm to our country, and
> > all that it stands
> > for, than any terrorist could ever achieve.
> Bush has never had any use for constitutional law and clearly hasBush is still the same fraternity President at Yale that he once was.
> only contempt for civil liberties. It is imperative that
He never grew up. To him, being the Commander in Chief is still a game
of playing dress-up and acting cool.
More than six thousand Katrina victim are still missing. But then, why
would he give a damn.
- After 5 years of one outrage after another, I'm too
inured to feel any kind of special outrage other than
the fact that the power structure, ie the
Washington/New York press corps, Democrats, moderate
Republicans. etc., was so afraid of this bunch that
they would not criticize, much less debunk lies, or
expose stolen elections, politically motivated
war-mongering and the most corrupt climate since
That's the real outrage.
--- Ram Lau <ramlau@...> wrote:
> > Bush has never had any use for constitutional lawhttp://us.click.yahoo.com/.6dcNC/.VHMAA/Zx0JAA/CvmplB/TM
> and clearly has
> > only contempt for civil liberties. It is
> imperative that
> Bush is still the same fraternity President at Yale
> that he once was.
> He never grew up. To him, being the Commander in
> Chief is still a game
> of playing dress-up and acting cool.
> More than six thousand Katrina victim are still
> missing. But then, why
> would he give a damn.
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> Know an art & music fan? Make a donation in their
> honor this holiday season!
> Yahoo! Groups Links