Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Anger over Bush's spying program


iaapac

Recommended Posts

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Without confirming a report that he OK'd eavesdropping on U.S. citizens in 2002, President Bush defended his actions since September 11, 2001, saying he has done everything "within the law" to protect the American people.

A story in The New York Times on Friday claimed that Bush secretly signed an order authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans who were communicating with individuals overseas to determine if they had terrorist ties.

"After 9/11, I told the American people I would do everything in my power to protect the country, within the law, and that's exactly how I conduct my presidency," Bush said in an interview with PBS' "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," which was scheduled to air Friday evening.

Sources with knowledge of the program have since told CNN that Bush did sign the secret order in 2002. The sources refused to be identified because the program is classified.

Pressed on the topic in the PBS interview, Bush said he understood people want him to confirm or deny the report, but he couldn't discuss specifics because "it would compromise our ability to protect the people," according to a transcript of the program.

The NSA eavesdrops on billions of communications worldwide. While the NSA is barred from domestic spying, it can get warrants issued with the permission of a special court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court.

The court is set up specifically to issue warrants allowing wiretapping on domestic soil.

In the New York Times report, the paper said the NSA has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants during the past three years as part of its war on terror.

Bill Keller, the Times' executive editor, said in a statement that the newspaper postponed publication of the article for a year at the White House's request as editors pondered the national security issues surrounding the release of the information.

But after considering the legal and civil liberties aspects, and determining that the story could be written without jeopardizing intelligence operations, the paper ran the story, Keller said, emphasizing that information about many NSA eavesdropping operations is public record.

"What is new is that the NSA has for the past three years had the authority to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without a warrant," Keller said. "It is that expansion of authority -- not the need for a robust anti-terror intelligence operation -- that prompted debate within the government, and that is the subject of the article."

CNN has not confirmed the exact wording of the president's order.

"I think the point that Americans really want to know is twofold. One, are we doing everything we can to protect the people? And two, are we protecting the civil liberties as we do so?" Bush said during the PBS interview. "And my answer to both is yes, we are."

Effect on Patriot Act vote

However, senators contemplating a vote Friday on whether to renew some controversial portions of the Patriot Act used The New York Times' report as evidence that the government could not be trusted with the broad powers laid out in the act. (Read about the Patriot Act vote)

In particular, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said he had been unsure the night before how he would vote.

"Today's revelation that the government listened in on thousands of phone conversations without getting a warrant is shocking and has greatly influenced my vote," he said. "Today's revelation makes it very clear that we have to be very careful -- very careful."

One of Schumer's GOP colleagues, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, seemed troubled by Friday's news and said that the revelation, if true, was "very problemsome, if not devastating" to getting the Patriot Act renewed.

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman added that his committee would immediately begin investigating the matter and that such behavior "can't be condoned."

Stansfield Turner, a retired Navy admiral who headed the Central Intelligence Agency from 1977 to 1981 under President Jimmy Carter, concurred with Schumer, saying, "Presidents have to conform to the law. All of the agencies of the government have to conform to the law."

Turner said he took the CIA helm following several investigations into intelligence abuses, so there was more emphasis on protecting civil liberties than there is today.

"Today, the emphasis is on protecting us from another 9/11, and so this administration is leaning pretty heavily on the side of getting all the information we can at any price," he said.

Turner conceded that gathering intelligence on the Soviet military -- the threat of his day -- was easier than gathering intelligence on "these amorphous terrorist groups," but, he said, breaking the rules should only be an option in extreme situations.

"I think they have transgressed the law here. I think they've gone too far in intruding into our civil liberties," Turner said.

Need to fight terror cited

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez would not discuss the NSA program. But Gonzalez did defend the need to collect information.

"Well, let me just say winning the war on terror requires winning the war of information. We are dealing with a very dangerous, very patient, very diabolical enemy who wants to harm America, and in order to be effective in dealing with this enemy, we need to have information," Gonzalez said.

"That is very, very important. And so we will be aggressive in obtaining that information, but we will always do so in a manner that is consistent with our legal obligations."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan also did not confirm or deny the program's existence, but he defended the president's right to order surveillance.

"The president is firmly committed to upholding our Constitution and upholding people's civil liberties. That is something he has always kept in mind as we have moved forward from the attacks of September 11, to do everything within our power to prevent attacks from happening," McClellan said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 19
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • __Kratos__

    6

  • iaapac

    6

  • Mekorig

    2

  • Elfstone810

    2

Top Posters In This Topic

would explain why a few friends who do work for the government has up and dissapeared from talking with me. =( Shame to.. I loved them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has just been blown up by the media as if every single dang American had a file at NSA.

I saw on the news the Pentagon admitted the mistake in the database, and it's now under review but can only go so far because of the operation (s?) still in place regarding it. Some people weren't suppose to be on there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has just been blown up by the media as if every single dang American had a file at NSA.

I saw on the news the Pentagon admitted the mistake in the database, and it's now under review but can only go so far because of the operation (s?) still in place regarding it. Some people weren't suppose to be on there.

By law, no one was supposed to be one it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, they are always watching, listening and waiting. lmao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By law, no one was supposed to be one it.

By law there is a database of suspect leads from info of other law enforcement agencies. :tu:

Some people were just put in, by accident or on purpose, that weren't suppose to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By law there is a database of suspect leads from info of other law enforcement agencies. :tu:

Some people were just put in, by accident or on purpose, that weren't suppose to be.

Just like various Hollywood protestors were put on the list "by accident?" Just like Robert Harless, a Bush critic from the Boston Globe who appeared on the list "by accident?" Just as Ted Kennedy appeared on the list "by accident?" Then these innocent people are told that the "accident" cannot be corrected! When these "accidents" become as accepted as you permit them to be, they will become the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ It's not going to become the norm. Too many people are upset over this. I am a little but not to the point of anger. It's anti-war protesters, and in many cases they do cause upsets.

Bush admits he authorised spying

President George W Bush has admitted he authorised secret monitoring of communications within the United States in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks.

The monitoring was of "people with known links to al-Qaeda and related terrorist organisations", he said.

He said the programme was reviewed every 45 days, and insisted he had upheld the law in defending Americans.

In his weekly address, he confirmed a report which appeared in the New York Times on Friday - and attacked it.

Because of the newspaper report, "our enemies have learned information they should not have", he said.

Senators of both Mr Bush's Republican party and the opposition Democrats expressed concerns about the programme on Friday.

'Big Brother'

Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee , said "there is no doubt that this is inappropriate", adding that Senate hearings would be held early next year as "a very, very high priority".

"This is Big Brother run amok," was the reaction of Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy.

Senator Russell Feingold, another Democrat, called it a "shocking revelation" that "ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American".

But in his address on Saturday, Mr Bush said the programme was "critical to saving American lives".

The president said some of the 11 September hijackers inside the United States had communicated with associates outside the country before the attacks - but that the US had not known that until it was too late.

"The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and our civil liberties," he said.

He said Congressional leaders had been briefed on the programme, which has been renewed more than 30 times.

'Illegal leak'

Mr Bush harshly criticised the leak that had made the programme public a day before his speech.

"Revealing classified information is illegal. It alerts our enemies," he said.

The New York Times reported on Friday that Mr Bush had signed a secret presidential order following the attacks on 11 September 2001, allowing the National Security Agency to track the international telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without referral to the courts.

Previously, surveillance on American soil was generally limited to foreign embassies.

American law usually requires a secret court, known as a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to give permission before intelligence officers can conduct surveillance on US soil.

Source

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whoever leaked that info should be shot in the head, revealing infomation like that is a threat to our nation. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They once said the same thing about Daniel Elsberg but his courage in revealing to the American public the lies, deceptions and sidetracking of oversight regulations helped the people to put an end to Vietnam.

The report can be superficially justified only if you believe White House press releases. I don't. It is not a question of monitoring the communications of "enemies" within the U.S. If they exist and they know where they are to tap their phones and read their e-mails, then why haven't they been arrested? No, this constant elevation of governmental powers that erodes the safety and rights and liberties of Americans is the most critical danger they have ever faced. What Bush has done and is doing is far more dangerous than what any terrorist has brought to American soil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why haven't they been arrested? Isn't that a great question... they are the small fish... listening to them can lead officals to suppliers, people higher in the chain with more infomation and at this moment do not pose a high enough threat to be taken down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why haven't they been arrested? Isn't that a great question... they are the small fish... listening to them can lead officals to suppliers, people higher in the chain with more infomation and at this moment do not pose a high enough threat to be taken down.

I see now . . . . gee, that's the same logic we used when we won the war against drugs, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julian Penrod

4 Fairfield Avenue

West Caldwell, New Jersey 07006

(973) 220-1601

julianpenrod@comcast.net

December 16, 2005

Letters to the Editor

Dear sirs:

It is often opined that a fundamental obstruction to opposing the corrupt and malignant is the fact that they keep their machinations secret, but you must also be able to recognize the signs of this deviousness, when you see them.

When it was revealed that the Oval Office had authorized the wiretapping of hundreds of Americans without court approval, in the wake of September 11, 2001, it was abominable in many people's eyes, but it seems to have stopped being surprising to them.

Indeed, for an administration that apparently lied about "evidence" to support invading Iraq; that seems to have looked the other way as the military and the CIA engaged in wholesale torture of detainees; that authorized the CIA to evidently violate other nations' sovereignty, using clandestine bases on their soil to commit international criminality; the paid for what seems patently misrepresentative, if not absolutely deceitful, news items to be put in Iraqi newspapers; that even seems to have floated the idea of bombing the al Jazeera network, apparently because they told the truth about American abominations in Iraq, this is evidently nothing less than eminently expected!

In fact, the administration is apparently fast becoming a parody of itself in its mindlessly predictable pattern of action! Just as reliable as yet another apparently reprehensible act of criminality in office coming into the open is the by now standard response to that revelation.

Among other things, the first thing the White House does is cry "September 11!" Just as the administration seems inherently and fundamentally incapable of doing anything honorable or even ethical or lawful, so, too, do they answer every complaint with the rejoinder, "Remember September 11!" Invoking September 11 seems the quisling habit of the White House, now, whenever another sign of corruption is revealed! "September 11!", followed by "September 11!", followed by "September 11!" That fact that the litany has become so tired and redundant now is only testimony to the evident wholesale flood of criminality in the Bush White House, that they need to invoke that date, every time, to "validate"! Indeed, one gets the feeling that there is nothing so foul and depraved that the Oval Office will not use to "September 11!" to "justify" engaging in it! Certainly, they have given more then enough reason to suspect that they are capable of all putrid level of malevolence, and they seem to feel they can get away with anything by just yelling "September 11!"

Certainly, September 11 was predictably trotted out as the "excuse" for the Oval Office sidestepping Constitutional guarantees! Shills for the president were predictably vociferous about the "need" for unilateral White House control over surveillance, to oppose "terrorists"! Reliably, the Constitution was depicted as a "hindrance" in the "war on 'terror'". It's bone chilling the degree to which Bush quislings opine against freedom as an inconvenience in the "noble work" the Homeland Security Department claims to be doing! "If we respected people's rights, we wouldn't be able to have as comprehensive a probe of illegal activity as we need", they claim. "If we didn't act clandestinely, the enemy would know what we're planning", they insist. "If we relied on court approval, we would lose valuable information, during the time it took to get approval", they demand.

Even here, though, again, they display a familiar regularity, namely, to obfuscate with irrelevant, if not completely fraudulent, assertions! Leave aside the fact that a reason Bush used to invade Iraq was Iraq's "acting in secret", something Bush has no problems about engaging in, himself! The pseudo-sophistry behind sidestepping the courts, saying "they take too long to give permission" is as patent an example of deceit as, evidently, anything else the Bush White House has said!

The courts "taking too long" to grant permission for wiretaps does not eliminate the possibility of the White House beginning a wiretap, then going back and requesting permission! Administration shills are full of the claim that the wiretapping of individuals is Constitutional under emergency provisions, so they should have no qualms about going ahead, then going back to the courts, for after-the-fact authorization! The only reason the Oval Office would have for not retracing their steps in this way, providing both wiretap evidence and authorization is if their actions were illegal to begin with! The last thing a criminal Oval Office would do is to parade before the courts the fact of what they were doing! The very fact that they did not seek court permission in this way is evident tacit admission that what they were doing was criminal, and they knew it! And "justifying" this as "Constitutional" appears equally as much an example of fraud!

Indeed, there seems no limit to the frankly abnormal constancy of circumstances in the White House. And, yes, it is abnormal! And it is as suspicious as it is abnormal! Every crook, for example, has a dozen "alibis" for every second of their time; the innocent person frequently will be in a position where they are not able to independently account for their time! The corrupt and criminal tend to become aberrantly predictable. They always seem to stick to the same methodology! Whatever works! They tend to prey on the same individuals, or the same areas. And they always seem to have the same "witnesses" as "alibis" for every crime that takes place! They need their scam to run like a well-oiled machine; the innocent tend to show more variability in even their day-to-day lives! Every incident fitting snugly and exactly over the features of every preceding incident, like a plaster mask, seems a very good indicator that something unethical, if not illegal, is at work!

And, in fact, the predictability of White House machinations extends even into largely overlooked aspects of the matter.

That their actions will be patent violations of the rights of the people seems a foregone conclusion. That they will have been carried out in a atmosphere of contemptuous secrecy seems a universal! That it will be "justified" by invoking September 11 has become a sick joke, by now. That those afflicted by the Administration's questionable policies never include those in positions of wealth or political power or both is also a telltale indication of inherent malignance! Only the "rank and file", only those without huge bank accounts, corporate position or political connections in the GOP, are the targets of the machinations by the White House that are carried out in secret and that, when revealed, inevitably come across as violating Constitutional guarantees! It seems to be taken for granted that being rich or connected automatically makes someone a perfect security risk! No one with money or political connections, the GOP's thinking seems to go, will ever do anything to facilitate attacks by "terrorists"!

Reliably, apologists for Bush would leap on this and exclaim, "Well, of course they won't support 'terrorists'! There isn't any profit in helping 'terrorists'!" But that only succeeds in acknowledging that the only thing corporate crooks and politicians care about is money; they are never motivated by "principle", even if it is the kind of "principle" that would be behind acts of violence! You may condemn violence, but, if something is motivated by principle, it is still motivated by principle; CEO's and politicians, however, seem to see only the dollar value behind every single action!

Just as the White House doesn't seem to see anything as being too foul for them to "justify", using "September 11!", so, too, do they seem to see no one without money as deserving of rights! The guarantees of the Constitution, George Bush and his GOP ilk seem to feel, are only for those who can afford to buy them!

There seems another constant that can be relied upon. That there are yet more examples of filth to come slithering out of the Republican woodwork. This administration just can’t seem to keep its hands clean! Lies to Congress, perhaps, to keep the “war on ‘terror’” from being hamstrung by the law or the Constitution! Back door contacts with other denounced renegade regimes, to keep the “war on ‘terror’” running! Deliberate denial of equipment to troops in Iraq, to strengthen public support behind the war effort, if only out of sympathy for them! CIA facilitated blackmail of political figures, to ensure the “war on ‘terror’” will continue! An Oval Office engineered “terror” attack on September 11, 2001, to permit Bush to assume near dictatorial powers, to institute a program to “protect” the nation from “terrorists”!

With an administration so vile that the worst you can imagine seems to be true, ignoring the next boot to drop appears to be eminently unwise!

When government demonstrates that it exists solely for petty personal profit, the people must act to protect their own rights.

They must flood news editors’ and politicians’ desks with emails and letters, telling them that they know what’s going on!

They must boycott all elections, at all levels of government! There never was any proof, it seems, that the “election results” used to crown each new administration were legitimate and true! There seems never to have been any demonstrations that “election results” were genuine, and that the next person in line in power was actually the choice of the populace! A “secret ballot” makes it extraordinarily easy to defraud the public into thinking that who the big wigs want installed was the one the public voted for! But, when draconian decisions, such as Bush seems to want to be famous for, are made by an administration purportedly backed by only 1% of the voting public, severe legal repercussions might hobble some parts of their machinations!

They should also rob the monster in Washington of its teeth by counseling their children not to become the armed thugs government relies on to promote the apparent swindles it uses for personal profit, namely, the Armed Forces, the National Guard and the police.

In fact, though, a situation as desperate as that evidently unprincipled connivers seem to be using the public as playthings, to satisfy their greed, suggests a desperate solution! The people must push for the outlawing of the Republican Party! The RNC would be disbanded, and it would be forbidden to use corporate scam techniques to fashion foreign or domestic policy, or to make the guaranteed profiteering of big business the single goal of policy! It would not be an imprisonable offense to declare yourself a Republican, but they would never be allowed a place on a ballot, and anyone shown to be acting in conformance with by now recognizable Republican motivations would be immediately removed from office and a special replacement election held! The Republicans have no track record of benefiting the “rank and file”! They have never shown themselves to be anything but ruthless schemers and users! They have demonstrated that only the facilitating of corporate swindles interests them! A system of government interested in protecting the rights of the people would never allow the evident calculated misrepresentation, outright lies, and contempt for the rank and file that seem the sole stock in trade of the Republicans!

The people should be aware, however. This president has shown that he seems to have no respect for the “rank and file”. As the evident architect of the bombings on September 11, he appears to have no compunction about using unlimited violence to gain his evidently utterly self-serving ends! Should he see himself faced with the kind of reversal of public support that his actions seem to call for, it doesn’t seem beyond him to stage yet another massive “terrorist” attack, perhaps even worse than the one he appears ton have staged on September 11, 2001, to avoid losing control! The “rank and file” must acknowledge to themselves that he seems a genuine danger to the safety of the country, and at least be ready to greet the next onslaught he seems willing to unleash on the country with the same lack of surprise that now greets each new revelation of evident criminality in the Bush White House!

Most importantly, though, the public must involve themselves, deeply and determinedly, in government around them, so that they will always be able to denounce corruption and unethicality in high places, when next it makes itself apparent!

Julian Penrod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The problem is "we are only using these programs to protect people from terrorists" makes good rhetoric, but to allow the government to spy on the American people with no safeguards gives them the opportunity to use those same programs to spy on political opponents, and to undermine, harrass, possibly even imprison anyone who disagrees with the current administration.

I do not consider myself a paranoid individual and I do not usually subscribe to conspiracy theories and the like, but I am not naive enough to simply take the governments word that it will not misuse such programs, particularly given the lies that have already been revealed regarding the build up to war in Iraq and "Scootergate". I would not trust a Democratic administration with these programs and I don't trust the Bush administration. Checks and balances exist for a reason and cannot be compromised without undermining the foundation of our country.

(I do have to give the Bush administration credit, though, for coming up with the most amusingly-named scandal in recent history! Scootergate! :rofl:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see now . . . . gee, that's the same logic we used when we won the war against drugs, right?

It's worked in lots of other operations. Bad guys just don't wake up in the morning and turn themselves in. Yes, it's worked in the war on drugs so far. No one said that would be easy either. You have any better ideas? Please share with us and the officals. :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

possibly even imprison anyone who disagrees with the current administration.

Under what charge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's worked in lots of other operations. Bad guys just don't wake up in the morning and turn themselves in. Yes, it's worked in the war on drugs so far. No one said that would be easy either. You have any better ideas? Please share with us and the officals. :tu:

The war on drugs was lost years ago and was addressed with the Republican naive attack of "Just say no." I'm waiting for them to end the homeless problem, "Just get a house." The Democrats did no better. The point is that there have been no advances in that war and law enforcement does not "sit on the little guy" while waiting to catch the ring leaders. Street dealers are arrested every day and drug dens raided. The same philosophy has not been used in the war on drugs but even so, it has not worked.

The solutions to the problem that this thread is about have existed since the founding of America. You protect your rights and freedoms. They are guaranteed to you by your Constitution, so don't let some character tell you that everything he did was legal when even Republican leaders are telling you that it is not. It is good to encourage and support the young men and women fighting in Iraq even though I cannot agree with their being there. But as they create and protect freedoms and rights for the Iraquis, their rights and liberties are being eroded and stolen at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under what charge?

Charge? From the government that has repeatedly argued that "suspected terrorists" it holds in places such as Guantanamo Bay have no rights to formal charges or to counsel? Of course, those are foreign nationals. American citizens still have to have due process don't they?

But then, of course, you have to have a search warrant to spy on them too . . . :hmm:

I have no objection to spying on Americans if their actions are suspicious, but only if it's done within the law. To allow the politicians to bypass our laws entirely at their own discretion is not a viable answer to anything. If time is an issue, then what we need is a more expeditious process for warrant application reviews. Laws exist for a reason. I believe in them as a necessary part of our civilization and I follow them myself, even when I don't agree with the specific law. But for them to BE laws, for them to have any purpose whatsoever, they have to apply to everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.