People seem to forget that the Constitution is what spells out what we can and can't expect from the government we elect to represent us and defines our way of life. Only by and Act of Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures can the Constitution be changed. Mr. Bush is clearly operating outside of the law and should be stopped.
Never forget the words of one of our most noted founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin: 'When the people sacrifice Liberty for Security, they will neither have, nor deserve either.'
Saturday, December 31, 2005
When the people sacrifice Liberty for Security, they will neither have, nor deserve either.'
Palladium-Item - www.pal-item.com - Richmond, Ind.: "Bush is clearly operating outside the Constitution | Marcus Davis, Richmond
When the people sacrifice Liberty for Security, they will neither have, nor deserve either.'
Palladium-Item - www.pal-item.com - Richmond, Ind.: "Bush is clearly operating outside the Constitution | Marcus Davis, Richmond
Never forget the words of one of our most noted founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin: 'When the people sacrifice Liberty for Security, they will neither have, nor deserve either.'
People seem to forget that the Constitution is what spells out what we can and can't expect from the government we elect to represent us and defines our way of life. Only by and Act of Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures can the Constitution be changed. Mr. Bush is clearly operating outside of the law and should be stopped.
Never forget the words of one of our most noted founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin: 'When the people sacrifice Liberty for Security, they will neither have, nor deserve either.'
When the people sacrifice Liberty for Security, they will neither have, nor deserve either.'
Palladium-Item - www.pal-item.com - Richmond, Ind.: "Bush is clearly operating outside the Constitution | Marcus Davis, Richmond | December 30, 2005
Never forget the words of one of our most noted founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin: 'When the people sacrifice Liberty for Security, they will neither have, nor deserve either.'
People seem to forget that the Constitution is what spells out what we can and can't expect from the government we elect to represent us and defines our way of life. Only by and Act of Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures can the Constitution be changed. Mr. Bush is clearly operating outside of the law and should be stopped.
Never forget the words of one of our most noted founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin: 'When the people sacrifice Liberty for Security, they will neither have, nor deserve either.'
Friday, December 30, 2005
FindLaw's Writ - Dean: George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon
FindLaw's Writ - Dean: George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: "George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably; | Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect | National Security | By JOHN W. DEAN | Friday, Dec. 30, 2005
On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)."
...
On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)."
...
Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.
There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.
...
Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope. First reports indicated that NSA was only monitoring foreign calls, originating either in the USA or abroad, and that no more than 500 calls were being covered at any given time. But later reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows. In sum, this is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance. Given the national security implications of the story, the Times said they had been sitting on it for a year. And now that it has broken, Bush has ordered a criminal investigation into the source of the leak. He suggests that those who might have felt confidence they would not be spied on, now can have no such confidence, so they may find other methods of communicating. Other than encryption and code, it is difficult to envision how. ...
Thursday, December 29, 2005
domesticsurveillance.pdf (application/pdf Object)
domesticsurveillance.pdf (application/pdf Object)
Q1. Rivkin: Why can't the President's use of warrantless surveillance in this instance be justified under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), especially since FISA requires a "reasonable expectation of privacy" to exist before a FISA warrant is required?
Levy: The text of FISA §1809 is unambiguous: “A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance … except as authorized by statute.” That provision covers communications from or to U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens in the United States. Moreover, Title III (the Wiretap Act) further provides that “procedures in this chapter and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance … may be conducted.”
To be sure, FISA’s prohibition on unauthorized electronic surveillance applies “under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.” §1801(f). Surely, U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their international phone calls and emails. Accordingly, warrants would be required for law enforcement purposes and, therefore, warrantless surveillance absent an authorizing statute would violate the FISA requirement.
I know of no court case that has denied there is a reasonable expectation privacy by U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens in the types communications that are reportedly monitored by the NSA’s electronic surveillance program. Perhaps there are some international satellite communications that do not come under FISA’s prohibition because correspondents could not reasonably expect privacy. But the president made no such showing to Congress, the courts, or the public. ...
...
Q5. Levy: President Bush, much like President Truman when he attempted to seize the steel mills, is asserting a power to act in a manner explicitly forbidden by Congress. Under those circumstances, said Justice Jackson in his Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer concurrence, presidential “power is at its lowest.” To uphold the president’s NSA program would thus require finding that either (a) Congress has no authority at all to regulate domestic wiretaps of Americans, or (b) Article II’s Commander-in-Chief Clause makes Congress’s enactment in this area inoperative. Do you support either or both of those notions? ...
Q1. Rivkin: Why can't the President's use of warrantless surveillance in this instance be justified under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), especially since FISA requires a "reasonable expectation of privacy" to exist before a FISA warrant is required?
Levy: The text of FISA §1809 is unambiguous: “A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance … except as authorized by statute.” That provision covers communications from or to U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens in the United States. Moreover, Title III (the Wiretap Act) further provides that “procedures in this chapter and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance … may be conducted.”
To be sure, FISA’s prohibition on unauthorized electronic surveillance applies “under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.” §1801(f). Surely, U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their international phone calls and emails. Accordingly, warrants would be required for law enforcement purposes and, therefore, warrantless surveillance absent an authorizing statute would violate the FISA requirement.
I know of no court case that has denied there is a reasonable expectation privacy by U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens in the types communications that are reportedly monitored by the NSA’s electronic surveillance program. Perhaps there are some international satellite communications that do not come under FISA’s prohibition because correspondents could not reasonably expect privacy. But the president made no such showing to Congress, the courts, or the public. ...
...
Q5. Levy: President Bush, much like President Truman when he attempted to seize the steel mills, is asserting a power to act in a manner explicitly forbidden by Congress. Under those circumstances, said Justice Jackson in his Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer concurrence, presidential “power is at its lowest.” To uphold the president’s NSA program would thus require finding that either (a) Congress has no authority at all to regulate domestic wiretaps of Americans, or (b) Article II’s Commander-in-Chief Clause makes Congress’s enactment in this area inoperative. Do you support either or both of those notions? ...
Rice authorized National Security Agency to spy on UN Security Council in run-up to war, former officials say
The Raw Story | Rice authorized National Security Agency to spy on UN Security Council in run-up to war, former officials say: "Jason Leopold
President Bush and other top officials in his administration used the National Security Agency to secretly wiretap the home and office telephones and monitor private email accounts of members of the United Nations Security Council in early 2003 to determine how foreign delegates would vote on a U.N. resolution that paved the way for the U.S.-led war in Iraq, NSA documents show.
Two former NSA officials familiar with the agency's campaign to spy on U.N. members say then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice authorized the plan at the request of President Bush, who wanted to know how delegates were going to vote. Rice did not immediately return a call for comment.
The former officials said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also participated in discussions about the plan, which involved "stepping up" efforts to eavesdrop on diplomats. ...
President Bush and other top officials in his administration used the National Security Agency to secretly wiretap the home and office telephones and monitor private email accounts of members of the United Nations Security Council in early 2003 to determine how foreign delegates would vote on a U.N. resolution that paved the way for the U.S.-led war in Iraq, NSA documents show.
Two former NSA officials familiar with the agency's campaign to spy on U.N. members say then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice authorized the plan at the request of President Bush, who wanted to know how delegates were going to vote. Rice did not immediately return a call for comment.
The former officials said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also participated in discussions about the plan, which involved "stepping up" efforts to eavesdrop on diplomats. ...
National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on visitors' computers ... despite strict federal rules banning most of them.
Excite News: "NSA Web Site Places 'Cookies' on Computers | Dec 29, 7:24 AM (ET) | By ANICK JESDANUN
NEW YORK (AP) - The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict federal rules banning most of them.
These files, known as 'cookies,' disappeared after a privacy activist complained and The Associated Press made inquiries this week, and agency officials acknowledged Wednesday they had made a mistake. Nonetheless, the issue raises questions about privacy at a spy agency already on the defensive amid reports of a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States.
'Considering the surveillance power the NSA has, cookies are not exactly a major concern,' said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a privacy advocacy group in Washington, D.C. 'But it does show a general lack of understanding about privacy rules when they are not even following the government's very basic rules for Web privacy.'
Until Tuesday, the NSA site created two cookie files that do not expire until 2035 - likely beyond the life of any computer in use today. ...
NEW YORK (AP) - The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict federal rules banning most of them.
These files, known as 'cookies,' disappeared after a privacy activist complained and The Associated Press made inquiries this week, and agency officials acknowledged Wednesday they had made a mistake. Nonetheless, the issue raises questions about privacy at a spy agency already on the defensive amid reports of a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States.
'Considering the surveillance power the NSA has, cookies are not exactly a major concern,' said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a privacy advocacy group in Washington, D.C. 'But it does show a general lack of understanding about privacy rules when they are not even following the government's very basic rules for Web privacy.'
Until Tuesday, the NSA site created two cookie files that do not expire until 2035 - likely beyond the life of any computer in use today. ...
Bush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them
Bush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them: "Bush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them
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. ...
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. ...
Monday, December 26, 2005
Bush Administration Refuses to Comply With FOIA Request on Pre-War Intelligence
Bush Administration Refuses to Comply With FOIA Request on Pre-War Intelligence | AfterDowningStreet.org: "Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2005-12-26 01:51. Censure | By David Swanson
House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff members report that the White House and the Departments of State and Defense have for six months refused to comply with a request filed under the Freedom of Information Act by 52 Congress Members – a request seeking information on the Bush Administration's reasons for going to war.
On June 30th of this year, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers Jr. (Dem., Mich.) and 51 other Congress Members submitted a FOIA request to the White House, the Department of Defense, and the Department of State seeking documents and materials concerning the Downing Street Minutes and the lead up to the Iraq war.
On August 11th, Conyers wrote to the Office of Counsel to the President as follows:
'On June 30, 2005, I and 51 other Members of Congress requested access to 'all agency records, including but not limited to handwritten notes, formal correspondence, electronic mail messages, intelligence reports and other memoranda,' as described in five enumerated paragraphs. A copy of the request letter is enclosed.
'The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires your office to respond to a FOIA request within twenty business days from the date of receipt of such a request. See 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(A)(i). The deadline has now elapsed without any response from your office. Because the leaked memoranda from Great Britain raise serious questions over when important war-related decisions were made, time is of the essence.
'I and the other Members of Congress do not wish to resort to litigation because, at this point, a cooperative approach is better suited to resolving the situation. I am available to assist your office in any way possible to facilitate the prompt release of the requested documents. If you need clarification of the request or have any questions, please contact Stacey Dansky of the House Judiciary staff at 202-225-6906.'" ...
House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff members report that the White House and the Departments of State and Defense have for six months refused to comply with a request filed under the Freedom of Information Act by 52 Congress Members – a request seeking information on the Bush Administration's reasons for going to war.
On June 30th of this year, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers Jr. (Dem., Mich.) and 51 other Congress Members submitted a FOIA request to the White House, the Department of Defense, and the Department of State seeking documents and materials concerning the Downing Street Minutes and the lead up to the Iraq war.
On August 11th, Conyers wrote to the Office of Counsel to the President as follows:
'On June 30, 2005, I and 51 other Members of Congress requested access to 'all agency records, including but not limited to handwritten notes, formal correspondence, electronic mail messages, intelligence reports and other memoranda,' as described in five enumerated paragraphs. A copy of the request letter is enclosed.
'The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires your office to respond to a FOIA request within twenty business days from the date of receipt of such a request. See 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(A)(i). The deadline has now elapsed without any response from your office. Because the leaked memoranda from Great Britain raise serious questions over when important war-related decisions were made, time is of the essence.
'I and the other Members of Congress do not wish to resort to litigation because, at this point, a cooperative approach is better suited to resolving the situation. I am available to assist your office in any way possible to facilitate the prompt release of the requested documents. If you need clarification of the request or have any questions, please contact Stacey Dansky of the House Judiciary staff at 202-225-6906.'" ...
Sunday, December 25, 2005
What Legal Exposure Does A Company Face From Data Mining? ... giving their customer information to the federal government place them in legal jeopardy
The Left Coaster: What Legal Exposure Does A Company Face From Data Mining?: "Saturday :: Dec 24, 2005
When I read the NYT story late last night that revealed the NSA has been gathering data on each of us from our emails and telephone calls for the last four years, I wasn’t surprised. The recent revelations of NSA warrant less wiretapping and other eavesdropping, absent probable cause or any due process, removed any doubt for me that the Bush Administration has established a police state of sorts without having to justify it or face any consequences from the American public. We can deal with the Bush Administration politically on this in 2006 and make them sweat about whether what they have done supposedly in the name of national security in a now terror threat alert-free world since November 2004 is really about fighting terrorism, or is really about something sinister.
But what about the companies themselves? Quite simply, in the pages and pages of privacy practices that your phone, email, and cell phone company have sent you over the last several years, all in an effort to convince you that your data will not be given out to anyone, does it mention anywhere that the company reserves the right to share data files on you with the federal government without a court order, a legal requirement to do so, due process, or probable cause? Mine don't.
The NYT piece states that the companies that provide us our everyday telephone, cell phone, and email services have been gathering information on us and giving it to the government in large files that don’t distinguish between everyday people and those who are potential threats to the country. It is the ultimate guilt-by-association scenario. ...
...
There is a political avenue to follow for dealing with the Bush Administration here. Aside from the Bush Administration however, what about the corporations themselves? Doesn’t the revelation that these corporations have been giving their customer information to the federal government place them in legal jeopardy, in the absence of a federal law that requires them to gather these files and turn them over to the feds? Remember, they have been accumulating this data and giving it to the feds; the NYT story makes no mention of court orders or laws requiring them to do this. So they have been voluntarily doing this as a way of saying "we’re a good corporate citizen, and oh by the way, thanks for approving our recent merger/takeover; here’s our latest campaign contribution." ...
When I read the NYT story late last night that revealed the NSA has been gathering data on each of us from our emails and telephone calls for the last four years, I wasn’t surprised. The recent revelations of NSA warrant less wiretapping and other eavesdropping, absent probable cause or any due process, removed any doubt for me that the Bush Administration has established a police state of sorts without having to justify it or face any consequences from the American public. We can deal with the Bush Administration politically on this in 2006 and make them sweat about whether what they have done supposedly in the name of national security in a now terror threat alert-free world since November 2004 is really about fighting terrorism, or is really about something sinister.
But what about the companies themselves? Quite simply, in the pages and pages of privacy practices that your phone, email, and cell phone company have sent you over the last several years, all in an effort to convince you that your data will not be given out to anyone, does it mention anywhere that the company reserves the right to share data files on you with the federal government without a court order, a legal requirement to do so, due process, or probable cause? Mine don't.
The NYT piece states that the companies that provide us our everyday telephone, cell phone, and email services have been gathering information on us and giving it to the government in large files that don’t distinguish between everyday people and those who are potential threats to the country. It is the ultimate guilt-by-association scenario. ...
...
There is a political avenue to follow for dealing with the Bush Administration here. Aside from the Bush Administration however, what about the corporations themselves? Doesn’t the revelation that these corporations have been giving their customer information to the federal government place them in legal jeopardy, in the absence of a federal law that requires them to gather these files and turn them over to the feds? Remember, they have been accumulating this data and giving it to the feds; the NYT story makes no mention of court orders or laws requiring them to do this. So they have been voluntarily doing this as a way of saying "we’re a good corporate citizen, and oh by the way, thanks for approving our recent merger/takeover; here’s our latest campaign contribution." ...
22 CIA agents wanted in Europe ... wanted for the alleged kidnapping of an Egyptian cleric [in Italy]
22 CIA agents wanted in Europe: "December 24, 2005 | BY AIDAN LEWIS
ROME -- An Italian judge has issued European arrest warrants for 22 purported CIA operatives wanted for the alleged kidnapping of an Egyptian cleric, a prosecutor said Friday.
...
The alleged abduction was purportedly part of the CIA's ''extraordinary rendition'' program, in which terrorism suspects are transferred to third countries without court approval.
Prosecutors say the abduction was a serious violation of Italian sovereignty that has hindered Italian terrorism investigations.
The Italian government has vigorously denied any prior knowledge of the alleged abduction, and U.S. authorities have consistently declined to comment.
ROME -- An Italian judge has issued European arrest warrants for 22 purported CIA operatives wanted for the alleged kidnapping of an Egyptian cleric, a prosecutor said Friday.
...
The alleged abduction was purportedly part of the CIA's ''extraordinary rendition'' program, in which terrorism suspects are transferred to third countries without court approval.
Prosecutors say the abduction was a serious violation of Italian sovereignty that has hindered Italian terrorism investigations.
The Italian government has vigorously denied any prior knowledge of the alleged abduction, and U.S. authorities have consistently declined to comment.
Nuclear Monitoring of Muslims Done Without Search Warrants ... monitoring 120 sites per day
USNews.com: Nation and World: EXCLUSIVE: Nuclear Monitoring of Muslims Done Without Search Warrants (12/22/05): "Posted 12/22/05 | By David E. Kaplan
In search of a terrorist nuclear bomb, the federal government since 9/11 has run a far-reaching, top secret program to monitor radiation levels at over a hundred Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C., area, including mosques, homes, businesses, and warehouses, plus similar sites in at least five other cities, U.S. News has learned. In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance, although no search warrants or court orders were ever obtained, according to those with knowledge of the program. Some participants were threatened with loss of their jobs when they questioned the legality of the operation, according to these accounts.
Federal officials familiar with the program maintain that warrants are unneeded for the kind of radiation sampling the operation entails, but some legal scholars disagree. News of the program comes in the wake of revelations last week that, after 9/11, the Bush White House approved electronic surveillance of U.S. targets by the National Security Agency without court orders. These and other developments suggest that the federal government's domestic spying programs since 9/11 have been far broader than previously thought.
The nuclear surveillance program began in early 2002 and has been run by the FBI and the Department of Energy's Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST). Two individuals, who declined to be named because the program is highly classified, spoke to U.S. News because of their concerns about the legality of the program. At its peak, they say, the effort involved three vehicles in Washington, D.C., monitoring 120 sites per day, nearly all of them Muslim targets drawn up by the FBI. For some ten months, officials conducted daily monitoring, and they have resumed daily checks during periods of high threat. The program has also operated in at least five other cities when threat levels there have risen: Chicago, Detroit, Las Vegas, New York, and Seattle. ...
In search of a terrorist nuclear bomb, the federal government since 9/11 has run a far-reaching, top secret program to monitor radiation levels at over a hundred Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C., area, including mosques, homes, businesses, and warehouses, plus similar sites in at least five other cities, U.S. News has learned. In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance, although no search warrants or court orders were ever obtained, according to those with knowledge of the program. Some participants were threatened with loss of their jobs when they questioned the legality of the operation, according to these accounts.
Federal officials familiar with the program maintain that warrants are unneeded for the kind of radiation sampling the operation entails, but some legal scholars disagree. News of the program comes in the wake of revelations last week that, after 9/11, the Bush White House approved electronic surveillance of U.S. targets by the National Security Agency without court orders. These and other developments suggest that the federal government's domestic spying programs since 9/11 have been far broader than previously thought.
The nuclear surveillance program began in early 2002 and has been run by the FBI and the Department of Energy's Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST). Two individuals, who declined to be named because the program is highly classified, spoke to U.S. News because of their concerns about the legality of the program. At its peak, they say, the effort involved three vehicles in Washington, D.C., monitoring 120 sites per day, nearly all of them Muslim targets drawn up by the FBI. For some ten months, officials conducted daily monitoring, and they have resumed daily checks during periods of high threat. The program has also operated in at least five other cities when threat levels there have risen: Chicago, Detroit, Las Vegas, New York, and Seattle. ...
Some fear eavesdropping could undermine work of spy agency ... spent three decades recovering from domestic spying scandals in the 1970s
Some fear eavesdropping could undermine work of spy agency: "Posted on Fri, Dec. 23, 2005 | BY WARREN P. STROBEL AND JONATHAN S. LANDAY | Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The White House decision to order surveillance of international phone calls by U.S. citizens without a warrant violated longstanding practices and could undermine a key U.S. intelligence agency that's critical in the struggle against terrorists, former senior intelligence officials and other experts said this week.
The super-secret National Security Agency, which eavesdropped on the Soviet Union's leaders and scored other intelligence coups during the Cold War, has spent three decades recovering from domestic spying scandals in the 1970s.
Now, with its electronic ears and vast computer banks turned primarily to intercepting suspecting terrorists, the officials said they fear that the NSA once again will bear the brunt of congressional scrutiny and public outrage, complicating its mission.
'The damage it's done to NSA's reputation is almost irreversible in my view,' said a longtime top intelligence official with intimate knowledge of the agency's workings." ...
WASHINGTON - The White House decision to order surveillance of international phone calls by U.S. citizens without a warrant violated longstanding practices and could undermine a key U.S. intelligence agency that's critical in the struggle against terrorists, former senior intelligence officials and other experts said this week.
The super-secret National Security Agency, which eavesdropped on the Soviet Union's leaders and scored other intelligence coups during the Cold War, has spent three decades recovering from domestic spying scandals in the 1970s.
Now, with its electronic ears and vast computer banks turned primarily to intercepting suspecting terrorists, the officials said they fear that the NSA once again will bear the brunt of congressional scrutiny and public outrage, complicating its mission.
'The damage it's done to NSA's reputation is almost irreversible in my view,' said a longtime top intelligence official with intimate knowledge of the agency's workings." ...
Barron's editorial calls for Congress to consider impeachment ... "Willful disregard of a law ... is at least as impeachable as having a sexual ..."
The Raw Story | Barron's editorial calls for Congress to consider impeachment: "
....
Surely the "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary eventually will point out what a stretch this is. The most important presidential responsibility under Article II is that he must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That includes following the requirements of laws that limit executive power. There's not much fidelity in an executive who debates and lobbies Congress to shape a law to his liking and then goes beyond its writ.
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.
It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law. ...
The rest of the editorial can be read by WSJ subscribers at this link.
....
Surely the "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary eventually will point out what a stretch this is. The most important presidential responsibility under Article II is that he must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That includes following the requirements of laws that limit executive power. There's not much fidelity in an executive who debates and lobbies Congress to shape a law to his liking and then goes beyond its writ.
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.
It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law. ...
The rest of the editorial can be read by WSJ subscribers at this link.
"... the power to wage war, [is] not a license to do unnecessary and dictatorial things in the name of the war power.”
Progreso Weekly: "Above the law? | Bush: “I am the law” | By Max J. Castro
“L’etat, c’est moi.” I am the State:” That’s what the 17th century French monarch, Louis XIV (1638-1715), told the Parliament of Paris after some of its members dared to question funding for the war against Spain."
...
Bush’s legal enablers have been a busy and shameless bunch. International law regarding the justification for war? No problem, go to the UN Security Council to seek authorization. And, if the Council declines to approve war? Invade anyway and invoke violations of Security Council resolutions as the legal basis for military action.
The Geneva Conventions? No sweat: Its provisions have been rendered “quaint” by the “war on terror.” Then coin a new category, label prisoners in this war “enemy combatants,” and argue that for them no rules apply and anything goes.
The Convention Against Torture? Taking candy from a baby: Claim that it only applies to interrogations conducted in the United States. Then send them to other countries for the third degree. Just in case, redefine the terms. Torture is what we say it is; if they don’t have that near-death experience, if they don’t see the white light, it isn’t torture. And, even if they die under torture, understand that was legal too because if the Commander-Chief says it is legal, then it is.
No: With Bush another week always means a new and more disturbing revelation. Until now the administration’s numerous transgressions have involved violations of international law. International law? The Administration has had substantial success in selling the American people on the idea that international law is irrelevant at best and, at worst, an obnoxious interference with U.S. sovereignty. Meanwhile, on the domestic front, the President has relied on a compliant Congress and a deferential judiciary to legitimize bending the laws and the Constitution, manly through the Patriot Act.
Now comes news of a new entry in the annals of the Bush administration’s illegalities, a secret program to spy on Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The New York Times revealed last week that in 2002 Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor international calls involving Americans located on U.S. soil. Congress, awakened from its slumber by the administration’s brazen overreaching, put the brakes on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
...
Fifty years ago, in the wake of the prolonged detainment of Japanese Americans, Eugene Rostow of Yale Law School broke with the war-induced atmosphere of hysteria and complicity that characterized the attitude of too many lawyers, intellectuals and ordinary citizens when he wrote: “The war power is the power to wage war successfully…But it is the power to wage war, not a license to do unnecessary and dictatorial things in the name of the war power.” ...
“L’etat, c’est moi.” I am the State:” That’s what the 17th century French monarch, Louis XIV (1638-1715), told the Parliament of Paris after some of its members dared to question funding for the war against Spain."
...
Bush’s legal enablers have been a busy and shameless bunch. International law regarding the justification for war? No problem, go to the UN Security Council to seek authorization. And, if the Council declines to approve war? Invade anyway and invoke violations of Security Council resolutions as the legal basis for military action.
The Geneva Conventions? No sweat: Its provisions have been rendered “quaint” by the “war on terror.” Then coin a new category, label prisoners in this war “enemy combatants,” and argue that for them no rules apply and anything goes.
The Convention Against Torture? Taking candy from a baby: Claim that it only applies to interrogations conducted in the United States. Then send them to other countries for the third degree. Just in case, redefine the terms. Torture is what we say it is; if they don’t have that near-death experience, if they don’t see the white light, it isn’t torture. And, even if they die under torture, understand that was legal too because if the Commander-Chief says it is legal, then it is.
No: With Bush another week always means a new and more disturbing revelation. Until now the administration’s numerous transgressions have involved violations of international law. International law? The Administration has had substantial success in selling the American people on the idea that international law is irrelevant at best and, at worst, an obnoxious interference with U.S. sovereignty. Meanwhile, on the domestic front, the President has relied on a compliant Congress and a deferential judiciary to legitimize bending the laws and the Constitution, manly through the Patriot Act.
Now comes news of a new entry in the annals of the Bush administration’s illegalities, a secret program to spy on Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The New York Times revealed last week that in 2002 Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor international calls involving Americans located on U.S. soil. Congress, awakened from its slumber by the administration’s brazen overreaching, put the brakes on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
...
Fifty years ago, in the wake of the prolonged detainment of Japanese Americans, Eugene Rostow of Yale Law School broke with the war-induced atmosphere of hysteria and complicity that characterized the attitude of too many lawyers, intellectuals and ordinary citizens when he wrote: “The war power is the power to wage war successfully…But it is the power to wage war, not a license to do unnecessary and dictatorial things in the name of the war power.” ...
Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report - [Why have a judicial branch? ed.]
Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report - New York Times: "By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN | Published: December 24, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 - The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials.
The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said.
As part of the program approved by President Bush for domestic surveillance without warrants, the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications, the officials said. ...
WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 - The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials.
The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said.
As part of the program approved by President Bush for domestic surveillance without warrants, the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications, the officials said. ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)