Report Questions Legal Basis for Bush's Spying Program

[97silverlsc]

Report Questions Legal Basis for Bush's Spying Program

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/p...&en=00780be4858f8682&ei=5094&partner=homepage
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
and SCOTT SHANE
Published: January 6, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 - President Bush's rationale for authorizing eavesdropping on American citizens without warrants rests on questionable legal ground and "may represent an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb," according to a formal Congressional analysis released today.

The analysis, conducted by the Congressional Research Service, an independent research arm of Congress, is the first formal assessment of a question that has gripped Washington for the last three weeks: Did President Bush act within the law when he ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans?

While the Congressional report reached no bottom-line conclusions on whether the program is legal or not, it concluded that the legal rationale appears somewhat dubious. The legal rationale "does not seem to be as well-grounded" as the Bush administration's lawyers have suggested, and Congress did not appear to have intended to authorize warrantless wiretaps when it gave President Bush the authority to wage war against Al Qaeda in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the report concluded.

Bush administration lawyers quickly took issue with the report's conclusions, arguing that President Bush acted within his constitutional and statutory powers in approving the N.S.A. program.

"The president has made clear that he will use his constitutional and statutory authorities to protect the American people from further terrorist attacks," said Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the Justice Department.

"As the attorney general has stated numerous times, the National Security Agency activities described by the president were conducted in accordance with the law and provide a critical tool in the war on terror that saves lives and protects civil liberties at the same time," Mr. Roehrkasse said.

But many Democrats and some Republicans said they found the doubts raised by Congressional report persuasive, pointing to it as another indication that President Bush may have overextended his authority in fighting terrorism.

Thomas H. Kean, the former chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, said he too doubts the legality of the program. Weighing in for the first time on the controversy, he said in an interview that the commission was never told of the operation and that he has strong doubts about whether it is authorized under the law.

Federal law under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, created in 1978, "gives very broad powers to the president and, except in very rare circumstances, in my view ought to be used," said Mr. Kean, a Republican and former governor of New Jersey. "We live by a system of checks and balances, and I think we ought to continue to live by a system of checks and balances."

Opinions on the N.S.A. domestic spying issue have broken down largely, though not exclusively, along partisan lines, causing public rifts between the top Republicans and Democrats on both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

But the analyses of the Congressional Research Service, part of the Library of Congress, are generally seen as objective and without partisan taint, said Eleanor Hill, who served as a Congressional staffer for 17 years and was staff director of the joint Congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"My experience is that they're well respected in the Senate and House," said Ms. Hill, now a Washington lawyer in private practice. "I don't remember anybody attacking them for being partisan. They're more academic in approach."

 

[RB3]

Report Questions Legal Basis for Bush's Spying Program

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/p...&en=00780be4858f8682&ei=5094&partner=homepage
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
and SCOTT SHANE
Published: January 6, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 - President Bush's rationale for authorizing eavesdropping on American citizens without warrants rests on questionable legal ground and "may represent an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb," according to a formal Congressional analysis released today.

The analysis, conducted by the Congressional Research Service, an independent research arm of Congress, is the first formal assessment of a question that has gripped Washington for the last three weeks: Did President Bush act within the law when he ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans?

While the Congressional report reached no bottom-line conclusions on whether the program is legal or not, it concluded that the legal rationale appears somewhat dubious. The legal rationale "does not seem to be as well-grounded" as the Bush administration's lawyers have suggested, and Congress did not appear to have intended to authorize warrantless wiretaps when it gave President Bush the authority to wage war against Al Qaeda in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the report concluded.

Bush administration lawyers quickly took issue with the report's conclusions, arguing that President Bush acted within his constitutional and statutory powers in approving the N.S.A. program.

"The president has made clear that he will use his constitutional and statutory authorities to protect the American people from further terrorist attacks," said Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the Justice Department.

"As the attorney general has stated numerous times, the National Security Agency activities described by the president were conducted in accordance with the law and provide a critical tool in the war on terror that saves lives and protects civil liberties at the same time," Mr. Roehrkasse said.

But many Democrats and some Republicans said they found the doubts raised by Congressional report persuasive, pointing to it as another indication that President Bush may have overextended his authority in fighting terrorism.

Thomas H. Kean, the former chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, said he too doubts the legality of the program. Weighing in for the first time on the controversy, he said in an interview that the commission was never told of the operation and that he has strong doubts about whether it is authorized under the law.

Federal law under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, created in 1978, "gives very broad powers to the president and, except in very rare circumstances, in my view ought to be used," said Mr. Kean, a Republican and former governor of New Jersey. "We live by a system of checks and balances, and I think we ought to continue to live by a system of checks and balances."

Opinions on the N.S.A. domestic spying issue have broken down largely, though not exclusively, along partisan lines, causing public rifts between the top Republicans and Democrats on both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

But the analyses of the Congressional Research Service, part of the Library of Congress, are generally seen as objective and without partisan taint, said Eleanor Hill, who served as a Congressional staffer for 17 years and was staff director of the joint Congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"My experience is that they're well respected in the Senate and House," said Ms. Hill, now a Washington lawyer in private practice. "I don't remember anybody attacking them for being partisan. They're more academic in approach."

The first reaction any sane person should have to an article posted from the New York Times should be...Is it true?

So I decided to research the "Congressional Research Service." Here is what I found:


Congressional Research Service Reports Often Written To Reflect Lawmaker's Bias

by Amy Ridenour

(source: National Center for Public Policy Research)

In his autobiography, Mark Twain apparently put words into the mouth of the English statesman Disraeli, quoting him thusly: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

The line became one of the most quoted - and misquoted - in history with many actually attributing it to the 19th-century Prime Minister. But there is no evidence that Disraeli ever said it, and many historians believe Twain simply made it up and passed it off as Disraeli's. That, in itself, produced the famous quip, "As Disraeli almost said, there are three kinds of lies..."

The actual origins of the quote may be murky, but one thing's certain: If Twain were alive today he might be sorely tempted to change it to "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and Congressional Research Service reports."

It would be overkill to condemn all Congressional Research Service reports because many contain unbiased and useful research. Indeed, since its founding in 1916, the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service has carefully nurtured its reputation as nonpartisan, independent and "above the fray."

But far too often, the CRS and its staff members are at the mercy of lawmakers who request reports merely to buttress their own ideology. The reports are requested by members of Congress, who pretty much tell the CRS the parameters of the research being conducted and the specific questions to answer. If they want to engineer a report that strongly backs their viewpoint, it's fairly easy to do.

When the CRS report is completed, it goes directly to the lawmaker, who then brandishes it at a press conference and cites it authoritatively.

It's one of the most-loved ruses in Congress because it allows a politician with few facts on his side to enhance his arguments by citing a Congressional Research Service report that - voila! - is in complete agreement. Periodic efforts to reform this process have failed.

I further found that this "research service" has been used repeatedly by Liberal Democrats during the Bush Administration. Some other recent "non-partisan" findings have included:

1. Bush got different intelligence than Congress
2. Bush is to blame for Hurricane Katrina
3. Bush is to blame for that toy you didn't get for Christmas (okay, I threw that one in for fun)

Notice it is conspicuously lacking from the Times article the identity of the Liberal Democrat who commissioned this "non-partisan" report and what parameters were followed. Probably something along the lines of "only consider facts detrimental to Bush."

This is a fascinating window into how the left, together with their willing accomplices in the press, manufactures news.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

A valiant, but feeble attempt at discrediting the CRS.

 

[RB3]

A valiant, but feeble attempt at discrediting the CRS.

I've no doubt you find the truth "feeble." :shifty:

 

[fossten]

A valiant, but feeble attempt at discrediting the CRS.

How's that? You just contradicted yourself.

Valiant: Definition

1. Vigorous in body; strong; powerful; as, a valiant fencer. [Obs.]

--Walton.

2. Intrepid in danger; courageous; brave.

A valiant and most expert gentleman. --Shak.

And Saul said to David . . . be thou valiant for me, and fight the Lord's battles. --1 Sam. xviii. 17.

3. Performed with valor or bravery; heroic. ``Thou bearest the highest name for valiant acts.'' --Milton.

Synonyms:

audacious, bold, brave, courageous, dauntless, doughty, fearless, fortitudinous, gallant, game, hardy, heroic, intrepid, mettlesome, plucky, stout, stouthearted, unafraid, undaunted, valorous. Informal spunky. Slang gutsy, gutty. See fear/courage.

Antonyms:

Cowardly, spineless, weak, feeble, gutless, craven, pusillanimous

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Not really. Picture a 90 year old geezer in a wheel chair (feeble) rolling himself headlong into battle, oblivious to the danger to himself (valiant).

 

[RB3]

Not really. Picture a 90 year old geezer in a wheel chair (feeble) rolling himself headlong into battle, oblivious to the danger to himself (valiant).

You need to worry more about a 50 year old guy in a Panama hat, wheeling a big Lincoln convertible, heading into battle with facts you can't refute.

 

[fossten]

Not really. Picture a 90 year old geezer in a wheel chair (feeble) rolling himself headlong into battle, oblivious to the danger to himself (valiant).

Nice try. Valiant doesn't equate with oblivious; in fact, it implies the opposite: knowledge of the battle and subsequent courage or bravery in the face of the opposition.

Your equivocating is a waste of time and your example is absurd. Nobody's falling for it.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Nice try. Valiant doesn't equate with oblivious; in fact, it implies the opposite: knowledge of the battle and subsequent courage or bravery in the face of the opposition.

Your equivocating is a waste of time and your example is absurd. Nobody's falling for it.

OK, so I mis-stated. He is actually fully aware of the danger to himself, thus "valiant" is still valid. You are nitpicking semantics again.

I further found that this "research service" has been used repeatedly by Liberal Democrats during the Bush Administration. Some other recent "non-partisan" findings have included:

1. Bush got different intelligence than Congress
2. Bush is to blame for Hurricane Katrina
3. Bush is to blame for that toy you didn't get for Christmas (okay, I threw that one in for fun)

Notice it is conspicuously lacking from the Times article the identity of the Liberal Democrat who commissioned this "non-partisan" report and what parameters were followed. Probably something along the lines of "only consider facts detrimental to Bush." This is a fascinating window into how the left, together with their willing accomplices in the press, manufactures news.

Pure speculation.

In the same spirit, the CRS is "probably" the same service used by BuSh to determine that the American public would welcome social security privatization with open arms. (sarcasm alert!)

But many Democrats and some Republicans said they found the doubts raised by Congressional report persuasive, pointing to it as another indication that President Bush may have overextended his authority in fighting terrorism.

Gee, at least some rePUGs find credibility in the CRS report.

RB3 attempted a rebuttal of the original post by using an off-tangent article that attempts to refute the credibility of the CRS reports, even though that same article states:

It would be overkill to condemn all Congressional Research Service reports because many contain unbiased and useful research. Indeed, since its founding in 1916, the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service has carefully nurtured its reputation as nonpartisan, independent and "above the fray."

..... nor does it even mention the issue of this thread or the original article ("Report Questions Legal Basis for Bush's Spying Program").

THEREFORE, RB3's rebuttal was "feeble", and unless he actually thought it was a STRONG rebuttal (possible, but doubtful), he was also "valiant" for posting it anyway and hoping he'd get away with it.

You're welcome for S P E L L I N G this all out for you.

 

[RB3]

OK, so I mis-stated. He is actually fully aware of the danger to himself, thus "valiant" is still valid. You are nitpicking semantics again.
Pure speculation.

In the same spirit, the CRS is "probably" the same service used by BuSh to determine that the American public would welcome social security privatization with open arms. (sarcasm alert!)

Gee, at least some rePUGs find credibility in the CRS report.

RB3 attempted a rebuttal of the original post by using an off-tangent article that attempts to refute the credibility of the CRS reports, even though that same article states:

..... nor does it even mention the issue of this thread or the original article ("Report Questions Legal Basis for Bush's Spying Program").

THEREFORE, RB3's rebuttal was "feeble", and unless he actually thought it was a STRONG rebuttal (possible, but doubtful), he was also "valiant" for posting it anyway and hoping he'd get away with it.

You're welcome for S P E L L I N G this all out for you.

Now let me SPELL it out for YOU.

This entire article's premise is this:

It is the OPINION (not FACT) of the CRS that Bush was wrong. That's the whole thing.

But then the Times goes to great lengths to assure us that we should put greater credence on the OPINION of the CRS since the CRS is "non-partisan." Anytime the Times goes to such lengths to claim their source is "non-partisan" you can bet your last dollar that their source IS partisan. So I cite evidence of the partisan nature of the CRS:

a.) the reports are commissioned by Congressmen (or women) to bolster their own views

b.) past reports have come to partisan conclusions, and were commissioned by some of the most partisan members of Congress (two I came across in my first research were Diane Feinstein and John Conyers-but I suppose they're non partisan sources to you)

c.) the Times fails to disclose who commissioned this report, and what parameters were used to prepare it.

I cannot refute the facts in the Times article, because there aren't any. It's all opinion. In paragraph one the Times claims this is what the CRS says: "President Bush's rationale for authorizing eavesdropping on American citizens without warrants rests on questionable legal ground and "may represent an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb,"", but in the next paragraph admits this: "While the Congressional report reached no bottom-line conclusions on whether the program is legal or not.."

The entire article continues in that vein of unsupported speculation together with pious assurances that the anti-Bush speculation is "non-partisan." The article is devoid of substance, from beginning to end.

So at the end of the day what are we left with? The New York Times, yet again, attempts to pass off opinion as fact. The New York Times, yet again, attempts to pass off partisan opinion as non-partisan. Do you seriously believe the Times doesn't know which Liberal Democrat commissioned this opinion piece? Why isn't that information included? In the end, this article is nothing more than what I called it to begin with: a lesson on how the Left, together with their willing accomplices in the news media, manufactures news.

As far as "posting things and hoping I'll get away with it," such behavior is beneath me. I'll leave that conduct where it is regularly practiced, which is on your side of the aisle.

 

[fossten]

Hmm.

RB3's post: Valiant.

Johnny's post: Feeble.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

b.) past reports have come to partisan conclusions, and were commissioned by some of the most partisan members of Congress (two I came across in my first research were Diane Feinstein and John Conyers-but I suppose they're non partisan sources to you)

OK, that's ......... less feeble. :shifty:

 

[RB3]

OK, that's ......... less feeble. :shifty:

Sadly, your replies aren't getting any less.

 

[fossten]

This isn't feeble...

Under Clinton, NY Times called surveillance "a necessity"
January 12th, 2006

http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5150

The controversy following revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored suspected terrorist related communications since 9/11 reflects a severe case of selective amnesia by the New York Times and other media opponents of President Bush. They certainly didn’t show the same outrage when a much more invasive and indiscriminate domestic surveillance program came to light during the Clinton administration in the 1990’s. At that time, the Times called the surveillance “a necessity.”

“If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency.” (Steve Kroft, CBS’ 60 Minutes)

Those words were aired on February 27, 2000 to describe the National Security Agency and an electronic surveillance program called Echelon whose mission, according to Kroft,

“is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon’s computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.”

Echelon was, or is (its existence has been under-reported in the American media), an electronic eavesdropping program conducted by the United States and a few select allies such as the United Kingdom.

Tellingly, the existence of the program was confirmed not by the New York Times or the Washington Post or by any other American media outlet – these were the Clinton years, after all, and the American media generally treats Democrat administrations far more gently than Republican administrations – but by an Australian government official in a statement made to an Australian television news show.

The Times actually defended the existence of Echelon when it reported on the program following the Australians’ revelations.

“Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists….”

And the Times article quoted an N.S.A. official in assuring readers

“...that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards.”

Of course, that was on May 27, 1999 and Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush, was president.

Even so, the article did admit that

“...many are concerned that the system could be abused to collect economic and political information.”

Despite the Times’ reluctance to emphasize those concerns, one of the sources used in that same article, Patrick Poole, a lecturer in government and economics at Bannock Burn College in Franklin, Tenn., had already concluded in a study cited by the Times story that the program had been abused in both ways.

“ECHELON is also being used for purposes well outside its original mission. The regular discovery of domestic surveillance targeted at American civilians for reasons of ‘unpopular’ political affiliation or for no probable cause at all… What was once designed to target a select list of communist countries and terrorist states is now indiscriminately directed against virtually every citizen in the world,” Poole concluded.

The Times article also referenced a European Union report on Echelon. The report was conducted after E.U. members became concerned that their citizens’ rights may have been violated. One of the revelations of that study was that the N.S.A. used partner countries’ intelligence agencies to routinely circumvent legal restrictions against domestic spying.

“For example, [author Nicky] Hager has described how New Zealand officials were instructed to remove the names of identifiable UKUSA citizens or companies from their reports, inserting instead words such as ‘a Canadian citizen’ or ‘a US company’. British Comint [Communications intelligence] staff have described following similar procedures in respect of US citizens following the introduction of legislation to limit NSA’s domestic intelligence activities in 1978.”

Further, the E.U. report concluded that intelligence agencies did not feel particularly constrained by legal restrictions requiring search warrants.

“Comint agencies conduct broad international communications ‘trawling’ activities, and operate under general warrants. Such operations do not require or even suppose that the parties they intercept are criminals.”

The current controversy follows a Times report that, since 9/11, U.S. intelligence agencies are eavesdropping at any time on up to 500 people in the U.S. suspected of conducting international communications with terrorists. Under Echelon, the Clinton administration was spying on just about everyone.

“The US National Security Agency (NSA) has created a global spy system, codename ECHELON, which captures and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax, email and telex message sent anywhere in the world,”

Poole summarized in his study on the program.

According to an April, 2000 article in PC World magazine, experts who studied Echelon concluded that

“Project Echelon’s equipment can process 1 million message inputs every 30 minutes.”

In the February, 2000 60 Minutes story, former spy Mike Frost made clear that Echelon monitored practically every conversation – no matter how seemingly innocent – during the Clinton years.

“A lady had been to a school play the night before, and her son was in the school play and she thought he did a-a lousy job. Next morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her friend something like this, ‘Oh, Danny really bombed last night,’ just like that. The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking at it was not too sure about what the conversation w-was referring to, so erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the database as a possible terrorist.”

“This is not urban legend you’re talking about. This actually happened?” Kroft asked.

“Factual. Absolutely fact. No legend here.”

Even as the Times defended Echelon as “a necessity” in 1999, evidence already existed that electronic surveillance had previously been misused by the Clinton Administration for political purposes. Intelligence officials told Insight Magazine in 1997 that a 1993 conference of Asian and Pacific world leaders hosted by Clinton in Seattle had been spied on by U.S. intelligence agencies. Further, the magazine reported that information obtained by the spying had been passed on to big Democrat corporate donors to use against their competitors. The Insight story added that the mis-use of the surveillance for political reasons caused the intelligence sources to reveal the operation.

“The only reason it has come to light is because of concerns raised by high-level sources within federal law-enforcement and intelligence circles that the operation was compromised by politicians—including mid- and senior-level White House aides—either on behalf of or in support of President Clinton and major donor-friends who helped him and the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, raise money.”

So, during the Clinton Administration, evidence existed (all of the information used in this article was available at the time) that:

-an invasive, extensive domestic eavesdropping program was aimed at every U.S. citizen;

-intelligence agencies were using allies to circumvent constitutional restrictions;

-and the administration was selling at least some secret intelligence for political donations.

These revelations were met by the New York Times and others in the mainstream media by the sound of one hand clapping. Now, reports that the Bush Administration approved electronic eavesdropping, strictly limited to international communications, of a relative handful of suspected terrorists have created a media frenzy in the Times and elsewhere.

The Times has historically been referred to as “the Grey Lady.” That grey is beginning to look just plain grimy, and many of us can no longer consider her a lady.

 

[RB3]

A valiant post. And yet another example of the endless hypocrisy of the Left.

It happens that I am presently reading a book, Hoodwinked, that my son gave me for Christmas. Among other topics, it details the dishonest, biased, and discredited reporting of the New York Times dating back to the days of Stalin. The Times has a long history of duplicity and agenda based reporting.

 

[fossten]

A valiant post. And yet another example of the endless hypocrisy of the Left.

It happens that I am presently reading a book, Hoodwinked, that my son gave me for Christmas. Among other topics, it details the dishonest, biased, and discredited reporting of the New York Times dating back to the days of Stalin. The Times has a long history of duplicity and agenda based reporting.

I'll bet that's a good book. A must read for Conservatives. I think I'll check it out. Thx for the heads up.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Sadly, your replies aren't getting any less.

<as he slaps the olive branch from my hands.............>

 

[RB3]

<as he slaps the olive branch from my hands.............>

That was an olive branch? I thought it was a bomb.

 

[RB3]

Here's what Americans think of Bush's program:


Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Thursday, Jan. 19, 2006 12:35 p.m. EST

Poll: NSA Leakers are 'Traitors'​

Americans overwhelmingly support President Bush's decision to wiretap suspected terrorists operating inside the U.S. without first obtaining a court order - and a solid plurality believe those who leaked news of the secret operation are "traitors," a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll has found.

Asked whether the president "should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States?" - 58 percent of those surveyed said yes.

Just 36 percent disagreed.

According to Dick Morris, who reveals the poll's stunning results in today's New York Post - even 42 percent of Democrats back the Bush surveillance program.

The results flatly contradict a widely reported Associated Press poll two weeks ago, which sampled a dispropotionate percentage of Democrats and concluded that the public objected to the Bush surveillance program.

In another stunning finding, the Fox poll found by that a margin of nearly 2 to 1, the American public believes that those responsible for exposing the super secret surveillance program have betrayed the country.

Fifty percent of those surveyed called those responsible for blowing the NSA's cover "traitors," while just 27 percent agreed with media claims that the leakers were "whistleblowers."

By a margin of 42 to 34 percent, even Democrats agreed with the "traitor" label.

Americans also strongly support renewing the Patriot Act by a nearly 2 to 1 margin [57 to 31 percent].

And a solid plurality of those surveyed - 46 percent - credit Bush administration counterterrorism efforts for preventing al Qaeda from carrying out another 9/11-style attack on the U.S.

Notes Morris:

"These statistics tell us that Democratic politicians are just hurting themselves by raising and dwelling on the wiretap issue . . . We're more afraid of al Qaeda than of our own elected officials."

"In other words," he adds, "Ann Coulter represents the Democratic mainstream better than Al Gore on this one!"

 

[fossten]

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2006 12:58 p.m. EST
Victoria Toensing: FISA Fears Shielded 9/11 Plotters


Contrary to the claims of Bush administration critics, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has seriously hampered U.S. counterterrorism efforts - and actually helped to shield at least two key 9/11 plotters from detection by U.S. law enforcement.

The stunning analysis comes from former Reagan-era Justice Department official Victoria Toensing, who explains on OpinionJournal.com: "I have extensive experience with the consequences of government bungling due to overstrict interpretations of FISA."

As deputy assistant attorney general one of Toensing's chief responsibilities was the terrorism portfolio, which included working with FISA.

She recalled having to terminate a FISA wiretap in the midst of the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847, which ended in the murder of passenger-hostage Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem.

"We had a previously placed tap in the U.S. and thought there was a possibility we could learn the hostages' location," Toensing explained. "But Justice Department career lawyers told me that the FISA statute defined its 'primary purpose' as foreign intelligence gathering. Because crimes were taking place, the FBI had to shut down the wire."

Toensing notes that the vaunted FISA law became the basis for former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's notorious wall of separation in 1995 - which prohibited intelligence agencies from sharing information on terrorists with U.S. law enforcement.

She recalled that when "the wall" was finally removed in 2001 by the Patriot Act, the FISA appeals court upheld the new law's constitutionality with a ruling that characterized the rigid interpretation of the FISA statute as "puzzling."

"The court cited an FBI agent's testimony that efforts to investigate two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were blocked by senior FBI officials, concerned about the FISA rule requiring separation."

Toensing said that if intelligence agencies had been able to wiretap terrorists operating inside the U.S. as they do under the Bush program, "we could have detected the presence of Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi in San Diego, more than a year before they crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon."

The former Reagan deputy AG dismantles another canard frequently touted by FISA supporters: That the Bush surveillance program could have been just as effective if he'd utilized the provision for retroactive court orders up to 72 hours after the surveillance begins.

Noting that FISA still requires that probable cause be established over that three day period, she offers the following example:

"Al Qaeda Agent A is captured in Afghanistan and has Agent B's number in his cell phone, which is monitored by NSA overseas. Agent B makes two or three calls every day to Agent C, who flies to New York."

That chain of facts, without further evidence, says Toensing, "does not establish probable cause for a court to believe that C is an agent of a foreign power with information about terrorism."

If Bush critics had their way, however, U.S. monitoring of Al Qaeda Agent C's phone calls would have to cease the moment he landed on U.S. soil - allowing him to continue receiving instructions in secret from his terror masters abroad right up to the day he carries out the next 9/11.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

This is practically an admission of GUILT!

Posted on Fri, Jan. 27, 2006

Congress’ OK for spying wasn’t needed, Bush says
By Dan Eggen and Walter Pincus
Washington Post

WASHINGTON – President Bush said Thursday that he didn’t seek congressional approval for a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program for one simple reason: He didn’t need it.

“We believe there’s a constitutional power granted to presidents as well as, this case, a statutory power,” Bush said. “And I’m intending to use that power.”

It is one of several explanations on the topic from Bush and his aides, who have provided at least two separate rationales for why they did not ask for statutory authority for the program.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the administration had considered seeking legislation but determined it would be impossible to get, adding later in the same news conference that authorities did not want to expose the program’s existence. White House spokesman Scott McClellan has echoed the latter point, saying the administration feared that details of the classified program would be exposed publicly.

Many Democratic lawmakers and legal experts have seized on these and other issues in recent days to argue that the Bush administration has been misleading in its explanations of the NSA program.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said that the “after-the-fact spin we’re hearing now is worthless.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., issued a statement Thursday criticizing the administration for claiming that Congress had been fully briefed on the NSA program and for opposing the 2002 measure to loosen FISA standards.

Bush and his top aides have repeatedly stressed that “Congress” had been briefed on the program over the past four years, but have often neglected to mention that the briefings were limited to the “Gang of Eight”: the speaker and minority leader of the House; the majority and minority leaders of the Senate; and the chairmen and ranking Democrats on the two intelligence committees.

They were barred from taking notes or discussing what they heard with other lawmakers or their staffs.

WHY would the BuSh administration have even considered seeking a change in legislation unless they knew what they wanted to do was against some existing law??

Just more LIES from the white house.

 

[MonsterMark]

WHY would the BuSh administration have even considered seeking a change in legislation unless they knew what they wanted to do was against some existing law??

Just more LIES from the white house.

Seeking a change in legislation would require us to reveal what processes are used and how we use them.

I mean why not print a book for the badguys on how to avoid detection?

The LEFT is soooooooooo wrong on this. Get a clue dudes.

 

[MonsterMark]

Bush and his top aides have repeatedly stressed that “Congress” had been briefed on the program over the past four years, but have often neglected to mention that the briefings were limited to the “Gang of Eight”:the speaker and minority leader of the House; the majority and minority leaders of the Senate; and the chairmen and ranking Democrats on the two intelligence committees.

Like we don't have a problem with leakers now, thanks to a-holes on the left. Sure, let all the DemoRats in on it so they can tell the whole world. [Wraps head with duck-tape so head does not explode]

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Seeking a change in legislation would require us to reveal what processes are used and how we use them.

I mean why not print a book for the badguys on how to avoid detection?

That's :bsflag: and you know it.

As if the terrorists could NOT EVER IMAGINE that their phone conversations MIGHT be monitored via a "wiretap". The technology has been around since the invention of the telephone. And if you are referring to the "process" of how legislation is changed in the US (in case you intend of weasling out of your statement), that is taught in schools. And legislation can be changed without revealing the technical details of how wiretaps are executed, again as if that'd even matter.

Once AGAIN, you on the far right attempt to use smoke and mirrors to deflect away from the REAL issue here. It's not the WIRETAPPING that bothers us who cherish our civil liberties, it's the LAWLESSNESS demonstrated by the BuSh administration in going about it!

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT EVEN BUSH!

 

[fossten]

That's :bsflag: and you know it.

As if the terrorists could NOT EVER IMAGINE that their phone conversations MIGHT be monitored via a "wiretap". The technology has been around since the invention of the telephone. And if you are referring to the "process" of how legislation is changed in the US (in case you intend of weasling out of your statement), that is taught in schools. And legislation can be changed without revealing the technical details of how wiretaps are executed, again as if that'd even matter.

Once AGAIN, you on the far right attempt to use smoke and mirrors to deflect away from the REAL issue here. It's not the WIRETAPPING that bothers us who cherish our civil liberties, it's the LAWLESSNESS demonstrated by the BuSh administration in going about it!

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT EVEN BUSH!

Real issue my A$$. You can't find ONE SINGLE instance where ONE specific person's individual rights have been violated by Bush as a result of this issue, AND YOU KNOW IT. This is just another wild attempt by the far left to throw a bunch of crap against the wall and see if anything sticks.

Baloney. You people want political power at the expense of our national safety and security.

Go join your comrades in Al Qaeda and stop wasting our time.