US President George W. Bush…used to assure Americans wary of expanded anti-terrorism powers that tapping telephones required a judge’s go-ahead.
“Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order,” he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.
“Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so,” he added.
On April 19, 2004, Bush said the Patriot Act enabled law-enforcement officials to use “roving wiretaps,” which are not fixed to a particular telephone, against terrorism, as they had been against organized crime.
“You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order — and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example,” he said in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Vice President Dick Cheney offered similar reassurances at a Patriot Act event in June 2004, saying that “all of the investigative tools” under the law “require the approval of a judge before they can be carried out.”
Of course, we expect our politicians to flip-flop and lie to support whatever it is they’re doing illegal or unethical. The reason so many True Believers are called “ditto-heads” is that as soon as the excuses for the lies are offered up, they’re immediately parroted as gospel.
Update: A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush’s secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.
come on man, this aint 1968 and its not jane fonda’s phone that they are tapping… lets just leave national security to the commander and chief and leave the bland pseudo-journalism “theres a george bush boogie man behind every tree” to you folks.
I seriously think the man has lost it.
In response to comment 1.
It would seem to make sense to have the terrorists know they are being watched. It’s like driving down the road and having a cop in your rear view mirror. You don’t want pulled over, but you know you are safe. If you aren’t a terrorists of course. Visible security is a good thing. All this stealth stuff is great in a 007 movie, but in reality security relies on people, not technology. There is no technology that can replace a court order. It provides law enforcement with judicial protection. It doesn’t protect terorists or support terrorism.
I don’t suppose that breaking the law will result in the impeachment of a president. It’s not like he lied about oral-sex or anything. That would really be serious.
What I don’t understand is why all of these right-wingers arn’t outraged
A president that can create new powers as he sees fit is just as likely to create powers which threaten ecomomic and religious freedom.
Imagine FDR seizing private property in order to repair the ecomony during the depression. Capitalism had failed so badly in those years, many business leaders feared that it was the end of the open market economy in the United States. Some feared that FDR’s new deal was beginning of full-blown communism. Their only comfort was an judiciary that exercised restraint on presidential power. Don’t think that FDR didn’t secretly want to completely replace the supreme court.
The very reason that the founding fathers wanted a president to answer to a legal authority was to protect business and religion. It wasn’t for any altruistic bleading-heart liberal reasons. The founding fathers felt that powerful president would threaten business.
Of course, a presidency willing to do or say anything in order to achieve their goals is not a new thing.
faustus:
And leave the constitution & the idea of “checks and balances” in the dust.
The court orders had everything to do with how slow the court operates, and more importantly how long it takes to prepare the warrant request. If Bush wanted it to be a secret, he didn’t have to tell Congress about it. If Dick Morris recent article is to be believed(at hillnews.com), then the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge was avoided because of these wiretaps. Chatter was heard about the bridge, so the police were on alert, then the ‘illegal’ wiretaps spotted someone reporting that he couldn”t go through with because of all the police, leading to his arrest.
At least the left has a unified message again.
Too bad this story will die with all of the other ‘scandals’ brought forth over the past few years.
Too bad anyone who thinks what the President has done with regards to the 4th Amendment only display their own ignorance.
Since the 4th Amendment deals with criminal prosecution, and what the President did involved matters of war (and yes, it is endorsed by the Congress), there is nothing at all unlawful or incorrect in what he did.
I am profoundly dissapointed in the President.
Making the argument that “we need the security” is a slippery slope because anything done that tramples on SOMEONE ELSES personal rights will be pretty much okay with the masses.
This is the same attitude that led our nation to imprision thousands of innocent and loyal citizens of Japaneese decent in WWII. We already have a way to get legal warrents for wire-tapping, rather than fix the system the President decided on his own that his personal judgement was all that was required.
Based on the revelations of his time in office, doesn’t this scare the piss out of you?
Personally, I am apalled at the public and congress’ obscene willingness to sacrifice our freedoms for a security that no one can truly give them. It is an utter blasphemy to refer to the sacrifice of liberty for security as patriotic when our Founding Fathers stood for the exact opposite–they sacrificed their personal security to secure the liberty of future generations.
Forget the “war” in Iraq. The terrorists have already won if the public’s reaction to the mere threat of terrorism is to dismantle our democracy.
We lived for 50 years under the direct and imminent threat of overwhelming nuclear, biological, and chemical attack from the former Soviet Union and somehow managed to preserve our democracy through this dark chapter in history. Now, we are to be undone by a few religious fanatics who MAY get a weapon of mass destruction to use against us? Pathetic.
These so-called patriots are the weakest of men. I for one would rather die in a WMD attack a free man than live in fear of terrorism or the tyranny of those unscrupulous men who would “protect” me at the expense of my own liberty.
In an emergency wiretaps can be authorized without court approval–they must later be reported to the secret FISA court however. The gist is that Bush could have done everything he has done legally but he chose not to, probably to expand the scope of presidential powers by setting a precedent while an friendy congress is in session.
What I want to know is where the hell are all the conspiracy minded right-wing nut jobs when you need them? I guess as long as tyranny comes wrapped in the American Flag it’s all OK by them.
Will
This might be a story that stays with us and may read even better over time. If it does it will be news that stays news.
Kent,
I am not a right-winger, but I am a middle of the road conservative. I am outraged!
I won’t be surprised if Bush resigns in disgrace or is impeached because of this. This is the most blatent abuse of power since Nixon was in office, and we all know what happened to him.
Like I said earlier, the man has lost it. This has to end.
They had 72-hours to get a request into the court of review – for rubber-stamping – and that was too restrictive?
Yhey had complete freedom to monitor whoever they want for three straight days – and that was too restrictive?
Cheney spouts crap about the power of the President being eroded during Watergate and Vietnam?? Bullshit!! The main erosions took place during their 8-year seige on Bubba.
At the time, most of them lamented that tearing-away at Bubba was also weakening the Presidency – and it was one of the main arguments they put forth for Bubba to resign, for the “good of the country”.
Bigger problem:
What good does it do to brief members of Congress, when the briefing is so Secret that they can’t discuss it with anyone? How can anyone raise an objection to a Secret policy without violating a law?
Nobody is commenting on the fact that Bush Sr. and Clinton both did this too. Remember the 60 Minutes pieces on Echelon and Carnivore? They were monitoring millions of phonecalls and emails. This is nothing new and Bush Sr./Clinton couldn’t even use the excuse of the War Powers Act.
Did nobody watch the speech? When the press leaked out that the U.S. was monitoring and tracking Bin Laden through his cell phone use, guess what? He stopped using it and now that’s a dead-end. To show your entire hand on what kind of intelligence resources we have at our disposal is foolish, and Bin Laden et al are no fools. They watch CNN like the rest of us.
The timing of the story release is damn suspect too. NY Times said they knew about it for over a year. Members of Congress were briefed months ago. But when is it released to the Public? Right at the time the Iraq election turnout % results is released. Just can’t let any good news about Iraq go unpunished, eh? If it was kept under wraps earlier for “national security” reasons, what’s changed now that they feel free to spout off about it?
Bush didn’t do anything illegal or abuse is power. Clinton even did this stuff. Read below
“In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that “All the … courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence … We take for granted that the president does have that authority.””
…..
“But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, “FISA could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power.””
From http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
Audio of Bush lying about wire taps.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bush-on-wiretaps.mp3
To all of you “uninformed ” people that can do nothing but bash Bush. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT before making comments about how our civil liberities are be taken away, or about how corrupt this administration is. The President has been given the power by congress on three separate occaisions since 9/11, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress has power to declare war,” and on September 14th, 2001, Congress passed a joint resolution which states in part that, quote: “The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines, planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.” Two more resolutions were passed by Congress in August and October of 2002, simply stated: Go get whoever is planning to do it again, wherever it takes us, according to your judgment. You don’t have to prove it. Now, most of you out there are saying along with the mainstream media, “This is illeagle, he is violating the Constitution.”
Now,the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which, by the way, Jimmy Carter was president then, a Democrat — that law, the FISA law, does not require that all such surveillance be authorized by a court. The law provides at least two special exceptions to the requirement of a court order. As FISA has been integrated into Title 50 of the US Code, chapter 36, subchapter 1, section 1802, one such provision is helpfully headed “electric surveillance authorization without a court order.” That’s the title of the law, electronic surveillance authorization without a court order. It’s in the FISA law from 1978, Jimmy Carter was president, what more do I need to say?
Well, I’ve got a lot more and I’ll do it now. “This ‘without court order,’ was so clear that even President Carter, a Democrat not known for his vigilance in the war on terror, issued an executive order on May 23rd, 1979, stating, ‘pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.'” He said “without a court order” in his executive order. Carter did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. Bush needs to be impeached. Now, there is some discussion by the editors at the New York Sun of qualifications and circumstances in section 1802, that’s what they go to next in the editorial, and then the argument continues. “If section 1802 isn’t enough, regard section 1811 of the same subchapter of the United States Code, authorization during time of war. It states, notwithstanding any other law, the president, through the attorney general, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by Congress.” Now, the important thing there is to mark the phrase “without a court order.” Then the rest of the editorial, the Sun editorial writers expand on the question of whether Congress has declared war in this circumstance by authorization the use of force in their numerous resolutions, and they conclude that Congress did formalize a state of war against our enemies after September 11th. But note the recurrence in the FISA law of the phrase “without a court order” in the context of intelligence surveillance.
The bottom line is that since this President is a Republican he is breaking the law, the administration is corrupt. However, if it is a Democrat President (Carter, Clinton) its no big deal, its okay.
Sorry Chris, but the REAL bottom line is that you are a partisan on the other side of the political fence and calling the kettle black. Moreover, you’re just parroting what you’ve read elsewhere.
Go read your statutes again and you will find that the very statute you quote requires that a court order be obtained retroactively if, in an emergency, wiretaping without a court order is required.
Look, everyone needs to step back from this game of political one upmanship and think like Americans for once instead of just acting like a megaphone for your own party. I was a Republican who helped usher in the “Contract with America”. As soon as they dropped the much touted term limits I dropped them and became an independent. You simply can’t trust either party blindly.
Will
Thank you Chris for that reading from the Republican party talking points. This thread or whatever you call them on a blog, is about that Bush said he would seek court orders and now he clearly has not. That’s called lying.
To address the idea that these wiretaps make the US safer. The FBI and CIA etc. had more than enough to stop 911. They got their information legaly. The problem was that they didn’t do anything, not that they didn’t know enough.
This is all so dumb. The democrats are trying to stir up the pot for the 06′ elections. Spying on us has been done for years:
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”
WASH POST, July 15, 1994, “Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches”: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also — in the delicate words of a Justice Department official — to “places where you wouldn’t find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen… would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order.”
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president “has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.”
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames’s office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
Government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was required because the searches were conducted for “foreign intelligence purposes.”
Government lawyers have used this principle to justify other secret searches by U.S. authorities.
“The number of such secret searches conducted each year is classified…”
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”
Oh and one other thing. Despite all these measures that Bush and company have taken they’ve only brought one terrorist to trial re 911 and they completely botched it so far. Meanwhile they flew relatives of Bin Laden out of the US to Saudi Arabia so they wouldn’t go through the inconvenience of interrogation. If I killed someone my family could expect some questions!
>>The court orders had everything to do with how slow the court
>>operates, and more importantly how long it takes to prepare the
>>warrant request.
Ding! Pavlov’s dog salivates again! Hey AB CD, he could have started spying RIGHT AWAY, and applied to the Secret Court for a warrant ex post facto. The court would have granted a legitimate request, they always have. Kinda makes you wonder what he was up to. HAS anybody checked Jane Fonda’s phone for a bug?
As to Toe-Sucker Morris….pfffft. That Brooklyn Bridge guy was ALREADY under surveillance by the FBI. And what about the other 2999 Americans? Who were they, one wonders?
Anyone claiming that what Bush did is legal or illegal is simply stating their OPINION. This issue is so confused and cloudy that only the Supreme Court will be able to clear it up.
And I would give long odds against their decision being unanimous — whichever way they rule.
And Mike:
“What good does it do to brief members of Congress, when the briefing is so Secret that they can’t discuss it with anyone? How can anyone raise an objection to a Secret policy without violating a law?”
This is nothing but a cop out by those who either new about it, but don’t want to admit to it, or by those who failed miserably in carrying out the duties they were elected to perform. You don’t resolve issues of Constitutional authority in the PRESS. There are any number of ways they could raise the legal issue of these wiretaps and still maintain secrecy — an obvious one is by walking across the street to office of the Chief Justice, rap on his door and ask, “Could I see you for a moment?”
Once Bush serves his fith term, this kind of stuff will seem like childs play. You all need to realise we as americans are stupid, and if a poorly educated man in a cheap suit says the sky is made of sherbert, then we will give him all the power he need to keep it that way.
Besides, like Kent Goldings said it isn’t as if the mans having oral sex cause that would just be immoral and outragous.
We all know Clinton (The smart president) is laughing his ass off right now raising his glass to toste “here’s too the closing of eye’s and the dimming of intelegence…God Bless the USA!”
>It’s in the FISA law from 1978, Jimmy Carter was president, what more >do I need to say?
You need to justify it, as anything a general rule of thumb is that anything Carter did, do the opposite.
For people who think it’s a partisan issue, read the chicagotribune link above. This is a Clinton guy defenfing the policy, just as Jamie Gorelick did way back when, even defending spying for the purpose of policymaking. I can see now why Kerry lost. I think John Dvorak played his own small part.
>>You need to justify it, as anything a general rule of thumb is that
>>anything Carter did, do the opposite.
Hey, there’s a great foundation for Dumbya’s presidency, AB CD. Any law passed by somebody you don’t like, just break it.
Here’s hoping that this scandal will be the end of the Radical Right’s stranglehold on America. I realize that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public, but is there ANYTHING this charlatan can do that will wake them up?
Keeping with the spirit of christmas:
“He sees you when you’re sleeping,
he knows when you’re awake.
He knows when you’ve been bad or good,
so be good for goodness sake!”
>law passed by somebody you don’t like, just break it.
Not what I said. Carter did the same thing as Bush, according to the poster. I said that’s a reason for Bush not to do it.
>hoping that this scandal will be the end of the Radical Right’s >stranglehold on America.
Are you kidding. This does the opposite. Seeing the opposition go crazy over things like this keeps getting Republicans elected. First they held up the Homeland Security bill(their own idea!), and there went the Democrats control of the Senate. Then they voted against the $87 billion for Iraq, started whining about the Patriot Act and John Ashcroft, and filibustered judges. There went Tom Daschle, and remained did Sen Murkowski, and brought in were some more Republicans. Now, the Patriot Act has been extended as is for 6 months, so I guess around June-Nov the Democrats will be filibustering the Patriot Act, whining about wiretaps of Al Qaeda, detentions of terrorists without trial, etc(and blocking ANWR too). There’s a reason Bush’s approval rating is up some 15 points.
AB CD
Bush won the White House twice by theft. He used lies and propaganda to bolster his crap. He called anyone that didn’t believe that there were no WMD in Iraq “unpatriotic”. His minions misdirected voters in key Ohio districts. Districts known to be Democratic were short changed on ballot boxes and workers, creating lines so long that many could not vote. His followers phoned voters and spread false information. Now I believe there will be such a backlash that those who have voted in the past will look for other people.
Bush lied. He has lied to Congress. He has lied to the American public. He has lied to the United Nations. He has lied to his few allies. He has broken International Treaties. He has broken domestic laws.
Now if Congress declared war, then there can not be anything such as an “enemy combatant”. They now become Prisoners of War and get all the protections provide by Geneva Convention. So take your pick, are they POWs or Enemy Combatants? What statute gives the President the authority to hold Americans without charge or access to a lawyer?
Just impeach Bush and Cheney and be done with it. Haskert can’t be any worse, and after seeing those two go down, he might even be better.