News NY Times discloses secret Executive Order: NSA is spying domestically

[SOS2008]

You mean the one saying that we should keep secret the things that ought to remain secret?

A "culture of secrecy" does not refer to information legitimately classified for purposes of national security. What needs to be “reinstalled” is an open, accountable government. Read the words and think about the meaning.

 

[crazycalhoun]

A "culture of secrecy" does not refer to information legitimately classified for purposes of national security. What needs to be “reinstalled” is an open, accountable government. Read the words and think about the meaning.

Um, Goss is referring the CIA.

 

[SOS2008]

Um, Goss is referring the CIA.

Goss is referring to the press.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Goss is referring to the press.

Nah, I'm pretty sure he's talking about a "culture of secrecy" in the CIA. Sounds appropriate to me.

 

[DaveC426913]

Who cares? How does this affect you in ANY WAY whatsoever? The government could have a camera in front of my face all day for all I care.

That's because you have not read Orwell's 1984.

The premise of the book is 'if you have nothing to hide, then what harm is there in being observed?'.

1984 gave birth to the concept of Big Brother.

 

[crazycalhoun]

That's because you have not read Orwell's 1984.

The premise of the book is 'if you have nothing to hide, then what harm is there in being observed?'.

1984 gave birth to the concept of Big Brother.

It was also, if I recall, a work of fiction.

 

[SOS2008]

For those who may not be aware, we are trying to maintain some standards in P&WA. That means backing up your posts with credible sources.

Goss, the former chairman of the House intelligence committee, said that "the damage has been very severe to our capabilities to carry out our mission." He added: "It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/02/AR2006020202473.html

Such an investigation will not reveal a CIA leak. We already know the White House was first to mention the program, and we already know one source for the NY Times article. It was "Russell Tice, a longtime insider at the National Security Agency" ...who "told ABC News that he was a source for the Times' reporters. But Tice maintains that his conscience is clear."

"As far as I'm concerned, as long as I don't say anything that's classified, I'm not worried," he said. "We need to clean up the intelligence community. We've had abuses, and they need to be addressed."

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1491889

In other words, the problem is the "culture of secrecy" is our government.

 

[turbo]

Such an investigation will not reveal a CIA leak. We already know the White House was first to mention the program, and we already know one source for the NY Times article. It was "Russell Tice, a longtime insider at the National Security Agency" ...who "told ABC News that he was a source for the Times' reporters. But Tice maintains that his conscience is clear."

"As far as I'm concerned, as long as I don't say anything that's classified, I'm not worried," he said. "We need to clean up the intelligence community. We've had abuses, and they need to be addressed."

On this site is a video interview with Tice.
http://www.democracynow.org/

 

[DaveC426913]

It was also, if I recall, a work of fiction.

Well duh.

It was actually a work of speculative fiction - a cautionary tale.

He knew, even half a century ago, where we were headed, even if it were one seemingly-harmless legislation at a time.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Well duh.

It was actually a work of speculative fiction - a cautionary tale.

Yeah, and that's why the German sky's full of F-19 Frisbees and the Soviet tanks are about the run the Fulda Gap. At least Clancy took a shot at making serious predictions.

He knew, even half a century ago, where we were headed, even if it were one seemingly-harmless legislation at a time.

I've yet to see anything to suggest Orwell was more insightful about "where we were headed" than the author of the Book of Revelations.

 

[Skyhunter]

Yeah, and that's why the German sky's full of F-19 Frisbees and the Soviet tanks are about the run the Fulda Gap. At least Clancy took a shot at making serious predictions.



I've yet to see anything to suggest Orwell was more insightful about "where we were headed" than the author of the Book of Revelations.

Have you read Orwell?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The premise of the book is 'if you have nothing to hide, then what harm is there in being observed?'.

Somewhat ironic when applied to the OP. After all, who is trying to hide something here?

So the die hard Bush supporters feel that the people should be accountable to the government, but not the other way around? That is about the best definition of un-American that I've ever heard.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Have you read Orwell?

Unfortunately, yes. And no, I don't take him seriously.

 

[crazycalhoun]

So the die hard Bush supporters feel that the people should be accountable to the government, but not the other way around?

Well, that's not quite accurate. If die-hard Bush supporters are, generally, far right-leaning persons, then they typically score high on the RWA scale. That means that their likelihood to found an authority worth submitting to depends on how closely that authority fits with a high RWA scorer's additional values: typically religious and sexual conservatism, intolerance for state directed outcome equity across the lines of ethnicity, sex and sexual orientation, individualism, and laissez-faire governance. When the state meets that standard, then it is worthy of RWA submission insofar as its circumscribed authority extends.

That is about the best definition of un-American that I've ever heard.

I disagree, it's possibly the single most common thread in American history.

 

[Amp1]

Calhoun, You haven't read Orwell-wow- I thought it was required reading in at least 901% of the schools in the US, especially during the 'Cold War'.

Revelation, predicts in a general way, air travel, family isolationism and familial abuse, global apathy as well as global incompassion/inconsideration and a few other things I can't name offhand like I just did without referencing the text.

I disagree, it's possibly the single most common thread in American history.

I disagree it is the most unpatriotic and un-American thing I've seen as it is a thread that's been weaved from a disregard for the Constitution and what was intended by the Founding Fathers.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Calhoun, You haven't read Orwell-wow-

I can't imagine how you arrived at that, especially when I answered yes.

I disagree it is the most unpatriotic and un-American thing I've seen as it is a thread that's been weaved from a disregard for the Constitution and what was intended by the Founding Fathers.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.

 

[Burnsys]

The government should be controlled by the people, not the other way.

Let me ask you somenthing.. if GWB has nothing to hide, why don't we make a reality show where we can see 24/7 the live of GWB? afterall, if you or me do somenthing wrong or bad, not many people will result afected, but if GWB makes somenthing bad, millions of people will be... They are who needs to be controled. But as time pass they are hidding more and more...

 

[SOS2008]

Have you read Orwell?

You must realize this is coming from someone who thinks a below-average author like Clancy is a great author. Someone needs to take a literature class to put things in proper perspective.

About the Right Wing Authoritarian (RWA) Scale:

According to Professor Altemeyer, right-wing authoritarians are cognitively rigid, aggressive, and intolerant. They are characterized by steadfast conformity to group norms, submission to higher status individuals, and aggression toward out-groups and unconventional group members. On the RWA Scale, subjects are asked to agree or disagree with statements like: "Some of the worst people in our country nowadays are those who do not respect our flag, our leaders and the normal way things are supposed to be done" and "There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps." Guess which one RWAs tend to agree with?

Meyer-Emerick notes that high RWAs perceive the world as a significantly more dangerous place than those who score low. High RWAs are more submissive to government authority and indifferent to human rights. They also tend to be more hostile and more highly punitive toward criminals, and more racially and ethnically prejudiced—and religious!—to boot. In the United States, guess what? Republicans cluster at the high end of the RWA Scale whereas Democrats range across the scale.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb102004.shtml

Am I to understand that someone could be proud of this? A little OT, but not -- Because the rest of the sane world would like to understand why some Americans defend BushCo behavior, such as domestic spying without a warrant.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, that's not quite accurate.

Yes, it is exactly the choice that they are making. They are supporting a government unaccountable to the people, and citizens who are at the mercy of a government that answers to no one.

Are you an American citizen?

If die-hard Bush supporters are, generally, far right-leaning persons, then they typically score high on the RWA scale.

What is the RWA scale?

I disagree, it's possibly the single most common thread in American history.

Liberty and freedom have always had enemies.

 

[edward]

Am I to understand that someone could be proud of this? A little OT, but not -- Because the rest of the sane world would like to understand why some Americans defend BushCo behavior, such as domestic spying without a warrant.

Or an executive order giving Cheney power to classify information at his will. Also now known as Libbys new defense. see below
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051104.html
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113962394427971509-ydWRY_4tyZ2tAJcCsfbEBc_qD7A_20070210.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

February 16, 2006, 8:41 a.m.
The Little-Noticed Order That Gave Dick Cheney New Power
Have you ever heard of Executive Order 13292?

In addition to discussing his hunting accident, Vice President Dick Cheney, in his interview on the Fox News Channel Wednesday, also pointed to a little-known but enormously consequential expansion of vice-presidential power that has come about as a result of the Bush administration's war on terror.

Near the end of the interview, Fox anchor Brit Hume brought up a controversy arising from the CIA-leak case, in which prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in court papers that former top Cheney aide Lewis Libby testified he had been authorized "by his superiors" to disclose information about the classified National Intelligence Estimate to members of the press. "Is it your view that a Vice President has the authority to declassify information?" Hume asked.

"There is an executive order to that effect," Cheney said.

"There is?"

"Yes."

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602160841.asp


The way I see it, Executive 13292 only gives Cheney the authority to classify information, not declassify information as Cheney suggests in relation to the Valery Plame incident, and libbys leaking of that information.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

Is this still America or did I take a wrong turn somewhere. Could Cheney have legally given Libby the permission to release information that would out a CIA operative in order to discredit her husbands classified testimony about the non existence of yellow cake??
Dam this whole administration is so totally Bizarre it is beyond Orwell.

 

[turbo]

Is this still America or did I take a wrong turn somewhere.

This is what is left of America after the Military-Industrial Complex steals everything of value. Eisenhower warned us about this when he left office, and the creeps inside the beltway have been trying to make the prophecy come true ever since, lining their pockets and abusing their authority shamelessly.

 

[SOS2008]

Senator: White House agrees to FISA changes
No specifics on foreign surveillance tweak, which will 'fix' NSA program
Associated Press
Updated: 4:11 p.m. ET Feb. 16, 2006

WASHINGTON - Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts said Thursday he has worked out an agreement with the White House to change U.S. law regarding the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program and provide more information about it to Congress.

...The deal comes as the committee was set to meet about whether to open an investigation into the hotly disputed program. Roberts indicated the deal may eliminate the need for such an inquiry. Democrats have been demanding an investigation but some Republicans don’t want to tangle the panel in a testy election-year probe.

“Whether or not an investigation is the right thing to do at this particular time, I am not sure,” Roberts told reporters while heading into the meeting.

...The Judiciary Committee has been looking into the legality of the National Security Agency’s program. In a heated daylong hearing on Feb. 6, four Republicans joined the committee’s Democrats in raising questions about whether President Bush went too far in authorizing the wiretapping without court warrants.

Specter wants the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the program’s constitutionality.

Reports have indicated that Comey and others had reservations about the program in 2004. White House Chief of Staff Andy Card and Gonzales, then the White House counsel, visited Ashcroft about those issues while Ashcroft was in the hospital for gallstone pancreatitis.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11393473/

Good for Specter -- at least there is one honest Republican. If Bush has broken a law, he needs to answer for that. "Fixing" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to fit BushCo's agenda does not negate the breaking of the law as it stood at that time.

If you go back up to post #197 and click on the link to the transcript, Roberts stated that FISA does not need to be changed. Only days later he has made a complete flip-flop in an attempt to have changes accepted in lieu of an investigation. Roberts needs to be removed from his position in Congress, and removed from power completely. He is an example of all that is detestable about the GOP and the push for no accountability in our government.

 

[SOS2008]

Or an executive order giving Cheney power to classify information at his will. Also now known as Libbys new defense. see below
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051104.html
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113962394427971509-ydWRY_4tyZ2tAJcCsfbEBc_qD7A_20070210.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602160841.asp

The way I see it, Executive 13292 only gives Cheney the authority to classify information, not declassify information as Cheney suggests in relation to the Valery Plame incident, and libbys leaking of that information.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

Is this still America or did I take a wrong turn somewhere. Could Cheney have legally given Libby the permission to release information that would out a CIA operative in order to discredit her husbands classified testimony about the non existence of yellow cake??

Dam this whole administration is so totally Bizarre it is beyond Orwell.

Excellent point, but I have posted my reply (post #119) under the Bush NOT Honest thread, since this gets into the Plame leak.

 

[edward]

Excellent point, but I have posted my reply (post #119) under the Bush NOT Honest thread, since this gets into the Plame leak.

I realize that this thread wasn't the best place to put this post, but I am seeing a pattern in the Bush administration, and everything all fits together in one outrageous disgraceful circle of people.

We have many threads about the Bush administration, but notice that most all of them combined have involved less than one dozen people; those insiders who are running this country into the ground, that cabal of greed and corruption.

 

[crazycalhoun]

You must realize this is coming from someone who thinks a below-average author like Clancy is a great author.

Damn, you're the friendly type.

Someone needs to take a literature class to put things in proper perspective.

So I can take a class to put things in perspective? How stereotypical of you to say so. ;)

Am I to understand that someone could be proud of this?

Sure. Who wants to be a wishy, washy, disrespectful, kitty-ass punk?

 

[crazycalhoun]

Yes, it is exactly the choice that they are making. They are supporting a government unaccountable to the people, and citizens who are at the mercy of a government that answers to no one.

I think that's your opinion, and if not exaggerated in your mind then definitely so in the facts.

Are you an American citizen?

Yes.

What is the RWA scale?

It's a measure of right-wing authoritarianism.

Liberty and freedom have always had enemies.

Yeah, but I don't think we're going to agree on who or what amounts to a threat.

 

[edward]

Is this humorus or a tradgedy, I can't really decide. Things they are a changin.

Compare and contrast:

1995: Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), then chair of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, investigated whether taxpayers were footing the cost of stationery and postage for the fan club dedicated to President Clinton’s cat, Socks. (They were not - and it turns out Barbara Bush’s dog Millie had a fan club too.)

2005: Two weeks ago, President Bush admitted he willfully flouted a law that requires him to get warrants before wiretapping U.S. citizens. His justification for ignoring the law appears to be nobless oblige. In reaction, Republicans in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced on Friday that they are planning “oversight” hearings into the matter.
The president has admitted he broke the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) hundreds of times. Isn’t it a bit late for “oversight?”

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2005/1...rsight-on-pres-bushs-admitted-illegal-spying/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think that's your opinion, and if not exaggerated in your mind then definitely so in the facts.

Oversight is absolutely required. There can be no doubt on this point and the courts agree; as we are beginning to see. That is also what the FISA laws are for, so we already knew this. And even many Republicans have turned on Bush on this point.

"Trust us" is not in the Constitution. There is no doubt and this is not a matter of opinion.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Oversight is absolutely required. There can be no doubt on this point and the courts agree; as we are beginning to see.

There is no controlling case law on this point, and we did well without intelligence oversight for decades before the permanent select committees on intelligence were formed a quarter of a century ago.

That is also what the FISA laws are for, so we already knew this. And even many Republicans have turned on Bush on this point.

No US President has held that FISA is binding on his Article II, Section 2 power to collect intelligence and conduct strategic services. No Court has ruled on the matter.

"Trust us" is not in the Constitution.

This is a non sequitur. Trust isn't at issue here. The President's power is.

There is no doubt and this is not a matter of opinion.

Even so, I would have to disagree.

 

[SOS2008]

Hopefully members of Congress won't be a bunch of "wishy, washy, disrespectful, kitty-ass punk" representatives to the American people:

...a growing number of Republicans say the program appears to violate the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Some Republicans are also skeptical of the Bush administration's assertion that it has the inherent constitutional authority to conduct the eavesdropping, and that Congress authorized the program when it passed a resolution after Sept. 11 giving the president authority to use military force to defend the nation.

In the House, Republicans on the Intelligence Committee have agreed to open an inquiry and are debating how broad it should be.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/18/MNGRIHAU2C1.DTL

 

[crazycalhoun]

Hopefully members of Congress won't be a bunch of "wishy, washy, disrespectful, kitty-ass punk" representatives to the American people:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/18/MNGRIHAU2C1.DTL

I don't think anyone, including the President, disagrees that the White House is bucking FISA. Two questions remain, whether he has the authority to do so and if he does whether it makes some political sense to amend FISA to give Congressional and judicial cover to the Administration. We already know this Administration has sought out Congressional support for such action in 2001. Looks like Sen. Roberts and friends, with a Republican majority in the Senate, now have an opening to heal the breach. And to belabor a point, the courts haven't even decided whether or not they have jurisdiction in this matter...largely because the parties with standing to--challenge FISA (namely, the executive branch)--has bothered to do so and no one's sought an injunction against the activity. All in all, a pretty sweet move by the President.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As I said, this is not a matter of opinion

CBS) WASHINGTON A federal judge dealt a setback to the Bush administration on its warrantless surveillance program, ordering the Justice Department on Thursday to release documents about the highly classified effort within 20 days or compile a list of what it is withholding. [continued]

http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/topstories_story_047155945.html

And we have only just begun. Legislation will be passed to ammend the FISA laws, and hopefully Bush will be impeached over this or perhaps one the many pending legal problems that he faces.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One can spin to a point, but eventually "a lie told often enough" is no longer sufficient.

 

[SOS2008]

Wilson chairs the intelligence subcommittee that oversees the NSA. Her call last week for a full congressional inquiry spurred the White House decision to change course and brief all members of the intelligence committees on the highly classified program.

Another force among Republicans is Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. A hearing he chaired Feb. 6 to hear testimony from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales persuaded many Republicans, including Wilson, that the president's legal rationale for the program was "weak."

Specter has scheduled additional hearings for when Congress returns. The first, on Feb. 28, will feature a panel of legal experts.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.nsa18feb18,0,4625613.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

Yes, please, let's hear from legal experts. And let's investigate who was being monitored and how. Then we can say if the President was acting legally or not.

 

[crazycalhoun]

And we have only just begun.

Judge Kennedy ruled that Justice had to respond in some way to EPIC's FOIA request in a month's time. This is not unusual.

Legislation will be passed to ammend the FISA laws, and hopefully Bush will be impeached over this or perhaps one the many pending legal problems that he faces.

1. FISA is just one entry in public law, not a set of laws.
2. How are you going to impeach President Bush with a clear Republican majority in the House?

One can spin to a point, but eventually "a lie told often enough" is no longer sufficient.

I agree. Unfortunately, it seems the Left is nevertheless intent on keeping the spin going.

 

[SOS2008]

Ah yes, the so-called "Leftspeak."

...In true INGSOC fashion, the administration has used Bushspeak to spin a story broken by The New York Times about a domestic-spying program run by the National Security Agency and approved by executive order soon after 9/11 into a necessary program needed to weed out the deeply integrated terrorists living next door.

The use of powerful and well-placed words and images worked for INGSOC. Its slogan — war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength — fits like a truncheon in the cradle of shattered bone with Bush's recent State of the Union address:

War is peace

"There is no peace in retreat."

Freedom is slavery

"The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America."

Ignorance is strength

"... We have benefited from responsible criticism and counsel offered by members of Congress of both parties ... Yet, there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure."

Political doublespeak is nothing new, but has become a real threat to democracy in the hands of this administration. Bush has taken communication strategy to new heights, said David Domke, associate professor of communications at the University of Washington.

"This administration has become preeminent in crafting messages for political gain," Domke said.

The Republicans have made no secret about what they will run on this year. A recent Pew poll showed that Americans believe the Democrats could lead the nation better on every issue except national security. Bush aide Karl Rove has given speeches about national security and the president skips across the nation talking about the importance of spying on Americans to keep us safe.

This strategy works only if the electorate is fearful that a hostile world is ready to overrun America. Bush's fear-mongering resembles a version of INGSOC's Two Minutes (of) Hate, in which party members watch a video of legions of the enemy army marching behind a bleating political enemy.

American democracy has buckled under the weight of Americans voting scared, a weak press diluted because of consolidation by mega-public companies, and no real political alternative.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002810282_ryan17.html

Please re-read my post #197 and what the Democrats on the intelligence committee have had to say. Then please point out exactly where the spin is. You will find the spin is that of "Bushspeak." Such right-wing posts completely lack in credibility, and therefore are not deserving of reply.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Ah yes, the so-called "Leftspeak."

Yes, you posted such a fine example of it. Nah, seriously, I mean what was that nonsense anyway? A random collection of Orwellian buzz phrases and Bush quotes in search of a point?

Please re-read my post #197 and what the Democrats on the intelligence committee have had to say. Then please point out exactly where the spin is.

How about you repost what you had to say in post 197 and get back to me?

You will find the spin is that of "Bushspeak."

And we'll probably disagree on that point.

Such right-wing posts completely lack in credibility...

Such left-wing posts completely lack credibility.

...and therefore are not deserving of reply.

Still trying to pick up that habit.

 

[SOS2008]

After two months of insisting that President Bush did not need court approval to authorize the wiretapping of calls between the United States and suspected terrorists abroad, the administration is trying to resist pressure for judicial review while pushing for retroactive Congressional approval of the program.

The latest Republican to join the growing chorus of those seeking oversight is Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

----------

Four other leading Senate Republicans, including the heads of three committees — Judiciary, Homeland Security and Intelligence — have said they would prefer some degree of judicial oversight. Their positions, if they hold, could make the negotiations more difficult.

The White House is hoping that talks will lead to legislation to approve the program, much as Congress eventually approved Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Mr. Bush expanded on his defense of the program in Tampa, Fla., on Friday, saying he believed that he had to take extraordinary steps in a time of war.

----------

But two days before Mr. Bush spoke, the White House opened the door to talks in the hope of avoiding a full-scale Congressional investigation. According to lawmakers involved in the discussions, a number of senior officials, including Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, and Andrew H. Card Jr., the chief of staff, began contacting members of the Senate to determine what it would take to derail the investigation.

----------

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, has drafted legislation that would require the FISA court to review the constitutionality of the eavesdropping program. Mr. Specter says he is sympathetic to the administration's concern that briefing lawmakers could lead to leaks, which is why he wants to turn the matter over to the courts.

But he insists that the eavesdropping must be subjected to a rigorous constitutional review and has said that anything short of that would be "window dressing."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/20/politics/20nsa.html

Lindsey Graham is looking better and better to me as a presidential candidate in 2008.

It is interesting to me that Bush continues to invoke "a time of war" as his excuse for breaking the law. If I recall, he said the war was over...and I thought the war was in Iraq. Oh but that's right, he keeps insisting (in insinuation) that the invasion of Iraq is in retribution for 9-11 and a war on terrorism. Also, I see no dire need (not even in comparison to the Civil War) for his requests. What a piece of work.

 

[crazycalhoun]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/20/politics/20nsa.html

Lindsey Graham is looking better and better to me as a presidential candidate in 2008.

I disagree, although on other grounds. I'm not comfortable with culling Presidential candidates from the Senate period. Same goes for Frist and McCain.

It is interesting to me that Bush continues to invoke "a time of war" as his excuse for breaking the law.

I disagree with your point that the President has broken any law.

If I recall, he said the war was over...and I thought the war was in Iraq.

I don't think he ever said the war was over, and the President has consistently stated the Iraq invasion was conducted as part of US grand strategy against Islamist terrorism.

Oh but that's right, he keeps insisting (in insinuation) that the invasion of Iraq is in retribution for 9-11 and a war on terrorism.

The President has never claimed that any part of the War on Terror has been or will be conducted for the purpose of retribution. I think the term you're looking for is "threat elimination."

Also, I see no dire need (not even in comparison to the Civil War) for his requests. What a piece of work.

We'll have to disagree here as well. The comparison to Ex Parte Milligan is surprisingly apt for this Administration. Given the disapointment of White House communications these past five years, I hope this is a sign that things are turning around.

 

[turbo]

I disagree with your point that the President has broken any law.

You may disagree, but you are wrong. Bush et al have routinely broken laws and international agreements, claiming "executive powers in a time of war". There is no war - there is only US aggression against Islamic countries, which (push comes to shove) engenders insurgencies. If someone invaded the US, many of us would attack the invaders, automatically becoming "terrorists" in Bush-speak.

I don't think he ever said the war was over, and the President has consistently stated the Iraq invasion was conducted as part of US grand strategy against Islamist terrorism.

If he really believed that (and he doesn't) he would have launched a pre-emptive strike against Saudi Arabia, from where almost all the highjackers came. There were no Iraqis on the planes, there were no Al Quaida cells active in Iraq, and Saddam had no connection with them, nor would he, since he actively fought rise of Islamic fundamentalism. During the Reagan/Bush administration, Saddam fought the Iranians, drained the wetlands sustaining the Shiites in the east, and murdered Kurds using US-supplied weaponry and satellite intelligence. It wasn't until he attacked Kuwait that he became a "bad" man in the eyes of the Republicans.

The President has never claimed that any part of the War on Terror has been or will be conducted for the purpose of retribution. I think the term you're looking for is "threat elimination."

I think the term you're looking for is "war profiteering", something that the Bush family is very good at.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

When Cheney leaves office, the Halliburton board will carry him back into the boardroom on their shoulders. This administration is a pack of lying crooks, and we are all the poorer for their presence. I'd hate to see Dennis Hastert as president, but Bush and Cheney both should be impeached.

 

[crazycalhoun]

You may disagree, but you are wrong.

I don't think I am.

Bush et al have routinely broken laws and international agreements, claiming "executive powers in a time of war".

I think they'd disagree on both points.

There is no war - there is only US aggression against Islamic countries, which (push comes to shove) engenders insurgencies.

Your first point is philosophical, and the second is a policy criticism. Legally, the Executive and the Judiciary, since Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, agree that the US is in a state of international affairs where the President can invoke his war powers. [1]

If someone invaded the US, many of us would attack the invaders, automatically becoming "terrorists" in Bush-speak.

Which is a non sequitur. I'm not going to debate, discuss, or otherwise engage you on the ethics of the Administration's policy--not in this thread at least.

If he really believed that (and he doesn't)...

I'm pretty sure he does.

...he would have launched a pre-emptive strike against Saudi Arabia, from where almost all the highjackers came.

To what strategic and operational end?

There were no Iraqis on the planes, there were no Al Quaida cells active in Iraq, and Saddam had no connection with them, nor would he, since he actively fought rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

We'll disagree on the point whether Saddam had a relationship with al Qaeda, but even so this is a policy and intelligence issue, not a legal one.

During the Reagan/Bush administration, Saddam fought the Iranians, drained the wetlands sustaining the Shiites in the east, and murdered Kurds using US-supplied weaponry and satellite intelligence.

He also had his conventional force defeated by a US-led coalition in 1991. I'm not sure what your point is.

It wasn't until he attacked Kuwait that he became a "bad" man in the eyes of the Republicans.

Can you point to a single instance where he was considered a "good" man in the eyes of Republicans?

I think the term you're looking for is "war profiteering"...

And I think that's another non sequitur. I'd appreciate it if you'd try to focus on the discussion at hand. On the other hand, if you'd like to open a general discussion about the wisdom of commerce between the free world and nation-states with unsavory governments, have it at. Maybe we could have a specific discussion about the Kennedy family's political support for Nazi Germany.

...something that the Bush family is very good at.

We'll definitely disagree on that point.

When Cheney leaves office, the Halliburton board will carry him back into the boardroom on their shoulders.

Possibly. So?

This administration is a pack of lying crooks, and we are all the poorer for their presence.

I think they're a pack of capable patriots, and we're all the better for their presence. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'd hate to see Dennis Hastert as president, but Bush and Cheney both should be impeached.

I'm pretty sure they shouldn't, and even more sure they won't be.

 

[SOS2008]

If certain members would stick to facts instead of personal opinions and one-line antagonism it would be helpful toward staying on topic. So briefly I'll address these points:

President Bush Proclaims End to Major Combat Ops in Iraq
By Kathleen T. Rhem
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 1, 2003 - Major combat operations in Iraq are over, and America and her allies have prevailed, President Bush said this evening on the flight deck of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/05/iraq-030501-afps04.htm

That was in regard to the invasion, not the occupation. Nonetheless, as stated above by turbo-1, since the invasion was conducted contrary to international law it is defined as an act of aggression, not war.

The Iraq Connection
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

The "war on terrorism" therefore has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. Bush has proclaimed himself to be a "war time president" based on the invasion of Iraq. Aside from the point made above that an illegal invasion is therefore just an act of aggression, how does this give him war time powers to spy domestically in regard to the so-called war on terror, which is unrelated?

Regardless, as stated in post #197, amendments by definition take precedent over articles in the constitution. Therefore the Fourth Amendment negates Article 2. And some argue the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 and updates since negate that--so the Bushs**t power is standing in a long line. As for the Congressional Joint Resolution (to use Armed Forces against Iraq), I doubt you can find a Republican who will tell you he/she signed this to give Bush authority for warrantless wiretaps. This resolution was signed to deal with WMD. Since Bush misled Congress in regard to WMD to get their approval, it is void--it is breach of contract.

BushCo doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, and now is trying to wriggle out of an investigation. What's the matter Junior, do you have something to hide? I smell an impeachable offense (though I've lost count how many so far). And at this point I would take anyone as president. It is very important that an example be made, and made now--that the American people will not tolerate such lies and corruption.

You think meth is a problem? We need to get people off Kool-Aid.

 

[crazycalhoun]

If certain members would stick to facts instead of personal opinions and one-line antagonism it would be helpful toward staying on topic.

"One line antagonism." That's cute. Of course I disagree that concise rebuttal is necessarily antagonizing, or that personal opinion--which you offer abundantly--is distracting us from reasonable discussion.

That was in regard to the invasion, not the occupation.

What's the issue? Major combat operations have ended, or when was the last time you heard of two ADE strength operating in single operational concert in Iraq?

Nonetheless, as stated above by turbo-1, since the invasion was conducted contrary to international law it is defined as an act of aggression, not war.

I'm glad you share turbo-1's personal opinion. Once again, it's a philosophical point (on the definition of war) and in the US it is legally irrelevant, as the Courts have already recognized that the President is and rightfully has asserted war powers.

The "war on terrorism" therefore has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.

Except it does. And Hussein's regime did have connections with the al Qaeda, as both the NCT and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded. [1, http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec12.pdf].

Bush has proclaimed himself to be a "war time president" based on the invasion of Iraq. Aside from the point made above that an illegal invasion is therefore just an act of aggression, how does this give him war time powers to spy domestically in regard to so-called war on terror, which is unrelated?

Ask the Supreme Court.

Regardless, as stated in post #197, amendments by definition take precedent over articles in the constitution. Therefore the Fourth Amendment negates Article 2.

I think a more accurate description of the device states "amendments add or alter the implications of existing legal language." And "Fourth Amendment negates Article 2" is such torturuous use of the English language that it doesn't even express a sensible thought, let alone a conclusion supported by either your premise or mine.

And some argue the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 and updates since negate that...

So public law negates constitutional law? That's an interesting legal theory. How does that work?

the Bush**** power is standing in a long line.

I'm at a complete loss as to what you wanted to convey here. Moving on...

As for the Congressional Joint Resolution (to use Armed Forces against Iraq), I doubt you can find a Republican who will tell you he/she signed this to give Bush authority for warrantless wiretaps.

Porter Goss, for one.

This resolution was signed to deal with WMD.

Yes, specifically the threat posed by Iraq's continuing refusal to abide by UN Security Council resolutions governing its disarmament. The authorization also references the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act and the threat of Iraq to her neighbors. Additionally, the actual authorization language reads as follows: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107rC7HvU:: ]

Since Bush mislead Congress in regard to WMD to get their approval, it is void--it is breach of contract.

I think you might be confusing legislative with fiduciary.

BushCo doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, and now is trying to wriggle out of an investigation.

On the contrary, I don't think any of your points are powerful enough to pass muster in any court of law, and the Bush Administration has Justice and the White House counsel to fall back on.

What's the matter Junior, do you have something to hide? I smell an impeachable offense (though I've lost count how many so far).

I'm not sure how this sort of language is supposed to energize a Republican controlled House to remit charges to the Senate.

And at this point I would take anyone as president. It is very important that an example be made, and made now that the American people will not tolerate such lies and corruption.

I understand why some are so upset at the President. I don't pretend to know why, or pretend to have much respect for what I see as the jumble of raving lunacy girding up much of it. But was it absolutely necessary to reenact this rant for the purposes of this discussion?

You think meth is a problem? We need to get people off Kool-Aid.

Now there's a non sequitur.

 

[SOS2008]

So back to the topic and provision of sources:

The uproar on Capitol Hill over President Bush's secret program to use the National Security Administration to spy on American citizens without a warrant continues to grow. But the NSA program - and the President's defense of it - are much more worrisome than many in Washington realize.

The administration makes two arguments to support the spying program. The first is specious. The second is nothing less than a threat to the rule of law.

...The first argument is that Congress "implicitly authorized" Bush to spy on citizens by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), the law passed right after 9/11 to authorize military action against Al Qaeda.

Of course, the text of the AUMF says absolutely nothing about domestic surveillance. FISA, by contrast, comprehensively regulates wiretapping for intelligence purposes, including detailed provisions on domestic surveillance during times of war.

Under standard principles of statutory interpretation, a general law is not read to replace an earlier, more specific law in the absence of some evidence that Congress intended to change the law. But nothing in the AUMF's text or legislative history indicates a congressional intent to override the detailed, carefully constructed FISA procedures.

In fact, during deliberations on the AUMF, Congress explicitly rejected an administration proposal to include a grant of authority to the President to exercise domestic war-making powers. Now Bush claims the statute empowers him in precisely the way Congress refused.

...Indeed, the President has already made clear that he believes the scope of his inherent powers permit him to violate other laws than FISA. When he signed the recently enacted McCain Amendment forbidding the torture of detainees, for example, Bush declared that his "inherent authority" as Commander-in-Chief still permitted him to employ torture at his discretion.

Quite literally, President Bush claims to be above the law. Americans inclined to trust President Bush should realize, however, that the precedent set here will empower future presidents. Do we really want all future presidents to have the power to disobey basic criminal laws?

President Bush's NSA program is illegal and needs to be stopped. Even more importantly, Congress must take a strong stand against Bush's dangerous reading of the Constitution.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060217/cm_huffpost/015872;_ylt=A86.I2KJUPZD6a4AuQr9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

Boy, a lot of people out there are just ranting away, with no research or analysis of the constitution and rule of laws. Um, no -- That would be Bush.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Boy, a lot of people out there are just ranting away, with no research or analysis of the constitution and rule of laws. Um, no -- That would be Bush.

Um, no, that would be Adam Winkler, blogger at the Huffington Post. I hope you don't intend to pass this off as authority or as an attempt to get us to argue someone who either can't or won't respond.

 

[SOS2008]

In regard to the definition of war, which was covered long ago in PF, but I'll repeat some of it as an example of how to post more than just one's personal opinion:

Aggression: (1) An unprovoked attack; the first attack in a quarrel; an assault, an inroad. (2) The practice of setting upon anyone; the making of an attack or assault.
----Oxford English Dictionary

Versus Just war:

Just-war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification can be either theoretical or historical. The theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically justifying war and forms of warfare. The historical aspect, or the “just war tradition” deals with the historical body of rules or agreements applied (or at least existing) in various wars across the ages. For instance international agreements such as the Geneva and Hague conventions are historical rules aimed at limiting certain kinds of warfare. It is the role of ethics to examine these institutional agreements for their philosophical coherence as well as to inquire into whether aspects of the conventions ought to be changed.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm

Some more reading of interest:

Defining the Crime of Aggression Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court - Irina Kaye Müller-Schieke

Information Warfare and the New Challenges to Waging Just War - M Hirschland

Bush has nothing except what he grants himself, which we see repeatedly and throughout his administration.

 

[crazycalhoun]

In regard to the definition of war, which was covered long ago in PF, but I'll repeat some of it as an example of how to post more than just one's personal opinion:

Aggression: (1) An unprovoked attack; the first attack in a quarrel; an assault, an inroad. (2) The practice of setting upon anyone; the making of an attack or assault.

I think we'll disagree on whether or not the invasion was unprovoked. That is whether Hussein's refusal to abide by the UN Security Council resolutions constituted sufficient provocation. In the end, that's a policy and legal judgement call; diving to the dictionary doesn't absolve you from at least putting in the same effort as the Administration in making your case.

Versus Just war:

Assuming we at least share the notion that there is a legal way to wage war, I think we'll have to disagree that this Administration has waged one illegally.

Bush has nothing except what he grants himself, which we see repeatedly and throughout his administration.

Bold does not make the case.

 

[SOS2008]

It isn't about reference to a blog (though many bloggers are viewed as serious journalists, and some serious journalists like Helen Thomas and David Gregory blog) or about highlighting a specific point. To support an argument one can refer to primary documents or secondary sources. Of course it is preferable to use credible sources, but that is not to say that a biased source cannot be factual. The point is -- members who never provide evidence, at least once in awhile, make it impossible for other members to carry on meaningful debate. As with trolls, after awhile it becomes clear to everyone that it is a waste of time to reply to that member.

The ECHELON system is not designed to eavesdrop on a particular individual's e-mail or fax link. Rather, the system works by indiscriminately intercepting very large quantities of communications and using computers to identify and extract messages of interest from the mass of unwanted ones. A chain of secret interception facilities has been established around the world to tap into all the major components of the international telecommunications networks. Some monitor communications satellites, others land-based communications networks, and others radio communications. ECHELON links together all these facilities, providing the US and its allies with the ability to intercept a large proportion of the communications on the planet.

http://jya.com/echelon.htm

But apart from directing their ears towards terrorists and rogue states, 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 in violation of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution – are consistently impeded by very elaborate and complex legal arguments and privilege claims by the intelligence agencies and the US government. The guardians and caretakers of our liberties, our duly elected political representatives, give scarce attention to these activities, let alone the abuses that occur under their watch. Among the activities that the ECHELON targets are: Political spying and Commercial espionage.

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html

Aside from what transpires in regard to the White House, I am watching representatives in Congress, as we all should, with the upcoming 2006 elections in mind.

 

[crazycalhoun]

It isn't about reference to a blog (though many bloggers are viewed as serious journalists, certainly taken more seriously than say...Ann Coulter)

You may take Adam Winkler seriously or think of Ann Coulter with contempt. Others may disagree.

...or about highlighting a specific point. To support an argument one can refer to primary documents or secondary sources.

Can I refer to my own posts?

Of course it is preferable to use credible sources, but that is not to say that a biased source cannot be factual.

No doubt. Of course, referencing Winkler does nothing but support the idea that some other guy shares your perspective.

The point is -- members who never provide evidence, at least once in awhile, make it impossible for other members to carry on meaningful debate.

I'd argue that as it stands your standard of evidence would cover restating my own views as fact.

As with trolls, after awhile it becomes clear to everyone that it is a waste of time to reply to that member.

Don't worry. I'm still interested in our conversation.

Aside from what transpires in regard to the White House, I am watching representatives in Congress, as we all should, with the upcoming 2006 elections in mind.

Bah, we got plenty of time.

 

[SOS2008]

Here are some more sources just from 2005 (Part I):

· James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, "Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/p...4e4101aee&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) New York Times (RSS), December 15, 2005.
· James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, "Bush Let's U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts," (http://nytimes.com/2005/12/16/polit...=1134795600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print) New York Times (print), December 16, 2005; (Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm)) .
· Dan Eggen, "Bush Authorized Domestic Spying. Post-9/11 Order Bypassed Special Court," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021_pf.html) Washington Post, December 16, 2005.
· "Bush 'backed spying on Americans'" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4534488.stm) and "Q&A: US domestic spying row," (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4536018.stm) BBC, December 16, 2005: "After allegations that President Bush authorised a US intelligence agency to eavesdrop on American citizens without court approval, the BBC News website considers some key questions."
· Tom Regan, "Bush allowed spying on Americans in US after 9/11. Presidential order authorized NSA to eavesdrop without court warrants," (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1216/dailyUpdate.html ) Christian Science Monitor, December 16, 2005.
· Christine Hauser, "Bush Declines to Discuss Report on Eavesdropping," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16cnd-spy.html) New York Times, December 16, 2005.
· "N.Y. Times statement defends NSA reporting. 'The question was not why we would publish it, but why we would not'," (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/16/nytimes.statement/) CNN, December 16, 2005.
· Laura Rozen, "A scoop deferred," (http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003287.html) War and Piece, December 16, 2005.
· "Rice Denies U.S. Broke Law Amid Report Bush Authorized Spying," (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=astkV2gMsvUY&refer=us ) Bloomberg News, December 16, 2005.
· "Specter Says Senate to Probe Report U.S. Broke Law on Spying," (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aJFRC0JDD0lY&refer=us ) Bloomberg News, December 16, 2005.
· "Bush spying claim causes US storm," (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4536310.stm) BBC, December 16, 2005.
· Larry Johnson, "Spying on Americans and John Bolton," (http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/16/142620/20 ) TPM Cafe, December 16, 2005: "During the confirmation hearings of John Bolton as the U.S. representative to the United Nations, it came to light that the NSA had freely revealed intercepted conversations of U.S. citizens to Bolton while he served at the State Department. ... More generally, Newsweek reports that from January 2004 to May 2005, the NSA supplied intercepts and names of 10,000 U.S. citizens to policy-makers at many departments, other U.S. intelligence services, and law enforcement agencies."
· Larry Abramson, "Bush Said to Approve Post-Sept. 11 Eavesdropping," (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5056518) NPR, December 16, 2005.
· "Domestic Spying and a Delayed Report," (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5056871) NPR, December 16, 2005.
· "Politics with Juan Williams: Spying and the Patriot Act," (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5056874) NPR, December 16, 2005.
· jesselee, "George Miller on Domestic Spying," (http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/004073.html ) The Stakeholder, December 16, 2005.
· Morton H. Halperin, "President Bush and Domestic Spying by NSA," (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1306495 ) Center for American Progress, December 16, 2005.
· Will Bunch, "The Big Stall: How Bush gamed the media to get re-elected in 2004," (http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002576.html) Attytood, December 16, 2005.
· Rob, "Action Alerts: Tell Congress to kill the Patriot Act until we get answers about Bush's illegal domestic spying," (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/action-alerts-tell-congress-to-kill.html) AMERICAblog, December 16, 2005.
· John Aravosis, "If Bush thought eavesdropping laws were too onerous post 9/11, he was required to ask Congress to CHANGE THE LAW, not just violate it for 3 years," (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/if-bush-thought-eavesdropping-laws.html) AMERICAblog, December 16, 2005.
· Hilzoy, " ... This is against the law," (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007789.php) Political Animal, December 16, 2005.
· georgia10, "NY Times Self-Censorship, AKA 'the President's Press'," (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/16/194744/78) Daily Kos, December 16, 2005.
· "Jack Cafferty on the administration: Just Do it!" (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/16.html#a6350) Crooks and Liars, December 16, 2005.
· Jim Romenesko, "Bush: NYT spying story isn't the day's top news," (http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=10800 ) Poynter Online, December 16, 2005: "From the transcript of Jim Lehrer's interview with President Bush, to air Friday night on PBS."
· Kelli Arena, "Bush won't confirm report NSA spied on Americans," (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/16/bush.nsa/index.html) CNN, December 17, 2005 (8:33 AM EST).
· Katherine Shrader, "Bush Approved Eavesdropping, Official Says," (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1415697) Associated Press (ABC News), December 17, 2005 (9:51 AM EST): Bush "has personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times since October 2001, a senior intelligence official said Friday night."
· Maura Reynolds and Greg Miller, "Privacy Rights and National Security: After revelations the U.S. spied on its own citizens, the Senate puts the brakes on controversial post-9/11 measures intended to fight terrorism. Surveillance: Senators demand Bush explain secret eavesdropping," (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/12/17/MNGN6G9NE51.DTL) San Francisco Chronicle, December 17, 2005.
· "Bush stands firm over spying row. President George W Bush insists he has not compromised civil liberties, after it was alleged he authorised people in the US to be bugged without a warrant," (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4536838.stm) BBC, December 17, 2005 (13:49 GMT).
· "Bush admits he authorised spying," (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4538286.stm) BBC, December 17, 2005 (16:14 GMT).
· Scott Shane, "Behind Power, One Principle as Bush Pushes Prerogatives," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/politics/17legal.html) New York Times, December 17, 2005.
· Dan Eggen and Charles Lane, "On Hill, Anger and Calls for Hearings Greet News of Stateside Surveillance," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601825.html) Washington Post, December 17, 2005.
· Judd Legum, "Yesterday, Bush Said Confirming NYT Story 'Would Compromise Our Ability To Protect The People'," (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/17/protect-the-people/) Think Progress, December 17, 2005: "For 24 hours, Bush and other top administration officials refused to confirm the existence of their secret domestic spying program, arguing that doing so would endanger the American people. ... This morning, President Bush not only confirmed the existence of the program but provided details about how it worked. (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/graham-no-reference/) ... This demonstrates that the administration’s initial refusal to comment was not motivated by security concerns. If that was the case Bush still wouldn’t have been able to comment this morning. Rather, the refusal to comment was a public relations strategy. When they decided it wasn’t working, they scrapped it and tried something else."
· "Democratic senator says Bush violated law with wiretaps: He is a president, not a king," (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democratic_senator_says_Bush_violated_law_1217.html) The Raw Story, December 17, 2005: "From a release issued to RAW STORY by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) in response to President Bush's admission Saturday that the president personally authorized wiretaps of individuals who emailed or phoned other countries." Includes Feingold's "Fact Sheet on Domestic Intelligence Wiretaps."
· Deanne Stillman, "The Tippling Point," (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deanne-stillman/the-tippling-point_b_12468.html) The Huffington Post, December 17, 2005.
· smintheus, "Operation Flabbergasted: Let's Watergate Bush," (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/17/233929/95) Daily Kos, December 17, 2005: "This cannot stand. In ordering the NSA to spy secretly on America, George Bush has: overturned United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB23/index2.html#doc7), which prohibits domestic spying by the NSA; violated the federal act which created the FISA (http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html ) court to oversee covert domestic investigations; and trampled upon the Fourth Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/) guarantee against warrantless searches. It cannot stand for a day, much less a month while Congress is in recess." Also see Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007280.php) , Ezra Klein's blog (http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2005/12/fisa.html) , and "January 2005: Gonzales Said Bush Did Not 'Authorize Actions…In Contravention of Our Criminal Statutes'" (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/gonzales-january/) at Think Progress on FISA and this report (http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2002rept.html) on 2002 FISA requests.
· Editorial: "This Call May Be Monitored ... ," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/opinion/18sun1.html?hp) New York Times, December 18, 2005.
· Peter Baker, "President Acknowledges Approving Secretive Eavesdropping. Bush Also Urges Congress to Extend Patriot Act," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700456.html?nav=hcmodule) Washington Post, December 18, 2005.
· Charles Babington, "Domestic Spying Issue Inflames Debate Over Patriot Act Renewal," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121701113.html) Washington Post, December 18, 2005.
· Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer, "Pushing the Limits Of Wartime Powers," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121701233.html?nav=hcmodule) Washington Post, December 18, 2005.
· Editorial: "Spying on Americans," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121701005.html) Washington Post, December 18, 2005.
· "Reid Seeks Probe of Bush Domestic Spying," (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051218/ap_on_go_co/domestic_spying_1;_ylt=AmVgqjlKlrhpMDu4dPNoejRqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl ) Associated Press, December 18, 2005.
· Dana Milbank, "Bush's Fumbles Spur New Talk of Oversight on Hill," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700992.html?nav=hcmodule) Washington Post, December 18, 2005.
· David E. Sanger, "In Address, Bush Says He Ordered Domestic Spying," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/p...l=1&adxnnlx=1134932474-1PowQ0+hICaF804jJDegmQ) New York Times, December 18, 2005.
· Editorial: "Bigger Brother," (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-security18dec18,0,5190326.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials ) Los Angeles Times, December 18, 2005.
· Rick Schmitt and Mary Curtius, "Bush Defends Eavesdropping as Defense Against Terrorism. He vows to continue the newly acknowledged domestic program despite mounting criticism, even from within his own party," (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bush18dec18,0,1170757.story?coll=la-home-headlines ) Los Angeles Times, December 18, 2005.
· David G. Savage and Bob Drogin, "Legality of Wiretaps Remains in Question," (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...dec18,1,966036.story?coll=la-headlines-nation) Los Angeles Times, December 18, 2005.
· Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, "Eavesdropping Effort Began Soon After Sept. 11 Attacks," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/politics/18spy.html) New York Times, December 18, 2005.
· "Condi: I am not a crook! Sorry, I meant: I am not a lawyer!" (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/18.html#a6372) Crooks and Liars, December 18, 2005. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with Tim Russert. WMP link on page; full transcript (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10479765/). Also see "Stumped: Condi Unable to Explain What Gave Bush Authority to Eavesdrop Without Warrant" (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/rice-no-answer/) at Think Progress.
· Laura Rozen, "There's something else about the Bush/NSA warrantless, oversight-less spying on Americans that doesn't make sense," (http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003297.html) War and Piece, December 18, 2005.
· Hilzoy, "Bush and the Separation of Powers," (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007800.php#more) Political Animal, December 18, 2005.
· Nico Pitney, "Former Intel Chairman Graham: White House Made 'No Reference' to NSA Program In Briefings," (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/graham-no-reference/) Think Progress, December 18, 2005.
· Noah Shachtman, "New Tech Behind NSA Snoop Case?" (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002030.html ) DefenseTech.org, December 18, 2005.
· Hope Yen, "Lawmakers Call for Domestic Spying Probe. Democrats and Republicans Call Separately for Congressional Probe Into Domestic Spying Program," (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1418547) Associated Press (ABC News), December 18, 2005.
· "Editorial: Big Brother Bush / The president took a step toward a police state," (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/pp/05352/623818.stm ) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, December 18, 2005.
· Katrina Vanden Heuvel, "Spying and Lying," (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=43492 ) The Nation, December 18, 2005.
· "John McCain: Bush Right to Use NSA," (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/142705.shtml) NewsMax, December 18, 2005.
· "Democrats call for investigation of NSA wiretaps," (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.nsa/index.html) CNN, December 19, 2005.