Eavesdropping Effort Began Soon After Sept. 11 Attacks (New York Times)

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

Eavesdropping Effort Began Soon After Sept. 11 Attacks

By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN
Published: December 18, 2005

WASHINGTON - The National Security Agency first began to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on telephone calls and e-mail messages between the United States and Afghanistan months before President Bush officially authorized a broader version of the agency's special domestic collection program, according to current and former government officials.

The security agency surveillance of telecommunications between the United States and Afghanistan began in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, the officials said.

The agency operation included eavesdropping on communications between Americans and other individuals in the United States and people in Afghanistan without the court-approved search warrants that are normally required for such domestic intelligence activities.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration and senior American intelligence officials quickly decided that existing laws and regulations restricting the government's ability to monitor American communications were too rigid to permit quick and flexible access to international calls and e-mail traffic involving terrorism suspects. Bush administration officials also believed that the intelligence community, including the Central Intelligence Agency and the N.S.A., had been too risk-averse before the attacks and had missed opportunities to prevent them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/politics/18spy.html

[Rose Siding]

1. So not only were the briefings vague and exclusive of key points,

they were superfluous.

The bushbots must know they have been busted.

[rodeodance]

4. Some Sens were informed now saying they wrote opposing letters. They

could not come public cause all info was classified.

[Rose Siding]

11. Which ones? I know Pelosi and Graham disputed bush's lie about

informing them of spying without warrants, but I haven't read about letters. Do they have any specifics of phone spying? -because the named dems have said their briefing was so vague as to not suggest any details of illegality.

[rodeodance]

19. There is an news article about this some place-I do not know where.

[zanne]

22. Uh-Oh.

Now the Republicans will say "Democrats do it too"!

[rodeodance]

30. Reid and Bob Graham got info but not all of it.

[allisonthegreat]

14. let's hope so

This whole administration needs to be investigated..Hell that could take years...but there always is a paper trail...

[iamahaingttta]

2. I just hope nobody is surprised by this shit...

... I mean, you wouldn't be surprised when your dog starts sniffing up fire hydrants, would you?

[rodeodance]

3. "implied war powers"--even George WIll is opposed to this--saying Jr

could apply these expanded powers to anything.
see this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5625832

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

5. "Wartime Powers?" is the current MSNBC front page headline:

Wartime powers?
WP: Bush's admission on domestic spying raises legal questions.

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

[rodeodance]

7. this is the issue-as Bush is implying is has the power to do this in time

of war (war on terror).

[rodeodance]

8. Bush as implies that as long as he thinks he is right he can do the dom-

estic spying.

[rodeodance]

9. btw--thanks for the article.

[area51]

15. war powers

I'm sure George Will won't bother to bring this up, but GW Hoover doesn't have "war powers" b/c the congress never officially declared war.

[rodeodance]

17. Will appeared concerned about Jr's self-expanded use of war powers.

[aquart]

23. Especially since his "war on terra! terra! terra!" can never end.

Bush bastard.

[rodeodance]

6. nominate

[rodeodance]

10. kick

[rodeodance]

12. "Often appearing angry in an eight-minute address,"---nice to see this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=AhTw9bTR.xpShcLg2074I6as0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
Bush Defends Secret Spying in the U.S.

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 39 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Facing angry criticism and challenges to his authority in Congress,
President Bush on Saturday unapologetically defended his administration's right to conduct secret post-Sept. 11 spying in the United States as "critical to saving American lives."

Bush said congressional leaders had been briefed on the operation more than a dozen times. That included Democrats as well as Republicans in the House and Senate, a GOP lawmaker said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she had been told on several occasions that Bush had authorized unspecified activities by the National Security Agency, the nation's largest spy agency. She said she had expressed strong concerns at the time, and that Bush's statement Saturday "raises serious questions as to what the activities were and whether the activities were lawful."

Often appearing angry in an eight-minute address, the president made clear he has no intention of halting his authorizations of the monitoring activities and said public disclosure of the program by the news media had endangered Americans.........

[rodeodance]

13. look what this Inman says (below)---what a chilling thought.

James Bamford, author of two books on the NSA, said the program could be problematic because it bypasses a special court set up by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to authorize eavesdropping on suspected terrorists.

"I didn't hear him specify any legal right, except his right as president, which in a democracy doesn't make much sense," Bamford said in an interview. "Today, what Bush said is he went around the law, which is a violation of the law — which is illegal."

Retired Adm. Bobby Inman, who led the NSA from 1977 to 1981, said Bush's authorization of the eavesdropping would have been justified in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks "because at that point you couldn't get a court warrant unless you could show probable cause."

"Once the Patriot Act was in place, I am puzzled what was the need to continue outside the court," Inman added. But he said, "If the fact is valid that Congress was notified, there will be no consequences."....

[54anickel]

18. "there will be no consequences"? WTF!?!? Congress was notified,

not that there was a helluva lot they could do about it (bastards should have been threatening impeachment in those objection letters!)

I'm disappointed with the OP from the Times, seems like * got to them and they are simply reiterating his defense. Where is the investigative journalism here? Why wasn't the FISA mentioned? Why didn't they tie some of the comments that explain just why this was wrong? They could have at least quoted Feingold's response to this. Instead they just report what he did and why he believes it was justified - no opposing views such as your post.

I think Feingold did an excellent job of explaining just why this was soooo wrong in this CNN piece. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/index.html


After hearing Bush's response, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, said there was no law allowing the president's actions and that "it's a sad day."

"He's trying to claim somehow that the authorization for the Afghanistan attack after 9/11 permitted this, and that's just absurd," Feingold said. "There's not a single senator or member of Congress who thought we were authorizing wiretaps."

He added that the law clearly lays out how to obtain permission for wiretaps.

"If he needs a wiretap, the authority is already there -- the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act," Feingold said. "They can ask for a warrant to do that, and even if there's an emergency situation, they can go for 72 hours as long as they give notice at the end of 72 hours."


You can tell *co is scrambling, Friday Bush refuses to discuss it, Saturday he's out defending it and calling the leak to the press illegal while admonishing the messenger. Then he tips off the "enemy" even further by listing the states that supposedly had cells thwarted by the NSA taps. :eyes:

What happened to that "won't discuss it in the interest of National Security"? Suddenly he's willing to go into even greater detail in the interest of his own ass, national security be damned! Geez, what a putz!

[rodeodance]

21. Geez, what a putz!= BINGO

[nolabels]

31. Just to forget about all the extra B.S. at this point

There seems to be something more here. This supposedly innocuous liaise faire administration as it were purported and elected in the blink of eye decided there were elements of the general population that were very evil. The Hyde and Jekyll two faced persona is being shown naked here. It's the guy behind the curtain scenario. They never wanted others to think it was an active agenda that was going on and planed that way, but one just of a much more simpler, of it just happened that way kind of deal.

The outrage over the leaked data also doesn't coincide with what happened, it seems just too sensitive of area in their minds. Something akin to little boys getting caught playing with matches. There is more there, their actual intent is being shown. An intent that has a plausible LIHOP or such works happening behind the scene. The whole psychology of them is being shown like a big pink tu-to

[Media_Lies_Daily]

36. Herr Busch is basically telling the American people that he can do....

...anything he wants, that he's too far above the law to be governed by it.

He believes that he is a dictator, pure and simple. He knows, and the rest of America should also know, that he became a dictator on December 13, 2000. He also knows that he and his NeoCon fellow-travellers consolidated those gains with the passage of the Patriot Act very soon after the events of 911.

Arrogance and the abuse of power is what brings down dictators. Dictators either leave on their own, or get removed from office by any means available. What's it going to be for you, Herr Busch?

[Daphne08]

26. "...no consequences." ???? I have no words. n/t

[leveymg]

32. Inman misleads. There's a lower standard for FISA than criminal warrants

Investigators did not have to show probable cause of any lawbreaking in order to obtain FISA warrants. The standard of proof for foreign intelligence and terrorism cases has always been lower than the showing required to get a Title III criminal warrant. Only on a couple occasions were FISA applications ever turned down.

There was simply no need for this move by the Administration. In fact, the refusal to seek FISA warrants to surveil the al-Qaeda cells known to be inside the US during 2000 and 2001 contributed to the "intelligence failure" that led to the "catastrophic success" of the 9/11 attacks. The presidential order appears to be an attempt to justify unlawful practices after the fact. See, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00257.htm

[Media_Lies_Daily]

34. Inman's full of NeoCon crap, just like he usually is.

[aquart]

24. C'mon, Georgie. Let it show.

[rodeodance]

16. kick

[rodeodance]

20. with the Repug congress, i do not have much hope that there will be

consequences

....The disclosure of the security agency's warrantless eavesdropping on calls between the United States and Afghanistan sheds light on the origins of the agency's larger surveillance activities, which officials say have included monitoring the communications of as many as 500 Americans and other people inside the United States without search warrants at any one time. Several current and former officials have said that they believe the security agency operation began virtually on the fly in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The early, narrow focus on communications in and out of Afghanistan reflected the ad hoc nature of the government's initial approach to counterterrorism policies in the days after Sept. 11 attacks.

But after the United States-led invasion of Afghanistan succeeded in overthrowing the Taliban government in late 2001, Al Qaeda lost its sanctuary, and Osama bin Laden and other Qaeda leaders scattered to Pakistan, Iran and other countries. As counterterrorism operations grew, the Bush administration wanted the security agency secretly to expand its surveillance as well. By 2002, Mr. Bush gave the agency broader surveillance authority.

In the early years of the operation, there were few, if any, controls placed on the activity by anyone outside the security agency, officials say. It was not until 2004, when several officials raised concerns about its legality, that the Justice Department conducted its first audit of the operation. Security agency officials had been given the power to select the people they would single out for eavesdropping inside the United States without getting approval for each case from the White House or the Justice Department, the officials said.

While the monitoring program was conducted without court-approved warrants, senior Bush administration officials said the far-reaching decision to move ahead with the program was justified by the pressing need to identify whether any remaining "sleeper cells" were still operating within the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks and whether they were planning "follow-on attacks."

[Gman]

25. Thinking that the Boland Amendment got in the way

is what caused Iran-Contra. These people literally pick and choose which laws they will obey and won't obey. Always have, always will. Bush was pretty defiant in his speech yesterday saying that no one can tell him what to do because he's the president.

Our only hope is for someone to give Bush a blow job then talk about it. Preferably Jeff Ganon, but at this point, anyone will do. That kind of "law" apparently is the only thing they think applies.

[Miss Chybil]

27. They intelligence was there! Bush just didn't READ IT!!!!!! nt

[cureautismnow]

28. This was the 2nd attack on our freedoms...

...and there is no question that it was an inside job. The arrogant bastard admitted it. :mad:

[rodeodance]

29. it was for our own good. says Jr.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

33. How much does anyone want to bet that they were tapping phones....

...long before 911?

Their only hope is that enough people (the NeoCon base) will buy their defense that they did it in response to 911.

If it's discovered they were doing this PRIOR to 911, even the NeoCon base will beging to melt away.

[justabob]

35. CNN - AG Gonzales just said Congress authorized

domestic spying when they authorized the use of force after 911. I have a funny feeling that this is news to Congress. He went on to say FISA wasn't agile or fast enough and that the president has inherrent power to spy on 'enemies'. Apparently citizens are enemies now. I hope reps and senators howl that they did no such thing. Unbelievable the contortions this admin is able to perform...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

37. They're trying desperately to keep their base from unravelling....

...that's who Georgie was talking to last night, not to the rest of America which he basically refuses to acknowledge.

[nolabels]

38. That 23 - 30% who support the party if Lucifer himself were running it

The kind of people who think they are right even when they know they are wrong. It is no small coincidence and probably wasn't planed but mostly it is these unapologetic guys and gals who are now also the taking up the reigns in the party at this point

[donkeyotay]

39. When they first passed the patriot act, there were all those public

reassurances that these increased powers would NEVER be used against citizens... you know, war protesters, democrats, political opposition... the kind of stuff that tyrants do.

Impeach.