Why not just get warrants? That's the question.

[LuckyTheDog]

From what I understand, it is pretty easy to get warrants for the kind of surveillance Bush authorized the NSA to do. There is a process... a super-secret court set up just for that purpose. And, in a pinch, permission can be sought retroactively.

So the REAL question is this: Who did Bush want to spy whom he thought the court would deny him permission to spy on?

There really was no reason for Bush to bypass the process unless he wanted to do spying that the court would never approve of. So, who WAS he spying on? Peace groups? Political opponents?

I get the feeling that there is an even bigger scandal here than we might think.

[Solly Mack]

1. Cause he abused his power

and we know that

[beam me up scottie]

2. On an interview on NPR last night,

I learned that the court has only ever turned them down ONE FUCKING TIME since the law mandating they get a warrant took effect.

One. Fucking. Time.


Why indeed.

[LuckyTheDog]

4. Right

Bush must have known that at least some of the spying would have been disallowed by the court. And if the courtin question almost never disallows anything... well, that tells you something, doesn't it? Some of the spying must have been very, very questionable or clearly illegal.

[beam me up scottie]

8. The interview was with James Bamford.

I highly recommend listening to it if you have time.

Politics & Society
Understanding the NSA: Author James Bamford

All Things Considered, December 16, 2005 · James Bamford, author of two books about the National Security Agency, talks about what the agency does, the constraints it's supposed to operate under and how some of its veterans feel about the charges that President Bush authorized domestic spying with warrant. Bamford's most recent book is Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency

You can listen to the interview here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5058734

[spindrifter]

5. Generally you have to specify

a time period that the warrant is good for. I suspect that many of these would be impossible to set a length of time on, since most are probably not the result of actual brick and mortar investigation. Instead, most probably come from programs that are getting hits on particular words.
You have to wonder with all the difficulty the morans have understanding Arabic-origin names, how many people with similar names to the ones the NSA people are interested in must have had their privacy invaded.

[beam me up scottie]

9. See the link in my post #8.

The interview was extremely informative.

[spindrifter]

11. Thanks--something went bad on the recording--

I'll try it tomorrow direct from NPR. Looks like it would be interesting to get ahold of his books.

[beam me up scottie]

13. If I can remember...

He said that when he talked to NSA employees after the law was enacted, they were glad that they knew where to draw the line.

If you think about it, it protects them as well.

Now this administration ORDERS them to break the law?

I'm fairly certain you're not going to see too many NSA employees falling all over themselves to defend *'s decision.

[Poll_Blind]

3. That's the crux of my concern: It's the easiest thing to get a warrant.

The fucker believed he couldn't get a warrant, or at least it appears that way. So....how completely innocent do you have to appear that the PRESIDENT HIMSELF cannot scare up a warrant against you? It's almost unimaginable who the targets must be. Seriously, I'm boggled.

The only other thing I can think of is that he was trying to set a precedent (maybe hinted at by his "I've been doing this every 45 days for x months"). Of course a precedent for illegal behavior does not make it legal. Unless you're Bush, anyway.

PB

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. It may be pretty easy to get a FISA warrant, but even so,

they have to come up with at least some minimal showing of probable cause. So it's apparent that they want carte blanche to spy on anybody they feel like spying on, without having to explain anything to some judge -- and fuck probable cause and the Fourth Amendment.

Once again they are wiping their asses with the Constitution.

[doublethink]

6. We're thinking along the same lines ,,,,,

see post 9 and 14 of mine in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5623377 Peace. :)

[grytpype]

7. It's just a power grab.

I think they could have gotten warrants but they wanted to prove Bush is above the law.

If there's ever the political will to impeach Bush there's no end to the charges that could be brought.

[lolly]

24. Bingo

AWOL does NOT like having to ask anybody's permission for anything. He sees it as an insult.


The emperor does not ask if he can spy on his subjects.

[Wordie]

10. Oh yeah! That's the question all right! It makes no sense to do what he

did if there were other procedures he could have used (legal ones, that is) that ostensibly would have accomplished the same end.

There is more to this than we've heard so far. It worries me.

[shraby]

12. Could one of the targets of his surveillance be Fitzgerald?

[LuckyTheDog]

27. I thought of that

Also: John Kerry, Howard Dean, Cindy Sheehan, etc.

[Jade Fox]

14. Undoubtedly because they would not be able....

to get warrants for what they want to do--like spying on political enemies and peace groups.

[Spinzonner]

15. I expect that it would allow them

to hide a few surveillances that wouldn't pass the test, even if most could be justified on National Security grounds.

And whgo knows, they might also want to watch other government agencies, the congress, etc. that would be clearly outside the law. Nixon rises again.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. I suspect it's because they knew they wouldn't ever get one

if the Judge knew WHO they were spying on? :shrug: Congress people? so he could blackmail them? Journalists?

[NightOwwl]

17. Gee, sounds like the same group of people who got anthraxed. n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. Just amazin'...isn't it? Funny how that happened, eh?

They got the anthrax and were more than likely told to STFU because we have THIS information about you, your wife, your mom, your dad and your children.....with copies to prove it and the ONLY way they could get that info was by obtaining it illegally. That happened in Oct. 2001. I wonder how long this illegal spying has been going on?

[lolly]

25. Ahh, that makes sense too

If the main purpose of the wiretaps was to get damaging or embarrassing information about people (think about the anti-Clinton operation this bunch waged) then they would not want a paper trail of warrants, etc.

Is that why the Dems always seem to pull their punches?

[in_cog_ni_to]

28. Is that why the Dems always seem to pull their punches?

That's what I'm thinking. The Dems have looked SO cowardly the last 5 years. WHY? My guess is they have been threatened/blackmailed.JMCPO

[Jim__]

18. Because he thinks he's the king.

And he doesn't have to ask anyone, he just does whatever he wants.

[kentuck]

21. I agree...

That's why he was angry this morning...those bloodhounds are on his tail. They're gnawing at his sorry ass. He knows that if he stumbles, they'll tear him to shreds.

[JCMach1]

22. High Crimes... he wiped his bottom with the constitution

eom

[sweetheart]

23. Masters in Business Administration

There are no such things as constitutional checks on power in corporate operations.
Bush thinks goverment "is" a business. And if he's right, then the CEO does have the
power to spy on the serfs. But if he's wrong, then citizens have rights. I can't
help but wonder what kind of person will stay supporting him as the details of these
spy cases come out.

I wonder if i appy, under the freedom of information act, if i am amongst those who've
been spied on.

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. For the same reason why they haven't brought

one single terrorist to justice and have obtained no convictions since Bush took office. Because they aren't interested in catching al Qaeda terrorists. They are much more concerned about anti-war protesters and Quakers.

[Wordie]

29. Kick (this is a highly relevant question).

[SillyGoose]

30. I'd like an answer to this as well.

My guess is that political opponents, journalists, elected officials, and outspoken activists would be included in the list of those spied on without a warrant.

If there was a legitimate need to spy on Al_Qaeda members and sympathizers in the US, I can't imagine the secret court would deny a warrant for that purpose. Something stinks here, big time.

[Wordie]

31. Here's why this question is STILL the question of the hour...

Bush claims he could not use the FISA process because it "takes too long" but that is a LIE. FISA allows a 72 hour period AFTER the evesdropping has begun to request the warrant.

Our Dems need to be pounding this point home! PLEASE!

[goodhue]

32. Because they had to go thru DOJ for FISA warrants

And agents apparently found DOJ too frustrating.
That's my understanding based on NYT story from Dec 11.