Bush Allowed NSA To Conduct Warrantless Eavesdropping After 9-11
The New York Times tonight broke a story that it had been holding for a year at the request of the White House. President Bush signed an executive order following 9-11 allowing the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans and other parties inside the U.S. without first getting a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as required by law.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) established the secret court, which has been very accommodating to the requests of the intelligence agencies for warrants to spy on people suspected of being connected to foreign powers. This is what makes this revelation so newsworthy.
The Bush administration determined that the exigencies of 9-11 required a very large number of people who would have been ordinarily exempt from domestic spying to come under the watchful eye of the NSA.
The White House is claiming that the President can bypass laws by signing an executive order. Members of the intelligence community and intelligence committees of Congress have been quarreling over this for the last couple of years according to the article.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) established the secret court, which has been very accommodating to the requests of the intelligence agencies for warrants to spy on people suspected of being connected to foreign powers. This is what makes this revelation so newsworthy.
The Bush administration determined that the exigencies of 9-11 required a very large number of people who would have been ordinarily exempt from domestic spying to come under the watchful eye of the NSA.
The White House is claiming that the President can bypass laws by signing an executive order. Members of the intelligence community and intelligence committees of Congress have been quarreling over this for the last couple of years according to the article.
posted by Effwit at 9:20 PM
7 Comments:
That pretty much dilutes our entire three branches of government system and the checks & balances that go along with it.
I know that Cheney long has been intent on increasing the power of the executive office at the expense of the legislative branch. But by concentrating such executive power in one branch - effectively controlled by one person, the President - it opens up a very frightening scenario where the executive branch can, essentially, do as it pleases.
Can you say "dictator" or "totalitarianism"? This is dangerous stuff that is toying with the very foundation of our republic.
I don't think the large majority of Americans truly understands the profound danger of this path we're on. It's bad news, plain and simple.
ABC Nightline just did a story about the torture issue. Terry Moran interviewed Attorney General Gonzalez. Following the interview, Moran mentioned the New York Times article about the NSA's spying without warrants on Americans. Very timely.
Drew L:
It's looking like the disclosure of the NSA program of warrentless searches is related to the controversy about extending some of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act.
Push is coming to shove later today in Congress over the PATRIOT Act, presumably someone wants to show that Bush can't be trusted with the powers he has.
Unfortunately, I think that our dickless lawmakers will still cave to the administration on the issue.
I found it interesting how Bill Frist voted AGAINST the Patriot Act provisions today, but only when he saw that it might help himself politically down the road. What a creep.
Drew L:
I still think that the weakdicks will renew those provisions.
Viz:
"God forbid that there be a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by the Patriot Act after it has expired," said Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican.
No spineless politician will be able to face down this kind of criticism, and will be reminded of the fragility of their careers.
With weasels like Kyl weighing in, I give them 48 hours to renew the vile PATRIOT Act.
That's been the problem all along...all this fear-mongering and fear-bating of the other side.
And given that I have suspicions of neo-con complicity in 9/11, it opens too much of an opportunity to "let" something happen again in order to forge political positioning and to "regain" the minds of Americans.
Example:
"See what happened? The Democrats let the Patriot Act expire and now this happens. We could have prevented it if the Democrats had voted for the Patriot Act. Blame THEM for this tragedy." Etc., etc.
Of course, that would completely gloss over the fact that the Dems were willing to extend the current provisions until a compromise could be worked out. The Republicans have refused. So who's fault is it then?
Drew L:
Excellent points as usual.
This appears as well to be the Republican plan to blame the loss of the Iraq war on the politicians who are (and will soon be) calling for American withdrawal. Shades of the Vietnam aftermath.
Their constant refrain on terrorism: "Our opponents are weak on defense."
Meaning: "Vote for us or you will be sorry."
Post a Comment
<< Home