The problem the NY Times and anti-Bushies have with this story is that no one really knows what his executive order said so everything is speculative. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the monitoring of communications to and from foreign and domestic sources without a warrant. This program is subject to Congressional notification if not strict oversight. It is presumptuous to assume Bush authorized illegal activity. Bush has given a reasonable explanation to the story: (emphases in bold are mine) "In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks. This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country. As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late. The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad. The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups. The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization. This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States."
Bush is trying to protect Americans. People like Rex are only interested in bringing Bush down. They can't see the forest for the trees. They are to be scorned, rebuked and pitied.
George Will made some very good points on "This Week" this morning. The president broke the law and there was very little need to do so. If there was a pressing requirement to conduct domestic surveilance in the name of Homeland defense he could have gone to the Courts or the Congress and gotten legal permission to do so. The constitution demands this. It would have been granted in a heartbeat under the post-9/11 circumstances. One of the most pressing concerns of the last 500 years of democracy in the West has been the need to constrain the executive authority. Unchecked executive power leads to monarchy. This is one of the basic Madisonian policies that is a pillar of our democracy. This administration seems to think that they can define "Executive Privelege" any way they want to, and that is simply not the case. It is dangerous and illegal for any branch of government to set their own limits on power. This is why we have governmental checks and balances. The Legislative and Judicial branches must see to it that the Executive branch doesn't defy the Constitution like this. Rex is right this time. And George Will agrees. If Bush has lost steadfast, traditional conservatives like Will, he has lost much credibility. I don't think he will be impeached, but we will likely see the Congress and the courts hold him much more closely to the law as they apply their own constitutionally defined authority. Executive privilege is not unlimited authority to do what he wants to. He must engage the Congress and the courts or he will suffer politically and take his party along with him. Traditional conservative republicans are already beginning to distance themselves from the neo-cons as the 2006 and 2008 elections approach. This matter will only make it worse.
No, it is not. Defying the Constitution and trying to invoke executive privelege to keep it secret is not legal. And not neccessary, he could have just gotten the warrants.
Really? I would think that degradation of Constitutional rights on account of fear pretty much fits the definition of terrorism to a tee. Gullible and short-sighted partisan loyalty is a victory for terrorists.:thumb:
the reason bush does this is not because he wants to get bad guys, but rather because he wants YOUR personal info. you are just that important.
Yesterday I heard a strange "click" while talking on my cell phone. I said "George?" and the sound stopped. Hmmmmmmm...
FISA was enacted to establish a secret court that would balance the government's need to provide security with the Constitutional rights of American citizens. FISA makes it very easy for the president to obtain a legal warrant against a suspected terrorist. Why wouldn't Bush abide by the law? That's easy: because he thinks he's above the law, and because he wants carte blanche to eavesdrop on people even without probable cause. Would he use such unencumbered powers against his political enemies rather than just merely against suspected terrorists? Well, this past week the Republican Party paid for the defense of one Mr. Conlin, who was obviously guilty of jamming Democratic Party telephone lines. This past week NBC uncovered a Pentagon database of people to keep under surveillance that included mere peace protestors, but not a single rightwinger within its 400 pages. A government where only one party is granted unencumbered access to the communications of the other is not a two party system. It's one party fascism, the end of what little democracy a two party system afforded in the first place. Searches without warrants are considered automatically criminal for a damn good reason: because if there was a good reason to search somebody there would be a warrant.
Blah, blah...blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah? Blah, blah, blah, blah,.........blah. Blah, blah, blah, blah,......blah, blah, blah......
