Published on December 20, 2005 By drmiler In Politics
This is for ALL the people who think President Bush broke the law by authorizing wire taps without a court order. And YES that includes you col! Maybe ALL of you should go read FISA which was signed into law by President Carter. Yes that's right you read correctly.....Jimmy "the peanut man" Carter. Let me help ya'll by posting the pertinent sections:

Section 1811
of the act pertaining to surveillance during wartime states:
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

Or this section:

Section 1805
of the Act covers emergency situations where a court order cannot be obtained in advance. Such surveillance can only last 72 hours before an Order is applied for.

(f) Emergency orders
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that--
(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and
(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;
he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.


Now argue with this. That is if you can.

Comments (Page 1)
6 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Dec 20, 2005
bump
on Dec 20, 2005
Well, it looks like he would break the law if he ever ordered a wiretap to go for more than 72 hours without a warrant.

Could it be that when he refers to "renewing" in the program multiple times in the past few years, he means issuing new orders for new 72-hour surveillance sessions.

It seems possible that the intel services were getting reports of terrorist activity through other sources, and then he was using legal presidential orders to authorize up to 72 hours of wiretapping in each instance, so that the NSA would have a chance to gather more detailed intel.
on Dec 20, 2005
Well, it looks like he would break the law if he ever ordered a wiretap to go for more than 72 hours without a warrant.


or more than fifteen days after the war was declared...
to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.
on Dec 20, 2005
Congress has NOT declared War. The invasion against the government of Iraq ended and the people of Iraq have formed a new government. The 1978 Act requires the President to go to the court within 72 hours of an emergency wire tap which he DID NOT DO!

Finally, the press has uncovered a news clip where President Bush flatly stated on April 20, 2004 that a "Court Order is required for All wire taps".

His own words on April 20, 2004 confirm that Bush broke the laws of this country. This is Bush's Watergate!
on Dec 20, 2005
Your Boy stepped in it this time! This will not go away. We first need to get Cheney to resign and appoint a new VP so when Bush is removed we have a president that this nation can unite around. We have another Nixon/ Agnue in the GOP!
on Dec 20, 2005
Congress does not actually have to say the Special Code Words "we are officially at war", in order to authorize the Executive branch to wage war. They could, for example, simply authorize him to wage war. Which is what they did.

The articles of the Act quoted in this article make it clear that the President does not have to go to the judge within 72 hours, only that he must stop the wiretap within 72 hours if he doesn't.

It's conceivable that Bush was mistaken about a court order being required for all wiretaps, and should not have said it. It's clear that his legal advisers (and many others) believe that in this case, in this context (the leeway granted by FISA and the leeway granted by the Congressional authorization for him to use military measures to combat terrorism) that a court order is not actually required for these wiretaps.

Or are you arguing that whatever the President says on TV is the highest law of the land, and supersedes not only FISA but every other federal statute on the books?

On another note, have you ever wondered if you're being manipulated by the media? And why aren't you calling for the heads of whoever leaked these details to the press in the first place? As I recall, in the Plame case you were all about punishing those who would dare to put political considerations ahead of national security and the personal safety of covert operatives. What about now?
on Dec 20, 2005
ONLY the Congress can declare War per the Constitution NOT the President. George invaded Iraq he can not declare War and Congress NEVER declared war with Iraq. Below are the President's own words that state The Government MUST obtain a court order for wire taps from his April 20, 2004 speech:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act; constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.

Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law. We couldn't use these against terrorists, but we could use against gangs.
on Dec 20, 2005
Idiot Colon Bin Gangrene!

Why do you insist on living under the illusion that Iraq is the end all/be all to the war on terror? We are at war with Al Qaeda, the Talliban and all other anti Western Islamist groups who have been attacking us for decades now.

I know your allegiences are with the terrorists and any attempt to thwart another 9/11/01 breaks your heart, but guess what, YOU took an oath to defend the Constitution of the U.S against all enemies, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. Since you retired, that oath has not expired... even if your honor has.

Fortunately, Prs. Bush isn't as quick to shed his responsibilities as scum like you.
on Dec 20, 2005
Great Article DrMiler!! Keep up the good work!
on Dec 20, 2005
The source of my post above is the White House see below:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
on Dec 20, 2005
Prs. Bush probably didn't break any laws, but whoever the traitor was that leaked an on going war operation to the press sure did.

What's the difference between leaking an on going operation in the U.S. and one in Iraq? Something tells me that the scum who leaked it would do the same either way.

DEATH TO TRAITORS! I wonder which member of Congress (or staff) it was?
on Dec 20, 2005
ParaTed 2k
That is why the 1978 act was passed to give the government the ability to fight terrorism. They even created a Special Court just for these wire taps and put into that law the ability for before the fact taps with court approved within 72 hours. It is pure BS that Bush had to ignore this law and the special court to protect our nation. NO ONE is saying Bush should not protect America just that he obeys the laws which he DID NOT DO!
on Dec 20, 2005
Great Article DrMiler!! Keep up the good work!


Agreed, excellent article. Nailed the idiot C.O.L. hard enough to have him spinning in circles. If you keep going he'll wind up drilling himself a hole straight through to his commie friends in China.
on Dec 20, 2005
Gene, in that same passage he says "nothing has changed". Since FISA was passed in 1978, and it allowed warrantless 72-hour wiretaps then, and it allows warrantless 72-hour wiretaps now, he's right when he says that nothing has changed.

Also, have you considered the possibility that he said all that without clarifying the FISA exception for national security reasons? What if he'd just authorized a 72-hour wiretap that morning, and the NSA was in the middle of gathering valuable intel about planned terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, during that press conference? Wouldn't that have been about the most retarded time for him to go on national TV and tell the world "by the way, we're also conducting warrantless wiretaps at will, according to the legal provisions of FISA and Congressional approval of military measures, so please take this opportunity to hide your terrorist planning sessions better"?

As a military man, you must be well versed in the concepts of counterintelligence and operational security. Don't you customarily reveal only a fraction of your true strength to the enemy? Could it be that the President, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, was simply following the standard military procedure?
on Dec 20, 2005
Bush did not get the Court approval within the 72 hours as the law provides. HE NEVER obtained court approval. He violated both what HE SAID and the LAW! The article is pure BS and ignores the facts. Look at the link you dip sticks and what Bush said!
6 Pages1 2 3  Last