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 2)
6 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Dec 20, 2005
bah!!! trying to rerason with bush haters is a futile waste of time.

If bush did nothing and a new attack happened then they would scream why did not Bush protect us? why did he not take extraordinary preventive measures.

bah!!
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!


Colon Bin Gangrene, so why were the legal questions not raised when Prs. Bush first let Congress know about it? Why? Because there were no legal questions. It didn't become a question until some traitor leaked on going operations to the New York Times.

Whoever leaked this cost the lives of Americans and should be treated as an enemy of the Constitution.
on Dec 20, 2005
Better look ay the AP article which said Sen. Rockefeller wrote a letter to Cheney over two years ago saying he did not understand what was being done and could not support it. It looks as if Cheney was the Water BOY to a few members of congress about this issue and the true actions were kept unclear. Also since they were all classified meetings, had one of the members of Congress come out to object, you would say they violated the security laws.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/16/america/web.1216spy.php
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!


That is the second stupidest thing I have read on these forums. Congratulations col, you have taken the top two spots with your posts.
on Dec 20, 2005
You would have said the same thing just before Nixon resigned! This is another Watergate! Very same issues and another GOP President! Better read what Bush said April 20, 2004. How do you explain that away?
on Dec 20, 2005
This is another Watergate! Very same issues and another GOP President! Better read what Bush said April 20, 2004. How do you explain that away?


Give it two weeks and you won't hear anything else about this. This is another "scandal" that turns out to be nothing but the media and their DNC allies failing again.
on Dec 20, 2005
Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold wants to be President, and that's fair enough. By all means go for it in 2008. The same applies to Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who's always on the Sunday shows fretting about the latest criticism of the Bush Administration's prosecution of the war on terror. But until you run nationwide and win, Senators, please stop stripping the Presidency of its Constitutional authority to defend America.

That is the real issue raised by the Beltway furor over last week's leak of National Security Agency wiretaps on international phone calls involving al Qaeda suspects. The usual assortment of Senators and media potentates is howling that the wiretaps are "illegal," done "in total secret," and threaten to bring us a long, dark night of fascism. "I believe it does violate the law," averred Mr. Feingold on CNN Sunday.

The truth is closer to the opposite. What we really have here is a perfect illustration of why America's Founders gave the executive branch the largest measure of Constitutional authority on national security. They recognized that a committee of 535 talking heads couldn't be trusted with such grave responsibility. There is no evidence that these wiretaps violate the law. But there is lots of evidence that the Senators are "illegally" usurping Presidential power--and endangering the country in the process.

The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.

The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

On Sunday Mr. Graham opined that "I don't know of any legal basis to go around" FISA--which suggests that next time he should do his homework before he implies on national TV that a President is acting like a dictator. (Mr. Graham made his admission of ignorance on CBS's "Face the Nation," where he was representing the Republican point of view. Democrat Joe Biden was certain that laws had been broken, while the two journalists asking questions clearly had no idea what they were talking about. So much for enlightening television.)

The mere Constitution aside, the evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties. Far from being "secret," key Members of Congress were informed about them at least 12 times, President Bush said yesterday. The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about them.

Inside the executive branch, the process allowing the wiretaps was routinely reviewed by Justice Department lawyers, by the Attorney General personally, and with the President himself reauthorizing the process every 45 days. In short, the implication that this is some LBJ-J. Edgar Hoover operation designed to skirt the law to spy on domestic political enemies is nothing less than a political smear.

All the more so because there are sound and essential security reasons for allowing such wiretaps. The FISA process was designed for wiretaps on suspected foreign agents operating in this country during the Cold War. In that context, we had the luxury of time to go to the FISA court for a warrant to spy on, say, the economic counselor at the Soviet embassy.

In the war on terror, the communications between terrorists in Frankfurt and agents in Florida are harder to track, and when we gather a lead the response often has to be immediate. As we learned on 9/11, acting with dispatch can be a matter of life and death. The information gathered in these wiretaps is not for criminal prosecution but solely to detect and deter future attacks. This is precisely the kind of contingency for which Presidential power and responsibility is designed.

What the critics in Congress seem to be proposing--to the extent they've even thought much about it--is the establishment of a new intelligence "wall" that would allow the NSA only to tap phones overseas while the FBI would tap them here. Terrorists aren't about to honor such a distinction. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," before 9/11 "our intelligence agencies looked out; our law enforcement agencies looked in. And people could--terrorists could--exploit the seam between them." The wiretaps are designed to close the seam.

As for power without responsibility, nobody beats Congress. Mr. Bush has publicly acknowledged and defended his decisions. But the Members of Congress who were informed about this all along are now either silent or claim they didn't get the full story. This is why these columns have long opposed requiring the disclosure of classified operations to the Congressional Intelligence Committees. Congress wants to be aware of everything the executive branch does, but without being accountable for anything at all. If Democrats want to continue this game of intelligence and wiretap "gotcha," the White House should release the names of every Congressman who received such a briefing.

Which brings us to this national security leak, which Mr. Bush yesterday called "a shameful act." We won't second-guess the New York Times decision to publish. But everyone should note the irony that both the Times and Washington Post claimed to be outraged by, and demanded a special counsel to investigate, the leak of Valerie Plame's identity, which did zero national security damage.

By contrast, the Times' NSA leak last week, and an earlier leak in the Washington Post on "secret" prisons for al Qaeda detainees in Europe, are likely to do genuine harm by alerting terrorists to our defenses. If more reporters from these newspapers now face the choice of revealing their sources or ending up in jail, those two papers will share the Plame blame.

The NSA wiretap uproar is one of those episodes, alas far too common, that make us wonder if Washington is still a serious place. Too many in the media and on Capitol Hill have forgotten that terrorism in the age of WMD poses an existential threat to our free society. We're glad Mr. Bush and his team are forcefully defending their entirely legal and necessary authority to wiretap enemies seeking to kill innocent Americans.


Link
on Dec 20, 2005
This has NOTHING to do with the DNC. This is BUSH and it will not go away unless Bush resigns! The 1978 Act provides the ONLY exception which requires going to court within 72 hours AFTER the wire tap. Bush did not obey that law pure and simple. It is time for the Supreme Court to settle this matter...
on Dec 20, 2005
Gene, Watergate was about a President spying on the opposing political faction, in order to learn their campaign strategy and secure his own reelection.

This is about a President spying on assassins and saboteurs, in order to learn their war plans and prevent them from succeeding.

On that basis, I would have said something very different from what I am saying now, before Nixon resigned.
on Dec 20, 2005
They are BOTH about spying on Americans without court approval. There was a legal way for Bush to protect America he chose not to obey that legal way and must not pay the price!
on Dec 20, 2005
Gene, FISA clearly states that he doesn't need a court order unless the wiretaps go on for more than 72 hours.

Do you have good reason to believe that these wiretaps went on for more than 72 hours? If so, show us. If not, what are you complaining about?
on Dec 20, 2005

Doc,

First thanks for a great article.  But second, do you really have to bait Col Klink?  He is spamming you with Enzyte!  He has no points, and just garbage!  I am out of trolling clicks!

But it is a great article!  Guess Feingold, Boxer and Schumer better start learning the law.  They sure are looking ignorant!

on Dec 20, 2005
I used Bush'e own words in my link. that you call spamming?
on Dec 20, 2005
ENOUGH WITH the "gate" crap, unless it's about investigating bill gates, I can live with gates gate. heh
on Dec 20, 2005
I used Bush'e own words in my link. that you call spamming?


Col, it's spamming when you constantly post stupid things like "Cheney should resign so he won't be President". You don't look beyond what the NYT tells you, and that's why even the liberals here don't stand with you.
6 Pages1 2 3 4  Last