Bush administration defends spying program (new letter to Congress)

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/13459907.htm

TONI LOCY
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration formally defended its domestic spying program in a letter to Congress late Thursday saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals caught up in the surveillance.

In a letter to the chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the Justice Department said President Bush authorized electronic surveillance without first obtaining a warrant in an effort to thwart terrorist acts against the United States.

"There is undeniably an important and legitimate privacy interest at stake with respect to the activities described by the president," wrote Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella. "That must be balanced, however, against the government's compelling interest in the security of the nation."

... Moschella relied on a Sept. 18, 2001, congressional resolution, known as the Authorization to Use Military Force, as primary legal justification for Bush's creation of a domestic spying program. He said Bush's powers as commander-in-chief give the president "the responsibility to protect the nation."

more

:eyes:

Give yourself up, Chimpmeister. It's over.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

You gotta admit, this is a pretty far-reaching blank check Congress, in a moment of colossal stupidity and criminal dereliction, gave to him. I mean, don't get me wrong, the shrub deserves to be tried for war crimes, but still, given that Congress basically came right out and gave him dictatorial powers they weren't authorized to give him, their hands are pretty dirty too.

Not spying. Specific to 9/11. OR future acts of INTERNATIONAL terrorism against the US. Not domestic spying.

... as well as nations, nor does it stipulate that those persons or organizations be foreign, only that, in the personal, subjective, discretionary opinion of the administration, they be in some undefined way connected to the war on terror. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Why, at some point in my life, I probably dated a woman who was brother to a guy who had a roommate who subscribed to a magazine which featured an advertisement that was paid for by someone who had once ridden on a bus with Osama bin Laden. You stretch it far enough, anyone can be considered to be "connected" to the war on terror.

is trumped by constitutionally-guaranteed rights (fundamental rights) as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why legislation has been struck down repeatedly throughout our history.

Moreover, Congress did NOT repeal previous legislation forbidding this kind of spying, and the resolution is very vague, and there is no Congressional history that backs up any Congressional intent that this type of activity be permitted.

But, as an atty you know, for legislation to be overturned through the courts, someone has to bring suit and it can take many years for a case to filter its way through the district and circuit courts on up to SCOTUS. And all that time, the administration gets to continue to do what its been doing...

I should say that I'm a pre-attorney until I pass that dang California exam (I've done everything else).

But what you are talking about just distresses me to no end.

i'm sure 'appropriate' could be challenged.

Congress, unfortunately, declined to define it and I'm quite sure that any definition of "appropriate" Torquemada Cheney might furnish would be extremely generous.

That's basic civics- you can't change the Constitution through an act of congress. It would take a constitutional amendment to allow Bush to routinely violate the 4th Amendment.

But governments break laws all the time and what are you going to do about it? Call a cop? Please don't misunderstand me, you're preaching to the choir, I do not believe that the shrub possesses the power he thinks he has, nor do I believe that Congress intended to give him the kind of power their ambiguous wording suggested, nor do I believe that they had the legal authority to give him extra-constitutional powers even had it been their intention to do so. All I'm saying is that this joint resolution is what the shrub is citing as his legal authority to assume dictatorial powers and, unfortunately, the joint resolution expresses itself in sweeping, subjective terms which are left largely undefined. No mechanism for monitoring compliance is provided, no sanctions are provided should the administration somehow be found by an undesignated monitoring authority to have exceeded the only very vaguely defined terms of the authorization. The matter consequently becomes open to interpretative arguments and the administration's lawyers will do exactly what they are doing now: submitting briefs arguing that the terms of the authorization support the administration's actions. Now somebody (who?) has to counter those arguments. It's going to be extremely messy and it could easily have been avoided if Congress had done its job and insisted upon retaining a role in the war on terror, rather than simply granting sweeping licenses to the administration to do pretty much whatever the hell it felt like doing.

before committing genocide on the Cherokees:

"Justice Marshall has his ruling, now let him enforce it."

and of course, what passed was one of the saddest chapters in American history.

You're right about one thing, though Republicans have zero respect for either the constitution or the law. Bunch of racketeers- and worse, the lot of them.

To Repukes, law is just an inconvenience to be gotten around and the Constitution is "only a goddamned piece of paper." So to whom does one go for recourse when the people responsible for enforcing the law don't believe it applies to them? Is the Justice Dept going to investigate themselves? I wouldn't hold my breath...

applied to this entire War Criminal misadministration.

I'm sure we could manage a nice display on the mall between all those war memorials!

are evidently not on the same level of importance to the repubs. Otherwise, why would we be hearing from the right all about the grand glory that was about to happen because Iraq now had a constitution and the next day hear them justify ignoring ours because of terrorism fears.
This has brought to my eyes just how deeply embedded the chickhawk thing is with the repubs. We already know the long track record of repubs doing the talk, but the Dem's doing the walk when it comes to being on the shooting end of the military. Now it seems it's endemic and even crosses over into stateside actions.
Consider this. The right tells us that it's an acceptable sacrifice to lose thousands of US troops in Iraq by standing tall for some obscure yet to be quantified reason. Now Bush has already told everyone that terrorists hate us for our freedom, but when the standing tall and taking a risk for our freedom and way of life might fall a little too close for their comfort, the right is all to quick to abandon every constitutionally protected American right that they can lay their hands on so they don't have to undergo one iota of threat to their own worthless butts outside of a tax audit.
Chickenhawk. It's not just an ideology, it's a way of life.

determined to have aided a terrorist. He would have to provode a basis for that determination.
It doesn't hold up as an excuse to go on fishing expeditions against US citizens.
Not even close.

The administration blankets every determination it makes in official secrecy; no one, not even Congress, is allowed to know how a determination has been reached that so and so aided a terrorist - in the interests of national security, don't you know. So how do we, or Congress, or anybody know that the "determination" that someone was associated with terrorism wasn't based on pure piffle? So what actual evidence can we bring to bear against the administration that they've exceeded their authority when we're not even allowed to know the particulars of their actions? This is, as I see it, really the crucial problem: the administration operates without transparency and, consequently, without accountability, and Congress has obliged them right down the line.

and i would say that they asked for these powers specifically (as posted elsewhere) and were denied them. they don't have the plausible deniability anymore. So, I think it's time to hunt for piffle, so to speak.
edit: sp
re edit to add this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2329829

I do think you make an excellent point that this sort of activity was one which Congress specifically denied the administration in the context of the Patriot Act, so there's solid evidence that Congress did not want the administration to do this. Now, if only someone will hold the administration accountable for violating Congress' intent, but who? Our Atty Gen who thinks torture ought to be legal? Our stacked Supreme Court? Our barking mad, foaming-at-the-mouth, ultra-right-wing rabid House? Fux News?

"force". Wiretapping is not force so it can't fall under that.

with very basic constitutional safe guards. For an extreme example, it does not mean Bush can suspend elections in this country if he thought it would make us safer. In this specific case it does not mean that he will be able to issue wiretaps without any court's authorization. Congress cannot pass a law that has blatant disregard of the Constitution.

At the same time, the blank checks this Congress has been willing to give the administration really call undermine my faith in that basic assumption. For instance, did you know that the REAL ID Act contains a provision which authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, or his or her designated agent(s), to - and I quote - "waive ANY law" deemed necessary, at the Secretary's sole, personal discretion, to preserve the integrity of the border? Let me repeat that: the Secretary is explicitly authorized to WAIVE ANY LAW. I've been a policy analyst and student of public policy for nearly 15 years and I've never seen anything like it. By that wording, what couldn't the Secretary do? S/he (or his her agents, which makes it even more alarming) could commit first degree murder and it would be lawful according to the terms of thay authorization. It just takes my breath away. I don't know how we can possibly consider ourselves a democracy anymore.

That scares the shit out of me. The executive branch has become far too powerful.

before the last one and everyone but the crooks in the WH put the kabosh on it and then bunkerboy said "I was only foolin" - and we all know how "fair" that last one was!

Congress could at anytime clarify that.

Taking an extreme example, had Bush put all Arab-Americans in internment camps, I doubt even semi-virulent supporters would have said "Whoa, wait a minute!"

WASHINGTON--The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority ``in the United States'' in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., in Friday's Washington Post.

Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5673062&mesg_id=5673062

But we still have to find someone willing and able to hold the administration accountable, even if it can be successfully proven that they exceeded their authority.

by a man from the Clinton justice department who said that as long they were listening to international communications it was not illegal and has been done by most presidents, and the courts have upheld it. This one may be dead if that is indeed the case. If they were listening to domestic communication without warrant, that would be a different story.

Law working on it this very minute so there will be NO questions left in anyone's mind.

because Constitutional rights follow the U.S. citizen (or resident with substantial connections to the U.S), with respect to a governmental actor in the U.S., and they don't go away just because something is classified as 'international' versus 'domestic.'

1) Sen. Rockefeller's note. This made him so uneasy he decided to write himself a note and lock it up, you know, just in case.

2) Surveillance Judge RESIGNING and others calling for an inquiry.

3) I've seen far too many Legal Scholars from both sides saying this is clearly illegal.

Edit: ...and one more. He LIED about it whe he said we still needed courts involved. He lied to the American people about, and that is one undeniable, irrefutable fact.

Olafr

It is in the first sentence of the article. This is about spying that either has one party in the US, OR communications completely within the US. It isn't international and even if it were, it still needs FISA court warrants. It's the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, intended to monitor Foreign Surveillance.

"accidentally". whatever that means.

again.

Does his logic means that he can declare Martial Law and not tell the Legislators or the citizens that it is in effect - just arrest and throw in jail?

Does this boil down to a lawsuit as to whether a military declaration supercedes laws put into effect by the citizens' legislators?

Our underlying assumpton can only be that could not obtain prior or post spying permission because their spying was not on the up and up - not used for fighting terrorism by al Queda.

Again, they have found another way to divide the nation. Once again, it will be the lemmings against those with a working brain that can process well known motives, history, attitude, pomposity, arrogance, and their obsession with power, control, and profit.

Only fools who fear and hate will support Dick, Don, George, and Queen Liar.

Now we have his confession in writing

Thats all they got? Oh, MAN, is he going down hard!!!

Is it legal and did it accomplish anything? So far, the legality appears very questionable, and I haven't read a single thing about what it accomplished. As with so many other Bush actions, Spy-gate gratuitously discards American values, accomplishing less-than-nothing at astronomical cost. Bush makes a lot of noise and makes idiots giggle milk through their noses, but in real terms he is all lossage for America.

from the court renders this excuse to the "Bullshit" column. Just like everything else that comes out of this administration.

SCOTUS, bushco believes they can do anything they want, whenever they want, no matter what. Well the stupid bastards are wrong!!!!

he believes he has a divine and inalienable right to make these types of decisions? Just sayin':shrug:

If the bush leaguers keep defending their stupid (il)legal decisions the backtracking part of the program isn't helping. :rofl:

Who served in the Clinton administration. Make of it what you will. This may turn out to be not a legal problem, but of course the administration does not know how to give a straight answer.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,1,3677848.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

President had legal authority to OK taps

By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005


President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
.....

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
...
Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

There is more.

Not allowing spying on DOMESTIC communications by US citizens.

Moschella relied on a Sept. 18, 2001, congressional resolution, known as the Authorization to Use Military Force, as primary legal justification for Bush's creation of a domestic spying program. He said Bush's powers as commander-in-chief give the president "the responsibility to protect the nation."

The resolution "clearly contemplates action within the United States," Moschella wrote, and acknowledges Bush's power to prevent terrorism against the United States.

Congress adopted the resolution in the chaotic days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, authorizing the president to wage war against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups that pose a threat to the United States.

Moschella said the president's constitutional authority also includes power to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance inside the United States. He said that power has been affirmed by federal courts, including the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. The FISA court was created in 1978 after public outcry over government spying on anti-war and civil rights protesters.........

They didn't want the members of the FISA court to know who they were spying on (political opponents, big Dem donors, war protestors, etc.). Somebody on the court might leak.

and if he SHOULD still decide to write letters, let him cite CONSTITUTIONAL powers given to the office (not HIM, the little f*ckwad)

obedience, loyalty, and taxation without representation.

But why should anyone expect a fair trial or protection from unrestrained torture when terrorism is at stake?

That means YOU have to jump through the hoops, no matter your compelling interest. That means that YOU HAVE TO GET WARRANTS.

THE END.

trump any claim of individual liberty. These guys have their head up their ass.

From what I have read, if the communication is domestic, a warrant would still be required. If they are snooping on domestic communications they are in trouble. If it was all international, they don't have legal trouble. The PR situation is just what the people make of it.

other international, so the circumstances are a little bit of both. And they've also admited that some domestic-domestic calls were swept up too.

It looks very bad. And Bush LIED about it. Makes one wonder how many other things that we've been told were lies, also, doesn't it?

"There is undeniably an important and legitimate privacy interest at stake with respect to the activities described by the president," wrote Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella. "That must be balanced, however, against the government's compelling interest in the security of the nation."

Now, how does any important and legitimate privacy interest, e.g. a domestic communication, ever outweigh the government's compelling interest in the security of the nation?

It only does if we recognize that the reason the security of the nation is important is because this nation protects those rights. The argument that the government's compelling interest in the security of the nation outweighs an individual right, works against all individual rights if it works against any of them.

when someone rides roughshod over the people like this it is tyranny. We have 3 branches of government and it seems that the congressional branch is being heavily pruned....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
"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."

Was in 2004 the responsibility to protect us not quite so demanding?

We have a winner!!!

It proves he's such a liar and the people who support him are suckers.

Thanks robbedvoter

Might as well rename the NSA to the KGB

Did you hear 'em talkin' 'bout it on the radio
Did you try to read the writing on the wall
Did that voice inside you say I've heard it all before
It's like Deja Vu all over again

Day by day I hear the voices rising
Started with a whisper like it did before
Day by day we count the dead and dying
Ship the bodies home while the networks all keep score

Did you hear 'em talkin' 'bout it on the radio
Could your eyes believe the writing on the wall
Did that voice inside you say I've heard it all before
It's like Deja Vu all over again

One by one I see the old ghosts rising
Stumblin' 'cross Big Muddy
Where the light gets dim
Day after day another Momma's crying
She's lost her precious child
To a war that has no end

Did you hear 'em talkin' 'bout it on the radio
Did you stop to read the writing at The Wall
Did that voice inside you say
I've seen this all before
It's like Deja Vu all over again
It's like Deja Vu all over again