Was Bush's order for the NSA spying legal because of the Patriot Act?

Of course not, but an acquaintance was just telling me that because of the Patriot act it was, and that it was cleared with Congress. I said gee, if it was cleared with Congress, why would Arlen Specter of all people be upset?

It is illegal, isn't it?

Bush needs to be tried for treason and sentenced accordingly.

She wants to know how it can be unconstitutional if it was passed by Congress, I've gotten no traction with her using the "The Patriot Act is screwed up anyway" line of reasoning...She's a very trusting woman, wants to believe the best of everyone.

trust any government... we must always be vigilant.

there is a legal way and an illegal way to do this. Bush chose the later .. illegal way to do this. Start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act and be sure to read through all the links too. Peace. :)

on edit: fix link. oops.

... in a specific way--that some cases of domestic surveillance on American citizens can be warranted through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, in which the standards for obtaining the warrant are easier. In judicial courts, there have to be some serious standards applied for probable cause. In the FISC, probable cause isn't considered. An affidavit that the individual(s) have been shown to be associated with other surveillance subjects is often sufficient, along with other evidence garnered by foreign surveillance, is often enough to obtain a wiretap warrant.

The Patriot Act actually made getting such warrants easier, but it didn't remove the requirement for a FISA warrant. If Bush sidestepped the FISA warrant requirement, there was a reason. Two possibilities presented thus far is that they couldn't go into the FISC with evidence that been illegally obtained to begin with, or second, that even the FISC wouldn't approve warrants on the subjects because they weren't remotely associated with terrorism. The likelihood is it's some combination of both.

Cheers.



edit for syntax.

He could have always gone to a Judge after the fact but he didn't.

So who's he spying on?

*sniff* ah, the smell of Nixonian paranoia fills the air.

She believes that the news is the news.

In an article from the WA Post reprinted in the Seattle Times this morning, it quotes Nancy Pelosi as saying that she had been told "on several occasions that Bush had authorized unspecified activities by the NSA." How can "unspecified activities" be construed as being "cleared by Congress"? Further, former NSA chief Bobby Inman is quoted in the same article as saying: "Once the Patriot Act was in place, I am puzzled what was the need to continue outside the court."

In other words, the logic is circular. It appears that Congress was not actually in the loop; and that the activities were outside the scope of the Patriot Act (otherwise, the presidential directives would not have been necessary). If his acts were neither constitutional nor within the law, they were....well, extra-legal, or, in common parlance, criminal.

That's my take, anyway.

b_b

:D

Patriot Act. They did it in the time between the two events - making it illegal (unless it goes to the Supreme Court where the predominately Republican Party members will find a way to make it legal).

The NSA is only supposed to be spying outside the U.S. This is according to the articles and threads, if I have it right.

They may have two strikes against them.

It shows their disregard for the Constitution, Congress, Bill of Rights, and the people they are supposed to be representing. They is no person or thing in life, fiction, or fantasy that can be used to be describe these people.

The patriot act DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THIS.

FISA makes it a crime.

* FISA makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conduct electronic surveillance except as provided for by statute. The only defense is for law government agents engaged in official duties conducting “surveillance authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order.” <50 U.S.C. § 1809>

I saw network newscasts on Friday and Saturday where they emphasized the war on terror angle and showed Bush stating that Congress approved what was done. So it is no wonder that so far many people think this is no big deal.

That's why I'm confused, though the posts in this thread have been very helpful.

It would seem to not matter whether he spoke to Congress because Congress members are not judges or courts of law. Another point is whether he was being clear in what he was authorizing. One of the posts above seems to indicate that they weren't told exactly what was happening.

The Dems he talked to better hope he didn't tell them any specifics, because if he did, they're going to be up shit creek!

The White House could tell a handful of senators and representatives who would be required under law to keep it quiet. That is not the same as getting Congressional approval or a change in the FISA law. See this:
http://warandpiece.com/
<snip>

Sen. Dianne Feinstein calls Bush on another aspect of his phony argument here. That briefing a few Senators on the illegal program while restricting them from discussing it constitutes oversight -- or legality:

Feinstein said that informing a handful of members of Congress who are restricted from reporting or responding to the information in any way did not make the policy legal or constitute congressional oversight.

"What is concerning me, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, is if eight people, rather than 535 people, can know there is going to be an illegal act and they were told this under an intelligence umbrella — and therefore, their lips are sealed — does that make the act any less culpable? I don't think so," Feinstein said.

What is the Senatorial equivalent of refusing an illegal order from a commander? And where should White House crimes be reported?
</snip>

b_b