Sigh … the more that comes to light about past presidents and their ‘eavesdropping’ the more this so-called ’scandal’ - which has been reported to the extent you’d think it was worse than Watergate - becomes much ado about *nothing*, outside of a President trying to do his job by doing his level best to prevent another terrorist attack on our soil via using established precedent in extraordinary times.
Drudge has posted two links that show prior presidential use of searches as they relate to foreign communications done on domestic soil being conducted without a court order.
Jimmy Carter’s Executive Order can be read here.
Bill Clinton’s can be read here.
Now, considering that what the current President approved of in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history, and contrasting that with what Presidents Clinton and Carter authorized under their tenures, can anyone explain why this time around it is suddenly explosive news in the media?
I can.
Embarass the President.
Undermine a war they don’t support.
Anymore questions?
More: As always, Jeff Goldstein is on the case with a great post and lots of interesting links to check out.
Others blogging about this: Blogs For Bush
In the meantime, John Kerry provides a reminder of why it’s a good thing he didn’t get elected president.
Update: Patterico does some digging and finds deep within this LA Times article statements by legal experts who actually think what the President authorized after 9-11 was and is legal. Where was this tidbit of info hidden? Page A32 of the LAT.
Related Toldjah So posts:
- Bill Clinton and the NSA
- WSJ: “Thank you for wiretapping”
- The Prez fires back
- Prez essentially says ‘let me do my job’
- The terrorists must be smiling
- The politics of the torture agreement
- “If 1941 Were 2005″
- The media’s war
- Winning in spite of defeatist attitudes
- W’s approval rating rises
- The undermining of this war
| Email This Post | Print This |
“Now, considering that what the current President approved of in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history, and contrasting that with what Presidents Clinton and Carter authorized under their tenures, can anyone explain why this time around it is suddenly explosive news in the media?”
Clinton’s and Carter’s executive orders weren’t secret. Furthermore, they were lawful — being exactly under FISA. Bush’s aren’t under FISA.
But i’m sure it will take a wohle day of outrage for parts of the blogosphere to realize this is a non-starter.
Comment by andrew @ 12/20/2005 - 10:51 pm
ST,
I’ve done a little research and it seems both Drudge’s and Newsmax’s allegations are for for the most part a lot of smoke.
First of all, look at the Carter and Clinton Executive orders whose links you provide. Both refer to “pursuant to”…”Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978″. In other words, both Clinton’s and Carter’s orders DID NOT authorize any actions that were not “pursuant to law.”
(Here is a link to the referenced parts of the FISA act of 1978 in case anyone is interested):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802—-000-.html
2nd, looking at the Newsmax article, it’s pretty lean on facts. They only cite 4 sources, 3 of whom (Kroft, Frost and Barr) refer ONLY to automated monitoring of telecommunications; computers listening in for certain key words, in particular. That is hardly targeted intelligence gathering of the sort President Bush is engaging in.
The 4th unnamed former Echelon “operator” alleges that conversations of Strom Thurmand were recorded. This is a sensational little tidbit, and a pretty serious allegation. Don’t you think Newmax could do a little more to substantiate it? Like maybe find another confirming source? I’d like to see a little more meat on this allegation before I just accept Newmax’s word on it.
3rd, here is the testimony of George CIA Director George Tenet on this very matter before Congress on April 12, 2000:
“There have been recent allegations that the Intelligence Community through NSA has improperly directed our SIGINT capabilities against the private conversations of US persons. That is not the case.
There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we—the CIA, the NSA and the FBI—scrupulously adhere to whenever the conversations of US persons are involved—directly or indirectly.
“We do not collect against US persons unless they are agents of a foreign power, as that term is defined in law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department. And we do not target their conversations for collection overseas unless Executive Order 12333 has been followed and the Attorney General has personally approved collection.”
Here is the link to his testimony, again in case anyone is interested:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_hr/tenet.html
Bush, on the other hand, has admitted to going far beyond that, and further claims he has the right to do so.
It seems that this thinly-supported allegation about Clinton doing the same thing as our current President is likey nothing more than hastily-arranged damage control by the Bush admin. I must add that the fact that it originates from such well-known sources for Republican PR as Newsmax and Drudge also tends to detract from the trustworthyness of the story.
I must take back what I said in an earlier post about this story “taking away the legitimacy of attacking Bush on this subject”. Bush has apparently gone far beyond what previous Presidents have done, thinks he has the right to do so, and his actions deserve serious investigation at the least.
Ken G.
Comment by Kenwg @ 12/21/2005 - 1:06 am
So we’re supposed to take the word of George Tenet (as you have) but not take the word of the President?
Mighty thin rebuttal, Ken.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 12/21/2005 - 7:13 am
“So we’re supposed to take the word of George Tenet (as you have) but not take the word of the President?”
I think we shouldn’t trust tenet. I think we should clearly investigage both Echelon and this project. This is long overdue.
Comment by andrew @ 12/21/2005 - 8:27 am
Sis:
Both of your links to executive orders lead to President Clinton’s.
Comment by Dana @ 12/21/2005 - 9:29 am
Ongoing investigations: 1) bush’s illegal domestic spying. 2) Cheney & Rumsfeld creating false intelligence about Iraq. 3) Libby & Rove leaking intelligence. Does anyone see a pattern here? This group of evangelical neo-cons is the most corrupt in this nations history. Peace
Comment by steve @ 12/21/2005 - 10:26 am
steve, your Bush hate is showing. You make false allegations which is bearing false witness. The pattern I see isn’t one you think you preach to others, steve.
Comment by PCD @ 12/21/2005 - 10:34 am
“1) bush’s illegal domestic spying. 2) Cheney & Rumsfeld creating false intelligence about Iraq. 3) Libby & Rove leaking intelligence. Does anyone see a pattern here? This group of evangelical neo-cons is the most corrupt in this nations history. ”
And Abramoff is about to sing.
Comment by andrew @ 12/21/2005 - 10:58 am
andrew, and what if the Abramoff’s chorus names Democrats like Pelosi and Reid? Are you going to demand they resign immediately? Hmm, enquiring minds want to know.
Comment by PCD @ 12/21/2005 - 11:28 am
“andrew, and what if the Abramoff’s chorus names Democrats like Pelosi and Reid? Are you going to demand they resign immediately? Hmm, enquiring minds want to know.”
I’m not too worried that abramoff is that tied to teh democratic establishment. Do you know how GOP/lobbyist washington works? The GOP has an active program to keep dems away from lobbyists.
Comment by andrew @ 12/21/2005 - 12:28 pm
“The GOP has an active program to keep dems away from lobbyists.”
ROFLMAO!!! How, pray tell, would they accomplish that? Keeping a Dem away from a lobbiest with money would be as impossible as keeping Michael Moore away from a ham sandwich!
Comment by Severian @ 12/21/2005 - 12:55 pm
“ROFLMAO!!! How, pray tell, would they accomplish that?”
By pressuring lobbying groups and companies not to hire dems and hire republicans, thereby increasing the integration between our nations lobbies and interest groups and the GOP machine. Its called the K-street project. Its not a secret.
Comment by andrew @ 12/21/2005 - 1:08 pm
It’s not a secret. It’s also untrue.
Comment by Kevin @ 12/21/2005 - 1:52 pm
Thanks Dana - I corrected it.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 12/21/2005 - 2:02 pm
Andrew, you’ll swallow anything won’t you?
Comment by PCD @ 12/21/2005 - 2:18 pm
ST,
Yous said “So we’re supposed to take the word of George Tenet (as you have) but not take the word of the President? Mighty thin rebuttal, Ken. ”
I have to admit I don’t fully trust Tenet’s veracity - I suspect he’s too willing to say whatever his current boss wants to hear. And I’m not comfortable with the type of Electronic evesdropping that the Clinton Admin engaged in.
But the rest of my post stands - there’s very little to indicate that Clinton or Carter went as far as GWB has, or bypassing FISA and so forth. I guess my point is that the comparison between Bush on the one hand and Carter/Clinton on this issue is a weak one.
Ken G.
Comment by Kenwg @ 12/21/2005 - 4:17 pm
I don’t follow you Ken. There is very little to indicate that Clinton bypassed FISA, you say? You mean other than signing an executive order saying, “the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order”?
I have no idea if he used this or not. But he certainly understood the importance of being able to, or he would not have signed it. And we have to keep in mind that this is not spying on ordinary people. These people are having late night chit-chats with terrorists.
If he used this to spy on political enemies or something, that would be despicable. But not even Ted Kennedy is suggesting that.
Comment by Kevin @ 12/21/2005 - 6:08 pm
The Junkyardblog has a good write up on the whole issue. Of course our lefties won’t consider is because it doesn’t convict Bush without a trial as the lefties try to do with every accusation.
http://junkyardblog.net/scgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/5193
PCD, the link doesn’t work. If this is the link to his posting of the Chicago Tribune article, I posted a link to the article in my most recent post about this issue. –ST
Comment by PCD @ 12/22/2005 - 8:37 am
“It’s not a secret. It’s also untrue. ”
Google it. Tom DeLay is proud of it. Its a big victory and an accomplishment of the GOP powerhouse that its integrating itself into washington and pushing the dems out of governance. Its not a secret and in fact its touted by the likes of Norquist etc…
You’re just ready to disbelieve it because its me saying it. Its typical shoot the messenger.
Comment by andrew @ 12/23/2005 - 1:46 pm
andrew, no, it is not true. You just don’t have any true facts reported by other than moonbats on DU, Daily Krap, and the like.
Comment by PCD @ 12/23/2005 - 2:51 pm
Andrew, considering how you frequently shoot the messenger here, I wouldn’t be complaining about it when it’s turned around on you.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 12/23/2005 - 2:55 pm
“andrew, no, it is not true. You just don’t have any true facts reported by other than moonbats on DU, Daily Krap, and the like.”
you didn’t find any grover norquist quotes?
http://www.atr.org/national/kstreet/
that’s the website of the project. at americans for tax reform, a right wing organization.
Comment by andrew @ 12/24/2005 - 4:56 pm
I wish this administration was as honest and pure as the clinton years, hahahah
if only they had a few dead bodies and suicides to cover up.
Comment by ken 2 @ 1/13/2006 - 7:44 pm
You make the accusation that Carter and Clinton did the same as Bush concerning electronic eavesdropping. However if you read carefully the executive orders of Clinton and Carter both say WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE. That is the big difference. Bush deliberately tried to HIDE his surveillance orders from any other government agency. That is the big difference here.
Comment by Carl Sperr @ 7/3/2006 - 1:20 pm
Also, examine section 2 of Clinton’s executive order carefully. It says the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the foreign intelligence surveillance court. Bush has NEVER MADE any such application.
Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.
Comment by Carl Sperr @ 7/3/2006 - 1:34 pm
Also you right-wingers were too busy impeaching Clinton for a blow job why worry about spying?
Comment by Carl Sperr @ 7/3/2006 - 1:36 pm
Who let the liberals in? OMG, I’m gone 2 days, and there are a bunch of crazy lefties posting all over this board.
Comment by G-Monster @ 7/3/2006 - 11:51 pm
Carl,
Don’t you have a national secret to publicize or try to surrender the country to the Islamofascists?
Comment by PCD @ 7/4/2006 - 1:36 pm