| CBS News | 0 | |
| WaPo | 0 | |
| Zogby | North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan Trails in Potential 2010 Senate Match-up |
0 |
| SF Chron | 0 | |
| KDVR | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
NSA initially acted on its own after 9-11
Via the NYTimes today, we find out that in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 it was the NSA, not the President, who initiated the stepped up ’spying’ tactics in an attempt to thwart future attacks:
WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 – The National Security Agency acted on its own authority, without a formal directive from President Bush, to expand its domestic surveillance operations in the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to declassified documents released Tuesday.
The N.S.A. operation prompted questions from a leading Democrat, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who said in an Oct. 11, 2001, letter to a top intelligence official that she was concerned about the agency’s legal authority to expand its domestic operations, the documents showed.
[...]
The letter from Ms. Pelosi, the House minority leader, also suggested that the security agency, whose mission is to eavesdrop on foreign communications, moved immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks to identify terror suspects at home by loosening restrictions on domestic eavesdropping.
This puts a big kink in the belief by the usual suspects that the President was foaming at the mouth after 9-11 to ’spy on Americans.’
Antimedia sums up the ‘eavesdropping’ story perfectly:
So now what we have is the NSA, acting on its own, using its authority to loosen its own rules about surveillance in an attempt to widen the net and capture more terrorists. Congress then objects, prompting the administration to get involved and set up strict guidelines for surveillance. Eventually, the Attorney General objected to some element of the program, and the rules were tightened up even further.
So rather than a rogue administration running rampant over our civil rights, we have an agency acting within its authorities, the administration reacting responsibly to concerns expressed by Congress and setting up a program of routine auditing and notification to Congress. I suspect this news will be met with disappointment by those who hoped to impeach the President and with disgust by those who have been defending the President.
Yeah – disgust with the media and the whiners in the DNC who trumped up the ‘violation of civil liberties’ charge for all it was worth when all along it looks like the key players knew the real deal, and that this is a case of the NSA acting on its own in the initial stages, rather than the President being overly eager to ‘trample on the rights of Americans’ (to paraphrase the various anti-Bush arguments out there) as soon as he had the opportunity.
Read more via Captain Ed, Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy, AJ Strata, The Sundries Shack
Also, check out Cox and Forkum’s take on Chuck Schumer’s hypocrisy. Heh.
Related Toldjah So posts:
- Senator Jay Rockefeller is a phony
- Investigations begin into the NSA eavesdropping leak
- “… the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself”
- Michael Barone on the MSM’s ‘eavesdropping’ coverage
- Brief history of warrantless searches
- Past presidents and the NSA
- Bill Clinton and the NSA
- WSJ: “Thank you for wiretapping”
- The Prez fires back
- Prez essentially says ‘let me do my job’
- The undermining of this war
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
45 Responses to “NSA initially acted on its own after 9-11”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Though you seem like a nice lady ( and pretty, too, judging by your picture) to claim partisan bias (Democratic whiners) in the response to the latest in a string of Bushco scandals, is uninformed at best. Take a quick looksy and then ask, “why do these Republicans hate America?”
For instance:
* Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), “No president is ever above the law. … We are a nation of laws. You cannot avoid or dismiss a law.”
* Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) “the president’s decision to inform a handful of members of Congress was sufficient . . .I think it does not constitute a check and balance,. . .you can’t have the administration and a select number of members alter the law. It can’t be done.”
* Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN),“I think we want to see what in the course of time really works best, and the FISA act has worked pretty well from the time of President Carter’s day to the current time.”
* Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), surveillance abuses ‘extremely troubling. . . warrants further inquiry by Congress”
* Sen. John E. Sununu (R-NH) “it is a little bit of a stretch for the administration to say the surveillance program was authorized by the post-Sept. 11 resolution . . .This is the kind of activity that should be approved in statute.”
* Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and Rep. C.L.Otter (R-ID) “there is a clearly established process of judicial oversight through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court to obtain warrants for such wiretapping. . . the White House appears to have circumvented that process.
“The Founders envisioned a nation where people’s privacy was respected and the government’s business was open,. . . these actions turn that vision on its head. If the government is willing to bend the rules on this issue, how are we supposed to believe it won’t abuse the powers granted by the Patriot Act?”
* Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) “I don’t know of any legal basis to go around” FISA’s requirement the government obtain a warrant to conduct domestic surveillance of Americans . . . We can’t become an outcome-based democracy. Even in a time of war, you have to follow the process, because that’s what a democracy is all about: a process.”
* Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) “I know that the situation has changed since September 11th. So the equation has changed. Why did the president choose not to use FISA? That’s a legitimate question.”
* Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) “Exactly like Nixon before him, Bush has ordered the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct electronic snooping on communications of various people, including U.S. citizens. That action is unequivocally contrary to the express and implied requirements of federal law that such surveillance of U.S. persons inside the U.S. (regardless of whether their communications are going abroad) must be preceded by a court order.
Alleged associates of al-Qaeda are today’s targets of that breathtaking assertion of presidential power. Tomorrow, it may be your phone calls or e-mails that will be swept up into our electronic infrastructure and secretly kept in a growing file attached to your name. Then everyone you contact could become a suspect, a link in an ever lengthening chain that would ensnare us all in the files of the largest database ever created through unlimited electronic spying that touches every aspect of our lives.
* Bruce Fein, “It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that, as [former Supreme Court Justice] Robert Jackson said, would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.”
“President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses. Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure that would materially impair individual freedoms. . . .why is he so carefree about risking the liberties of both the living and those yet to be born by flouting the Constitution’s separation of powers and conflating constructive criticism with treason?
Congress should insist the president cease the spying unless or until a proper statute is enacted or face possible impeachment. The Constitution’s separation of powers is too important to be discarded in the name of expediency.”
*William Safire: “the president can’t seize dictatorial power. And a lot of my friends looked at me like I was going batty. But now we see this argument over excessive security, and I’m with the critics on that.”
* George F. Will: “the president’s decision to authorize the NSA’s surveillance without the complicity of a court or Congress was a mistake. Perhaps one caused by this administration’s almost metabolic urge to keep Congress unnecessarily distant and hence disgruntled.
* Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute and a Federalist Society member: “The text of FISA is unambiguous: “A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance … except as authorized by statute.” That provision covers communications from or to U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens in the United States. Moreover, Title III (the Wiretap Act) further provides that “procedures in this chapter and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance … may be conducted.”
Accordingly, warrants would be required for law enforcement purposes and, therefore, warrantless surveillance absent an authorizing statute would violate the FISA requirement.”
_________
So I guess all these rightwingers hate the President and are conspiracy nuts or whiners, too? No, it is apparent who is playing partisan here, and who really cares about America.
National security means securing the nation, but not only in the physical sense. A significant part of our national character is freedom from the sort of authoritarian intrusions some are so willing to let the current President get away with.
So if you really care about securing our nation, you cannot pick and choose the parts you want to defend. Our personal liberty is essential to our identity. It is possible to defend our borders and our personal freedoms at the same time.
This is so typical. A handful of Republicans are questioning the legality and that all of a sudden makes the people who assert (correctly so) that it’s Democrats and the media who are the whiners wrong?
I don’t think so.
When you guys ever get a clue? I’ve honestly never seen a more deliberately obtuse bunch in my entire life. What you just did is no different than what the media does routinely. They find a few Republicans on an issue that is overwhelmingly being pushed by Democrats and then claim the criticism is ‘bipartisan’ and they don’t just say it to note that it’s R’s as well as D’s, they say it to try to give credibility to the D’s issue of the day and to make it look like the R’s are split in two.
Congrats! You’ve learned how to play the game well. Too bad for you that you just got called on it.
BTW, I think you copied that from either someone else’s blog or some type of news article. If I find out you have, it will be snipped with a link provided. Remember that for future reference.
Oh – and please don’t lecture me about security and liberty, nor partisanship. That’s like the pot calling the kettle black. And please also refrain from implying (and at the same time setting up a strawman) that I’ve said “liberals hate America.” I never have. It might be a good idea to actually READ what I write before you assume things.
So lets get this straight,without orders from anyone the NSA, on it’s own hook, begins spying on all American citizens within 24 hours of 9-11. When bush finds out instead of being outraged he sanctions this clear violation of law and expands the NSA mandate to include all the people of the world. And all of you Right-wingers want to continue claiming that we the people do Not live in a dictatorship? Peace
Nancy Pelosi suggested a loosening of rules on domestic spying? That is too funny! Is it possible to see that letter?
Child, you have to understand that spying on foreign or domestic terrorists does not restrict your liberty. Heck, it doesn’t even restrict the liberties of the terrorists! They are still free to do whatever they want, but the chance that they will not succeed in a terrorist act increases.
During wartime, some restriction is typically put on our freedoms. Luckily, none have been put on us whatsoever in this war on terror. I cannot think of a single thing that I could do on September 10, 2001 that I can’t do today. That’s a lot of liberty
Do those straw men scare many birds away, child? I was trying to find where, anywhere in what our lovely blogmistress posted anything about people hating America, or hating the president. So much for that. Let’s look at the rest:
National security means securing the nation, but not only in the physical sense. A significant part of our national character is freedom from the sort of authoritarian intrusions some are so willing to let the current President get away with.
What sort of authoritarian intrusions are you talking about here? The ones that have not only precedent but the law behind them? Those intrusions? Just because your opinion is that they are authoritarian intrusions doesn’t make them so. I would say that a considerable character of our national heritage is the expectation that our government will do all within its power and in its law to protect me as a citizen, and that outweighs your baseless objections
So if you really care about securing our nation, you cannot pick and choose the parts you want to defend.
Which, ironically, is what you’re doing, choosing to defend the non-existent rights of someone trying to do me harm over the the defense of the country.
Our personal liberty is essential to our identity.
And our lives are more important than either criminal acts you make up or personal views of the President.
It is possible to defend our borders and our personal freedoms at the same time.
Thank God our President is doing both.
Steve: Read the damn post again. Jesus.
steve, do you ever read what you say? Spying on ALL Americans? You have got to be out of your mind.
If you make a call to a known terrorist at a known terrorist’s phone number or receive a call from a known terrorist’s phone number, that is fair game for the NSA to investigate. Only fear-mongers have a problem with that. What’s more is that these same fear-mongers can not prove more than that took place.
- I’ll post it one more time. The NSA has monitored ALL cross border communications between suspected enemies of our country since the late 60’s. Period. If you have a problem with being defended then move….
- I’m still waiting for this “list” of “innocent Americans” that have been wiretapped…. Well even one instance would do. But then a few instances of mistaken taping wouldn’t prop up the Dems strawman very well. I suspect I’d grow old and grey waiting….
- You know if you’re going to squeel about restricted liberties it might be helpful if you could site even one or two. Anyone?…. Bueller?…. *snort*
- Bang
- Breaking… via MewsMax: Official: Israel’s Ariel Sharon Had ‘Significant’ Stroke, brain hemorrage …. here…
- Bang
BBH: You mean besides the horrifying tale of the noble citizen who was hunted down for daring to read Mao’s Little Red Book?
…what? He did what now…?
Uhh….never mind….
- Well AT….I’ve seen many instances of “sublime to the rediculous” in my long lifetime. But I never thought I’d see an entire political party brainwashed into that sort of mindless, sheeplike behavior…
- On the other hand as a young Democrat, I never invisioned the party would evolve into a socialist Cult either. I mean who knew…..
- Sad….. all you can say about it…..Sad…..
- Bang –
The “keyword” on this thread is CHILD. Pass me a grain of salt, please.
- CZ… not sure they make salt grains that miniscule….
- Bang
You were a young Democrat BBH? Hah, so was ST! And I have the goods to prove it!
(If someone can convince her to post a pic with more pixel density, I could make it look more believable)
Haha, so now we live in a dictatorship? Keep on puffin’, because each day the tripe you spew becomes more and more hilarious. You can’t make this stuff up, folks.
Too funny Kevin
ST,
I will speculate (he’ll have to confirm or deny himself) that Child did not intend to imply that there is no partisanship involved at all – only that the significant voiced oppossition on the Republican side supports the idea that it indicates that most of the opposition democrats – who are after all ideologically & philosophically opposed to the President anyway (that’s why they are the opposition) and have been long opposed to the war and its conduct anyway – must also have good sincere reasons, beyond partisanship, to oppose the president.
And insofar as that is true, the charge that the Dems are “just” being partisan is innacurate.
I have no doubt that, just as most on the Republican side sincerely believe the positions they espose in support of the President, there are some Republicans who also use the “Partisanship” charge in a purely partisan way. It isn’t fair to just pin the charge on the Dems (or the Repubicans, as many on the left have done).
I don’t believe that partisanship drives the issue on either side; rather, personaly philosophy and ideology do, with Partisanship playing a more minor role.
Coridially
Ken G.
- Oh good grief….Our lovely host…. that purple hair….Carter….I can’t help Myself ST…. I nearly broke a rib…
…Ohhhhh the humanities….
(psssst…. Kevin….is she still laughing?….)
- But then again I’m a fine one to talk….Thank G_d we all come to our senses eventually…
- Bang –
Kevin,
We’ll have to call you keeper of the skeletons from the (liberal) closet.
ST, that hairdo, was it modeled after Counselor Troi or ?
Hehe, I had ST wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt at first
Now we’re starting to get somewhere:
From a letter from Congress to the Commander-in-Thief
As you know, since this program was first disclosed by The New York Times on December 16, 2005, it has caused a firestorm of controversy. Among other things, concerns have been raised that not only is the program constitutionally problematic; but also that it is inconsistent with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (”FISA”) and not authorized by any subsequently passed law (including the September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force); it included within its sweep calls solely within the United States; the intelligence information was widely disseminated without adequate controls; and that it involved tapping into telecommunication data and voice networks, thereby intercepting a large volume of telephone and Internet communications. Concerns about the program were not only raised by Members of the Intelligence Committees and Members of the FISA Court (one of whom resigned in protest), but by then-Deputy Attorney General Comey and, reportedly, by then-Attorney General Ashcroft.
Perhaps the most significant concern many of us have is that such a program could be utilized with the Executive Branch acting in the role of attorney, judge, and jury in deciding whether or not the surveillance was justified or appropriate. This is particularly perplexing given the ease with which your and other Administrations have been able to obtain FISA warrants in the past, and the fact that such warrants can even be obtained on a retroactive basis.
Yep! Preznit has stepped in it this time. He has sidestepped Congressional oversight and his legal veneer is fading fast. True patriots will oppose his tyranny.
Child
Read this!
or this
or this
BTW, the letter you said was from “Congress” was from these people:
Sincerely,
Rep. John Conyers, Jr.; Rep. Bobby Scott; Rep. Lofgren; Rep. Nadler; Rep. Tauscher; Rep. Jackson Lee; Rep. McDermott; Rep. Meehan; Rep. Olver; Rep. Wexler; Rep. Inslee; Rep. Schakowsky; Rep. Doggett; Rep. Kucinich; Rep. McCollum; Rep. Berman; Rep. Baldwin; Rep. Van Hollen; Rep. David Price; Rep. Tom Udall; Rep. Ackerman; Rep. Wasserman Shultz; Rep. Sabo; Rep. Tierney; Rep. Hinchey; Rep. Sanders
The folks bolded are folks I easily recognize as NOT going anywhere soon because no matter how crazy left they are they are REAL safe districts.
Wait, Democrats in Congress are against one of Bush’s policies? I’m shocked…shocked!
someone type the /end sarcasm tag quick!
- S’true Kevin…. But I think Baklava has rounded up the usual suspects…
- Bang
PCD: “ST, that hairdo, was it modeled after Counselor Troi or ? ”
My hair in the morning actually looks more like this … before I put a brush to it
Aww shucks…I guess since all those wingnuts say so, the President is justified in breaking the law though he didn’t need to.
Glad that’s settled.
Never mind me and my quaint little ideas about about checks and balances and staving off Shrub’s imperialism.
I dunno, “child” – I mean we were all supposed to be impressed with the list of (mostly) leftist wingnuts you supplied for us earlier, weren’t we?
And again, your lectures on ‘checks and balances’ and the rule of law leave me unimpressed. Stop acting like you’re the only one who wants to uphold the Constitution here. You’re not.
Neither have we seen Child’s constitutional law credentials. I’m hoping Child can at least admit that there is a debate about the legality with many Democrats saying that what Bush has informed Congress he was doing over 12 times is legal. Or did you not see those Democrats in your sources?
Child just wants Bush to have broken the law. Discussion is not going to affect him. When the court’s say Bush is innocent, child will say the courts are stacked or someone was paid off or something.
I think he’s Steve’s child.
Hmmm… my sources were either leftist, or RINOs, so Shrub is in the clear?
Bush informed Congress he was going to break the law? By Congress do you mean ALL of Congress? Remember the letter I noted above that you claim doesn’t come from Congress? Well that standard should apply nicely here as well.
Nah, that’s too easy.
Check here.
Or listen to what this Congressman says:
ABC: You were Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time the President signed this executive order. Vice President Cheney met with congressional leaders — I’m sure you were among them in 2002, is that correct?
GRAHAM: There was such a meeting. And the issue, then, was whether we could intercept foreign communications when they transited through U.S. communication sites. The assumption was that if we did that, we would do it pursuant to the law, the law that regulates the surveillance of national security issues. And there was no suggestion that we were going to begin eavesdropping on United States citizens without following the full law.
ABC: You’re saying you were not briefed as the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee at the point the President signed this?
GRAHAM: I was briefed. There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to use that as the subterfuge to begin unwarranted, illegal — and I think unconstitutional — eavesdropping on American citizens.
ABC: So if the administration says that you were informed about this action, they would not be telling the truth?
GRAHAM: We were not informed that this would be a pretense for using warrantless searchs to listen in to the private conversations of United States citizens.
As usual, everything Bush says is a lie. Don’t believe me? Try a looksy at this nice little list about the misinformation the White House is spreading about this latest imperial maneuver.
But to be serious for a second–maybe we can stop talking past one another, and I can get a straight answer from you guys and gals.
What exactly does Shrub have to do before you realize he’s overextended his authority? What exactly does constitute a breach of the separation of powers in this case? Is there a line you guys will not let him cross?
Seriously.
Nice blog, Sis!
child: you said this earlier:
“Aww shucks…I guess since all those wingnuts say so, the President is justified in breaking the law though he didn’t need to. ”
Which is why I posted what I did in return about leftist wingnuts.
Do me a favor, either stop acting like a “child” or find somewhere else to pull your deliberately obtuse act, ok?
Child is accurately portraying the immature liberals that run the Democrat party. Child obviously thinks the Democrats run Congress, therefore a letter from the Democrat caucus is edicts from his god.
Child wrote, “What exactly does Shrub have to do before you realize he’s overextended his authority?”
Break the law. There is a debate over whether he did or not. THere are Dems who think he didn’t and Repub’s who think he did. Just because you write in a blog about the REpub’s who think he may have doesn’t mean “Shrub” did break the law.
It’d be nice if you can stop calling. Though it looks like you are this close “” to being irrelevant on this blog if you keep it up.
Shrub, preznit, wingnut…Namecalling alert! Fascist or Nazi trump card close to being played. Developing…
Child, you don’t seem to realize that most Americans don’t believe the President broke the law when he spied on terrorists in America. I would guess that if it turned out that he DID break the law (doubtful imo), most Americans would be glad he did it to spy on terrorists, regardless of their nationality or location. I don’t care about terrorists rights coming under fire. Why do you? Of course, I’m anti-terrorist, so my opinion is biased…
We are debating the merits of the executive branch case for domestic spying, not conducting a populartity contest. Over half of Americans seem to believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 as well, does that mean it’s so?
As for protecting those that destroy our nation and its constitution, who is defending whom?
It seems to me that you are merely defending King George as a knee-jerk reaction. You would be screaming bloody murder if this scandal were Clinton.
Let’s not get off track though.
Fact: FISA was NOT an obstacle to intelligence gathering.
Fact: Domestic spying is un Constitutional
Fact: Bush bypassed the law.
Fact: Congress did NOT approve.
Fact: The Justive department did NOT approve.
Fact: AUMF does not give Shrub the authority for domestic snooping.
Fact: Presidents do NOT have the power to violate the law, even in war-time (which we are not in presently–AUMF is not a Congressional declaration of war)
I am no more in favor of violence and terror than you, but the ends do not jusrtify the means. Giving the Preznit’s motives benefit of the doubt (try it when it’s a Dem), the current violation of civil liberties will not make us safer.
Child, I can’t take you seriously. First of all, you’re immaturity. Second, Democrats in Congress do not run the country, nor do liberal judges. Judges do not conduct warfare, nor do they run the agencies tasked with protecting the country.
Your Bush Hate blinds you. We are talking about communications with known terrorists, not calls to your mommy.
Also, Democrats were briefed. It is not our fault if they had amnesia, are stupid, or are rewriting history to try to lie their way into power.
OMG.
You’re still doing it.
Buh bye.
Your facts are not factual
“Fact: FISA was NOT an obstacle to intelligence gathering.”
In reality, if Bush used the FISA law, there would have been tremendous obstacles. The call could be monitored, but the American terrorist’s name, phone number and all the words he said would have to be edited out of the transcript. Only the foreign terrorist’s statements could be recorded. Being anti-terrorist, I consider that a waste of valuable information that could save lives.
“Fact: Domestic spying is un Constitutional.”
Wholly false. It is done quite often. In times of war, it has and continues to be done without warrant. In fact, Clinton, not in a time of war, performed a search and seizure without a warrant on some mobsters using the exact same reasoning as Bush is doing. You did not hear any public outcry from the Republicans even though Clinton was in charge, because most conservatives are anti-mob as well as anri-terrorist.
“Fact: Bush bypassed the law.”
The FISA law, true, the law, false.
What civil liberty was violated, btw? The right to hold private conversations with terrorists abroad? What civil liberty have you lost since the war on terror began?
Darn, did you zap him ST? I was hoping to know what civil liberties he or any of us have lost. Specifically, what could we do on September 10 that we cannot do now (other than bring boxcutters with us on planes).
Hey Kevin, I have phone conversations with terrorists daily. I feel violated !
Actually no. I’m proud that I was an instrument used by the Government to catch terrorists and hear of upcoming plots.
Also, I stupidly wrapped Christmas presents last year before traveling from CA to VA. One of the items was glass and iron and the security gaurds had to unwrap my neatly wrapped presents at the airport. I felt violated ! My civil rights my civil rights ! Impeach Bush !
Hah! You’d better move to Canada where you still have the right to wrap presents!
Can I still read Sister’s blog up there in Canada?
He’s just on moderation now, Kevin. If he comes back to answer, I’ll release the answer for posting.