Report: Bush eased domestic spy rules after 9/11
Eavesdropping allowed without search warrants, NYT says

The New York Times reports that President Bush signed the order easing eavesdropping rules in 2002.

NEW YORK (AP) -- President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States -- without getting search warrants -- following the Sept. 11 attacks, The New York Times reports.

The presidential order, which Bush signed in 2002, has allowed the agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States, according to a story posted Thursday on the Times' Web site.

Before the new program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders to do so. Under the post-Sept. 11 program, the NSA has eavesdropped, without warrants, on as many 500 people inside the United States at any given time. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.

The Times said reporters interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.

Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting al Qaeda by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.

But some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group's initial reaction to the disclosure was "shock that the administration has gone so far in violating American civil liberties to the extent where it seems to be a violation of federal law."

Asked about the administration's contention that the eavesdropping has disrupted terrorist attacks, Fredrickson said the ACLU couldn't comment until it sees some evidence. "They've veiled these powers in secrecy so there's no way for Congress or any independent organizations to exercise any oversight."

The Bush administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.

Aides to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, declined to comment Thursday night.

The Times said it delayed publication of the report for a year because the White House said it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. The Times said it omitted information from the story that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists.
-------
I thought of this as fairly shocking. I knew that he violated many Constitutional rights with the Patriot Act, but wow. I never thought he'd go this far.

I am totally against this. What happened to privacy? Shit, I can't make jokes over the phone anymore. The CIA might try and take me out. :rolleyes:

Here....Let me sum up this argument before it even begins, and we'll save everyone a lot of time and aggravation and JG a lot of space:

If you believe that "the ends justifies the means" - that it's OK for the government to do almost anything that they want to in the name of "The War on Terror" - then you won't have a problem with this.

If you don't, then you will.

Everyone is entitled to take whichever side they wish, but I hope that everyone would agree that there is a danger here.

(Sitting back now, awaiting the ACLU-bashing posts, and the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" comments. :p )

Ah, who needs the Brooklyn Bridge anyway, right? But never mind that! God forbid the government eavesdrop on illegal activities! :rolleyes:

Even if I "have nothing to hide", I don't want the government listening in on what I need to get from a grocery store, they are MY constitutional rights, and I don't really care if I have nothing to hide, I want my privacy intact.

And, yes, plaw, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to worry about!

BTW, we all know what a great source of truthful, objective news that the Times is!

Nice summary plaw but allow me if I may to express it in musical form:

(My song)...
"That's the way (uh-huh) uh-huh, I like it,
That's the way (uh-huh) uh-huh, I like it..."

Touché, Snake.

Here's one for the government and their wire tapping: (isn't that how Carlito Brigante got off, BTW?)

Don't stand so,
Don't stand so,
Don't stand so close to me

Well, Fox News covered this too.

This was an illegal move. More specifically, he directed parts of the Executive to violate clear statutes.

"All that you touch, all that you see, all that you taste, all you feel; All that you love, all that you hate, all you distrust, all you save; all that you give, all that you deal, all that you buy, beg, borrow or steal; All you create, all you destroy, all that you do, all that you say; All that you eat, everyone you meet, all that you slight, everyone you right; All that is now, all that is gone, all that's to come, and everything under the sun is in tune, but the sun is eclipsed by the mooo-ooon."

Good God, I've turned a perfectly good political thread into Karaoke night.

Can't say I'm surprised. :rolleyes:

Thoughh I don't think it's a matter of "anything to hide". I just think it's plain wrong to have such a "broad" power. I live far from an exciting, and very far from criminal life, and I'd be pissed if I were getting monitored. What exactly are the laws/guidlines here?

From the attached article...


Something like this sounds reasonable:

"Prior to 9/11, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance activities to foreign embassies and missions —and obtained court orders for such investigations. Much of its work was overseas, where thousands of people with suspected terrorist ties or other valuable intelligence may be monitored. "


However, I would have a problem with the Domestic communications mentioned here.

"The surveillance, disclosed in Friday's New York Times, is said to allow the agency to monitor international calls and e-mail messages of people inside the United States. But the paper said the agency would still seek warrants to snoop on purely domestic communications — for example, Americans' calls between New York and California."

All I can say is they'd better have damn good evidence to "eavesdrop", and there should be limits, no matter who's in charge. I'm not familiar with the laws here, but whatever happened to the "rule of law" that was cited so much during the Clinton scandal???

TIS


web page

You see TIS!!!! I told you to be careful what you say when your on the phone with me! Before you know it our conversations are going to be all over Fox News and the New York Times!


Don Cardi

Now we will know all the juicey gossip between Cardi & TIS.

Here's a cute animation from the ACLU about information privacy

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

That's hilarious!!! Sprout submarine sandwich?? Let's hope it doesn't come to that.


TIS

It seems people out there who are less upset by this that the fact that Clinton got a blowjob from an intern.

We're content to live under tyranny, so long as it's moral tyranny.

Anyone see the latest Jib Jab Bush satire??? It's great.





web page


TIS