Democrats Turned Spy Satellites on US After Ok. City Bombing

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/15/D8EGQD7G1.html

Where's the outrage Dan?

Or was Janet Reno a republican puppet? :lol


In the days after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the U.S. government used a spy satellite to gather intelligence on a white separatist compound in Oklahoma, according to a published report.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I'm outraged that the such a thing would happen to a bunch of racist assholes

[JoeChalupa]

Those damn democrat bastards!!!! :cuss

[Oh, Gee!!]

Those damn democrat bastards!!!! :cuss

how dare they protect us from home-grown terrorists

[SA210]

I'm outraged that the such a thing would happen to a bunch of racist assholes
:lol

[Mr. Peabody]

how dare they protect us from home-grown terrorists

How dare they spy on the Republican constituency in that manner!

[SA210]

How dare they actually practice "homeland security"

[Yonivore]

So, after reading this thread, I guess all you Democrats are okay with the NSA listening in to your overseas communications?

[Vashner]

Spying goes back 1000's of years in various societies...

We do more than they do... trust me...

Wrong topic to pick on lefties with.

[Yonivore]

The more disturbing trend is that this information is leaking...and, for that, I do blame the lefties at the CIA and other liberal career bureaucrats. Porter Goss needs to speed up his how cleaning and, now, it appears the NSA needs some work.

[Ms. Kaleidescope]

So, after reading this thread, I guess all you Democrats are okay with the NSA listening in to your overseas communications?

So I guess you're ok with your REPUBLICAN president and his cronies pushing and pushing for the Patriot Act so his government can listen to your phone conversations, get your medical records, financial records, even your freakin library records? Not to mention, they can search your house and not even tell you. Honestly, it ain't the democrats who are pushing the whole spying game right now honey.

[Nbadan]

Aggie Hoops may be a lunatic, but he does make a good point. Many of the Patriot Act provisions were, IN FACT, de-facto provisions that were thought up by the Clinton Admin. after the Oklahoma City bombing, of course, national security was not a priority for Republicans then, so these provisions had a snow-balls chance in hell of passing. Just this past anniversary of the OK bombing, Bill Clinton joined Darth Cheney at the OKC Memorial...


More than 1,000 people, joined by Vice President Dick Cheney and former President Clinton, gathered in Oklahoma City Tuesday to remember the victims of the federal building bombing that occurred 10 years ago.

Then you have this really cozy, almost creepy, relationship between Clinton and Bush41. I mean, those two are with each other more than with their wives, and that's just fucken sick.

[boutons]

The New York Times
December 15, 2005

Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say

By JAMES RISEN
and ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 *- Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval represents a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."

Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.

According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said.

The Bush administration views the operation as necessary so that the agency can move quickly to monitor communications that may disclose threats to this country, the officials said. Defenders of the program say it has been a critical tool in helping disrupt terrorist plots and prevent attacks inside the United States.

Administration officials are confident that existing safeguards are sufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, the officials say. In some cases, they said, the Justice Department eventually seeks warrants if it wants to expand the eavesdropping to include communications confined within the United States. The officials said the 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 deals with national security issues.

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it said the N.S.A. eavesdropped without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands over the past three years, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials.

Several officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program, the officials said. But they said most people targeted for N.S.A. monitoring have never been charged with a crime, including an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden.

Dealing With a New Threat

The eavesdropping program grew out of concerns after the Sept. 11 attacks that the nation's intelligence agencies were not poised to deal effectively with the new threat of Al Qaeda and that they were handcuffed by legal and bureaucratic restrictions better suited to peacetime than war, according to officials. In response, President Bush significantly eased limits on American intelligence and law enforcement agencies and the military.

But some of the administration's antiterrorism initiatives have provoked an outcry from members of Congress, watchdog groups, immigrants and others who argue that the measures erode protections for civil liberties and intrude on Americans' privacy. Opponents have challenged provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the focus of contentious debate on Capitol Hill this week, that expand domestic surveillance by giving the Federal Bureau of Investigation more power to collect information like library lending lists or Internet use. Military and F.B.I. officials have drawn criticism for monitoring what were largely peaceful antiwar protests. The Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security were forced to retreat on plans to use public and private databases to hunt for possible terrorists. And last year, the Supreme Court rejected the administration's claim that those labeled "enemy combatants" were not entitled to judicial review of their open-ended detention.

Mr. Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States * including American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners * is based on classified legal opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A. operation.

The National Security Agency, which is based at Fort Meade, Md., is the nation's largest and most secretive intelligence agency, so intent on remaining out of public view that it has long been nicknamed "No Such Agency.'' It breaks codes and maintains listening posts around the world to eavesdrop on foreign governments, diplomats and trade negotiators as well as drug lords and terrorists. But the agency ordinarily operates under tight restrictions on any spying on Americans, even if they are overseas, or disseminating information about them.

What the agency calls a "special collection program" began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, as it looked for new tools to attack terrorism. The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, the officials said.

In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said.

Under the agency's longstanding rules, the N.S.A. can target for interception phone calls or e-mail messages on foreign soil, even if the recipients of those communications are in the United States. Usually, though, the government can only target phones and e-mail messages in this country by first obtaining a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which holds its closed sessions at the Justice Department.

Traditionally, the F.B.I., not the N.S.A., seeks such warrants and conducts most domestic eavesdropping. Until the new program began, the N.S.A. typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions in Washington, New York and other cities, and obtained court orders to do so.

Since 2002, the agency has been conducting some warrantless eavesdropping on people in the United States who are linked, even if indirectly, to suspected terrorists through the chain of phone numbers and e-mail addresses, according to several officials who know of the operation. Under the special program, the agency monitors their international communications, the officials said. The agency, for example, can target phone calls from someone in New York to someone in Afghanistan.

Warrants are still required for eavesdropping on entirely domestic-to-domestic communications, those officials say, meaning that calls from that New Yorker to someone in California could not be monitored without first going to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court.

A White House Briefing

After the special program started, Congressional leaders from both political parties were brought to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in the White House. The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency's director and is now the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said.

It is not clear how much the members of Congress were told about the presidential order and the eavesdropping program. Some of them declined to comment about the matter, while others did not return phone calls.

Later briefings were held for members of Congress as they assumed leadership roles on the intelligence committees, officials familiar with the program said. After a 2003 briefing, Senator Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who became vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee that year, wrote a letter to Mr. Cheney expressing concerns about the program, officials knowledgeable about the letter said. It could not be determined if he received a reply. Mr. Rockefeller declined to comment. Aside from the Congressional leaders, only a small group of people, including several cabinet members and officials at the N.S.A., the C.I.A. and the Justice Department, know of the program.

Some officials familiar with it say they consider warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States to be unlawful and possibly unconstitutional, amounting to an improper search. One government official involved in the operation said he privately complained to a Congressional official about his doubts about the legality of the program. But nothing came of his inquiry. "People just looked the other way because they didn't want to know what was going on," he said.

A senior government official recalled that he was taken aback when he first learned of the operation. "My first reaction was, ‘We're doing what?' " he said. While he said he eventually felt that adequate safeguards were put in place, he added that questions about the program's legitimacy were understandable.

Some of those who object to the operation argue that is unnecessary. By getting warrants through the foreign intelligence court, the N.S.A. and F.B.I. could eavesdrop on people inside the United States who might be tied to terrorist groups without skirting longstanding rules, they say.

The standard of proof required to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is generally considered lower than that required for a criminal warrant * intelligence officials only have to show probable cause that someone may be "an agent of a foreign power," which includes international terrorist groups * and the secret court has turned down only a small number of requests over the years. In 2004, according to the Justice Department, 1,754 warrants were approved. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court can grant emergency approval for wiretaps within hours, officials say.

Administration officials counter that they sometimes need to move more urgently, the officials said. Those involved in the program also said that the N.S.A.'s eavesdroppers might need to start monitoring large batches of numbers all at once, and that it would be impractical to seek permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court first, according to the officials.

Culture of Caution and Rules

The N.S.A. domestic spying operation has stirred such controversy among some national security officials in part because of the agency's cautious culture and longstanding rules.

Widespread abuses * including eavesdropping on Vietnam War protesters and civil rights activists * by American intelligence agencies became public in the 1970's and led to passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which imposed strict limits on intelligence gathering on American soil. Among other things, the law required search warrants, approved by the secret F.I.S.A. court, for wiretaps in national security cases. The agency, deeply scarred by the scandals, adopted additional rules that all but ended domestic spying on its part.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, though, the United States intelligence community was criticized for being too risk-averse. The National Security Agency was even cited by the independent 9/11 Commission for adhering to self-imposed rules that were stricter than those set by federal law.

Several senior government officials say that when the special operation first began, there were few controls on it and little formal oversight outside the N.S.A. The agency can choose its eavesdropping targets and does not have to seek approval from Justice Department or other Bush administration officials. Some agency officials wanted nothing to do with the program, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation, a former senior Bush administration official said. Before the 2004 election, the official said, some N.S.A. personnel worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected president.

In mid-2004, concerns about the program expressed by national security officials, government lawyers and a judge prompted the Bush administration to suspend elements of the program and revamp it.

For the first time, the Justice Department audited the N.S.A. program, several officials said. And to provide more guidance, the Justice Department and the agency expanded and refined a checklist to follow in deciding whether probable cause existed to start monitoring someone's communications, several officials said.

A complaint from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the federal judge who oversees the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, helped spur the suspension, officials said. The judge questioned whether information obtained under the N.S.A. program was being improperly used as the basis for F.I.S.A. wiretap warrant requests from the Justice Department, according to senior government officials. While not knowing all the details of the exchange, several government lawyers said there appeared to be concerns that the Justice Department, by trying to shield the existence of the N.S.A. program, was in danger of misleading the court about the origins of the information cited to justify the warrants.

One official familiar with the episode said the judge insisted to Justice Department lawyers at one point that any material gathered under the special N.S.A. program not be used in seeking wiretap warrants from her court. Judge Kollar-Kotelly did not return calls for comment.

A related issue arose in a case in which the F.B.I. was monitoring the communications of a terrorist suspect under a F.I.S.A.-approved warrant, even though the National Security Agency was already conducting warrantless eavesdropping. According to officials, F.B.I. surveillance of Mr. Faris, the Brooklyn Bridge plotter, was dropped for a short time because of technical problems. At the time, senior Justice Department officials worried what would happen if the N.S.A. picked up information that needed to be presented in court. The government would then either have to disclose the N.S.A. program or mislead a criminal court about how it had gotten the information.

The Civil Liberties Question

Several national security officials say the powers granted the N.S.A. by President Bush go far beyond the expanded counterterrorism powers granted by Congress under the USA Patriot Act, which is up for renewal. The House on Wednesday approved a plan to reauthorize crucial parts of the law. But final passage has been delayed under the threat of a Senate filibuster because of concerns from both parties over possible intrusions on Americans' civil liberties and privacy.

Under the act, law enforcement and intelligence officials are still required to seek a F.I.S.A. warrant every time they want to eavesdrop within the United States. A recent agreement reached by Republican leaders and the Bush administration would modify the standard for F.B.I. wiretap warrants, requiring, for instance, a description of a specific target. Critics say the bar would remain too low to prevent abuses.

Bush administration officials argue that the civil liberties concerns are unfounded, and they say pointedly that the Patriot Act has not freed the N.S.A. to target Americans. "Nothing could be further from the truth," wrote John Yoo, a former official in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, and his co-author in a Wall Street Journal opinion article in December 2003. Mr. Yoo worked on a classified legal opinion on the N.S.A.'s domestic eavesdropping program.

At an April hearing on the Patriot Act renewal, Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, asked Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the F.B.I., "Can the National Security Agency, the great electronic snooper, spy on the American people?"

"Generally," Mr. Mueller said, "I would say generally, they are not allowed to spy or to gather information on American citizens." President Bush did not ask Congress to include provisions for the N.S.A. domestic surveillance program as part of the Patriot Act and has not sought any other laws to authorize the operation. Bush administration lawyers argued that such new laws were unnecessary, because they believed that the Congressional resolution on the campaign against terrorism provided ample authorization, officials said.

Seeking Congressional approval was also viewed as politically risky because the proposal would be certain to face intense opposition on civil liberties grounds. The administration also feared that by publicly disclosing the existence of the operation, its usefulness in tracking terrorists would end, officials said.

The legal opinions that support the N.S.A. operation remain classified, but they appear to have followed private discussions among senior administration lawyers and other officials about the need to pursue aggressive strategies that once may have been seen as crossing a legal line, according to senior officials who participated in the discussions.

For example, just days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon, Mr. Yoo, the Justice Department lawyer, wrote an internal memorandum that argued that the government might use "electronic surveillance techniques and equipment that are more powerful and sophisticated than those available to law enforcement agencies in order to intercept telephonic communications and observe the movement of persons but without obtaining warrants for such uses."

Mr. Yoo noted that while such actions could raise constitutional issues, in the face of devastating terrorist attacks "the government may be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties."

The next year, Justice Department lawyers disclosed their thinking on the issue of warrantless wiretaps in national security cases in a little-noticed brief in an unrelated court case. In that 2002 brief, the government said that "the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority."

Administration officials were also encouraged by a November 2002 appeals court decision in an unrelated matter. The decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which sided with the administration in dismantling a bureaucratic "wall" limiting cooperation between prosecutors and intelligence officers, noted "the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."

But the same court suggested that national security interests should not be grounds "to jettison the Fourth Amendment requirements" protecting the rights of Americans against undue searches. The dividing line, the court acknowledged, "is a very difficult one to administer."


* Copyright 2005The New York Times Company

[Vashner]

As long as we stay away from AI in our computers where ok...

Other than that forget privacy.. they will know when we flush and what paper we use... well they already do.

The average house now has 500 to a trillion transistors....

Networking will be on power lines ....

.. welcome to the matrix ladies and gentleman... CNN and liberal media provide the brainwashing part to keep you happy with china.

[Yonivore]

So I guess you're ok with your REPUBLICAN president and his cronies pushing and pushing for the Patriot Act so his government can listen to your phone conversations, get your medical records, financial records, even your freakin library records? Not to mention, they can search your house and not even tell you. Honestly, it ain't the democrats who are pushing the whole spying game right now honey.
Well, that was the point of my thread and, yeah, I'm okay with it.

[spurster]

I'm shocked! Just shocked! Up to this point, I thought Clinton and Reno were perfect.

[xrayzebra]

The more disturbing trend is that this information is leaking...and, for that, I do blame the lefties at the CIA and other liberal career bureaucrats. Porter Goss needs to speed up his how cleaning and, now, it appears the NSA needs some work.

Leaking isn't even the word for it anymore. Big article in the E-N this
morning. The web version is from AP, but the E-N printed version, which
differs in several aspects, shows it is a NYT piece. I am putting in the
web version. But I love the fact that the AP version puts all the
ACLU stuff in===============================================

Dec 16, 11:06 AM EST

Report: Bush authorized NSA to spy in U.S.





WASHINGTON (AP) -- High-level administration figures, reacting to a report that the National Security Agency eavesdropped without warrants on people inside the United States, asserted Friday that President Bush has respected the Constitution while striving to protect the American people.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said Bush has "acted lawfully in every step that he has taken." His top spokesman, Scott McClellan, said that Bush "is going to remain fully committed to upholding our Constitution and protect the civil liberties of the American people. And he has done both."

But neither Rice nor McClellan would confirm or deny a New York Times report saying the super-secret NSA had spied on as many as 500 people inside the United States at any given time since 2002.

That year, following the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds - perhaps thousands - of people inside the United States, the Times reported.

Advertisement





Before the program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.

The report surfaced in an untimely fashion as the administration and its GOP allies on Capitol Hill were fighting to save provisions of the expiring USA Patriot Act that they believe are key tools in the fight against terrorism.

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-Qaida by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.

Interactives
Poll: Bush Administration Ethics Questioned
Bush's Cabinet



News From the Bush Administration
Report: Bush authorized NSA to spy in U.S.
Bush promises New Orleans better levees

White House defends Bush comments on DeLay

Bush: Iraq invasion my responsibility

Bush backs Rumsfeld, DeLay in interview

Bush signs order to speed FOIA requests

Text of Bush speech on Iraq war

Bush calls Medicare drug plan 'a good deal'

Bernanke ready to take over for Greenspan

Bush's approval up, but disagreement why





PHOTO GALLERY

President Bush




Buy AP Photo Reprints






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.

Asked about this Friday morning on NBC's "Today" show, Rice said, "I'm not going to comment on intelligence matters."

McClellan, too, declined to comment directly on the report, saying only that the administration upholds and respects the civil liberties of all Americans.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group's initial reaction to the NSA 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."

Earlier this week, the Pentagon said it was reviewing its use of a classified database of information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States after a report by NBC News said the database listed activities of anti-war groups that were not a security threat to Pentagon property or personnel.

Pentagon spokesmen declined to discuss the matter on the record but issued a written statement Wednesday evening that implied - but did not explicitly acknowledge - that some information had been handled improperly.

The administration had briefed congressional leaders about the NSA 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.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

Guess Bush doesn't have the moral authority that Clinton had.

[boutons]

Bush spying claim causes US storm

Allegations that President George Bush authorised security agents to eavesdrop on people inside the US have caused a storm of protest.

The New York Times says the National Security Agency was allowed to spy on hundreds of people without warrants.

The NSA is normally barred from eavesdropping within the US.

Republican Senator John McCain called for an explanation, while Senator Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, said he would investigate.

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Mr Specter, also a Republican, adding that Senate hearings would be held early next year as "a very, very high priority".

The revelations coincided with a setback for the Bush administration, as the Senate rejected extensions to spying provisions in the Patriot Act.

'Attacks foiled'

The New York Times said Mr Bush signed a secret presidential order following the attacks on 11 September 2001, allowing the NSA, based at Fort Meade, Maryland, to track the international telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without referral to the courts.

Previously, surveillance on American soil was generally limited to foreign embassies.

Critics have questioned whether wider surveillance in the US crosses constitutional limits on legal searches.

American law usually requires a secret court, known as a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to give permission before intelligence officers can conduct surveillance on US soil.

'Sea change'

Administration officials refused to confirm or deny details of the New York Times report, but issued a robust defence of anti-terrorist operations, saying they had prevented several attacks - including one on targets in Britain.

When asked about the programme on US TV, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said: "The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken".


NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
Formed in 1952
Biggest US security agency, with 38,000 employees
Nicknamed "No Such Agency"
Has a dozen listening posts around the world, tracking phone calls, diplomatic traffic, emails, faxes
May record up to 500 million hours of traffic every day
On US soil, can only listen to "agents of a foreign power"


She added: "He takes absolutely seriously his constitutional responsibility both to defend Americans and to do it within the law."

The New York Times said nearly a dozen current and former administration officials had discussed the bugging programme, but that the paper delayed publishing its revelations for a year in response to White House concerns it could jeopardise investigations.

A former senior official who specialises in national security law told the paper that Mr Bush's move represented a "sea change".

"It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches," said the anonymous source.

"This is Big Brother run amok," was the reaction of Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy, while his colleague Russell Feingold called it a "shocking revelation" that "ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American".

Intense concern

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said eavesdropping in the US without a court order and without complying with the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was "both illegal and unconstitutional".

"The administration is claiming extraordinary presidential powers at the expense of civil liberties and is putting the president above the law," director Caroline Fredrickson said.

To opponents of the Bush administration, the alleged bugging programme is reminiscent of the widespread abuse of power by the security services during the Vietnam War when anti-war activists were monitored illegally, says BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb.

That activity prompted tougher regulation of bugging.

In a separate development on Friday, the Senate refused to reauthorise provisions of the Patriot Act, extending government surveillance rights.

It is a sign of intense concern about infringements of civil liberties in the name of security, our correspondent says.

The White House is having a tough time convincing even its Republican supporters that the things it does in the name of the war on terrorism are always justified, he adds.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/4536310.stm

Published: 2005/12/16 20:21:11 GMT

© BBC MMV

===============================

dubya steps in yet another huge pile of shit, as only the "greatest president ever" can.

[xrayzebra]

^^Hey dummy, when the next 9/11 hits this country, which I dread, remember
what you wrote. Also you can read the book that comes out in 10 days.

How come you aren't clamoring for an investigation of all the leaks of security
information. You are like others here, just let us have defeat and all will be well,
guess the million or two in VN didn't teach you anything, hell if you were
around at that time. Guess you have a good education. Dummy.

[Yonivore]

http://www.simonsays.com/assets/isbn/074355549X/C_074355549X.jpg

That figures...The New York Times is running an ad for a new book...not really reporting the news.

From Drudge (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm):


NYT 'SPYING' SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE
Fri Dec 16 200 11:27:16 ET

**Exclusive**

Newspaper fails to inform readers "news break" is tied to book publication

On the front page of today's NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter James Risen claims that "months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States... without the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."

Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.

Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting.

But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many "explosive newsbreaking" stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book -- which he turned in 3 months ago!

The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale.

"STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration" is to be published by FREE PRESS in the coming weeks, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is being published.

The book editor of Bush critic Richard Clarke [AGAINST ALL ENEMIES] signed Risen to FREE PRESS.

Developing...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Hey croutons,

Ever heard of posting a link? Fuck....

[Nbadan]

Even if it is true, I really don't see the problem with the Risen book. If the NY Times was cashing in on the residual profits of the book there maybe issues, but every time someone exposes indiscretions by the administration in a book they get attacked for being a 'liberal' profiteer. Besides, we now have several sources which are confirming that W knew this infringement on our constitutional rights was going on and did nothing about it.

[nkdlunch]

Don't u get Bush is just a puppet. He's being blamed for things that even he doesn't understand. Meanwhile the real culprits are not even being mentioned.

[boutons]

"Ever heard of posting a link"

Is that all the cogency and refutation you can offer? typical of the resident dicklese twerp.

if you go to the NYTimes site, the story is sorta popular, number 2 in the top 20 most emailed

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?ex=1134968400&en=97762f8ae5d0ebbb&ei=5070

[Nbadan]

Don't u get Bush is just a puppet. He's being blamed for things that even he doesn't understand. Meanwhile the real culprits are not even being mentioned.

As has been through-out history, but ultimately, the President is responsible for what occurs during his tenure.

[boutons]

YV,
Like t dickless twerp, you refuse to respond to the NY Times article's contnent, but attack the NY Times. You have no comment on the NSA spying on the US citizens without judiciary permission and oversight?

faux macho dubya caught again with his Brokeback Wranglers around his ankles and the press's relentless dick up his ass.

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bushbrain.jpg