• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Bush Says Surveillance Leak Shameful

#1
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush called the disclosure of a domestic surveillance program "shameful."

The New York Times reported last week that the National Security Agency was monitoring communications in the United States, conversations that Bush said were with known al-Qaida operatives. The NSA is not supposed to conduct domestic spying but a program authorized by Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, allowed it.

Bush, earlier in his news conference Monday, defended the program as important in being able to stop future attacks and suggested it was harmed by being publicly known.

"My personal opinion is, it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. That fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy," Bush said.

He said that in the 1990s the United States was monitoring a phone used by al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. When that information was leaked and reported, bin Laden changed phone systems.

"We're at war," Bush said. "And we must protect America's secrets. And so the Justice Department, I presume, will proceed forward with a full investigation. I haven't ordered one, but as I understand, there's kind of a natural progression that will take place when this kind of leak emerges."
Three things spring to mind:

1. He could have obtained warrants for phone taps from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

2. I think AQ figured out that their comms had been penetrated when a lieutenant of OBL had a JDAM fall on his head when he tried to use his boss's sat phone.

3. Cheney has said elsewhere that such action could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, conveniently overlooking the fact that the time NSA was already swamped with raw intel and couldn't process it fast enough.

What is really starting to grip my sh1t about this guy and his poodle in Downing Street is the contempt with which they treat everybody when their abuses and ineptitude is displayed for the world to see.
 
#3
United States Constitution, Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How secure can anyone be knowing that his correspondence and conversations, no matter how intimate, and no matter how innocent, may be intercepted at any time, for any reason, or for no reason, by Mr. Bush or his deputies on no authority other than their own wish or whim?

"Shameful?"

It's a familiar trick of the accused criminal to concoct counter-charges as a distraction.
 
#4
Not_Whistlin_Dixie said:
It's a familiar trick of the accused criminal to concoct counter-charges as a distraction.
Indeed!

You assume Bush to be an "accused criminal"? Shame on you!

There seems to be a lot of shame in the air tonight!!!!!! :) :wink: :)
 
#5
Mr. Bush's press conference verbatim: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush.transcript/index.html

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Are you going to order a leaks investigation into the disclosure of the NSA surveillance program? And why did you skip the basic safeguard of asking courts for permission for these intercepts?

BUSH: Let me start with the first question.....

...

My personal opinion is it was a shameful act, for someone to disclose this very important program in time of war.

The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy.

...
 
#6
QUESTION: ...Getting back to the domestic spying issue for a moment, according to FISA's own records, it's received nearly 19,000 requests for wiretaps or search warrants since 1979, rejected just five of them. It also operates in secret, so security shouldn't be a concern. And it can be applied retroactively.

Given such a powerful tool of law enforcement is at your disposal, sir, why did you see fit to sidetrack that process?

BUSH: We used the process to monitor.

But also, this is a different era, different war. It's a war where people are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent.

I keep saying that. But this is -- it requires quick action.

And without revealing the operating details of our program, I just want to assure the American people that, one, I've got the authority to do this; two, it is a necessary part of my job to protect you; and three, we're guarding your civil liberties.

And we're guarding the civil liberties by monitoring the program on a regular basis, by having the folks at NASA (sic), the legal team as well as the inspector general, monitor the program, and we're briefing Congress.

This is a part of our effort to protect the American people.
 
#7
crabtastic said:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush called the disclosure of a domestic surveillance program "shameful."

The New York Times reported last week that the National Security Agency was monitoring communications in the United States, conversations that Bush said were with known al-Qaida operatives. The NSA is not supposed to conduct domestic spying but a program authorized by Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, allowed it.

Bush, earlier in his news conference Monday, defended the program as important in being able to stop future attacks and suggested it was harmed by being publicly known.

"My personal opinion is, it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. That fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy," Bush said.

He said that in the 1990s the United States was monitoring a phone used by al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. When that information was leaked and reported, bin Laden changed phone systems.

"We're at war," Bush said. "And we must protect America's secrets. And so the Justice Department, I presume, will proceed forward with a full investigation. I haven't ordered one, but as I understand, there's kind of a natural progression that will take place when this kind of leak emerges."
Three things spring to mind:

1. He could have obtained warrants for phone taps from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

2. I think AQ figured out that their comms had been penetrated when a lieutenant of OBL had a JDAM fall on his head when he tried to use his boss's sat phone.

3. Cheney has said elsewhere that such action could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, conveniently overlooking the fact that the time NSA was already swamped with raw intel and couldn't process it fast enough.

What is really starting to grip my sh1t about this guy and his poodle in Downing Street is the contempt with which they treat everybody when their abuses and ineptitude is displayed for the world to see.
Sadly the Times report is cr@p...but what's new there. Warrants were obtained, Congress was in the know and there was nothing "hinter votzig" going on. The news broke the day of renewal vote on the Patriot Act and 10 days ahead of the NYT reporter's, JAMES RISEN who broke the story, book on the subject matter appearing in book stores.

I suggest you read the whole story, and you will note that the Congress and Judges with FISA were in the know.

from the NYT paragraphs down and buried said:
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html

An utter piece of cr@p reporting by a fish wrapper. :wink:
 
#8
Another report from 'the London Times'



The Times December 20, 2005

I'm no dictator, says Bush in defence of spying law
From Tim Reid in Washington



PRESIDENT BUSH angrily rejected accusations yesterday that he had become dictatorial as he vowed to continue a controversial secret eavesdropping programme on people inside the US.
Mr Bush, accused by Democrats of beginning to govern like Big Brother, aggressively defended his authorisation of a secret wiretapping programme that bypassed the legal requirement for court-issued warrants.



The existence of the programme, leaked to the press last week, has caused a political storm in the US and led to calls by Republicans and Democrats for congressional hearings, and increased accusations that Mr Bush has used the War on Terror to expand his presidential powers beyond the law.

But in an end-of-year White House press conference, Mr Bush sought to defend forcefully those powers when he believes his ability to fight the War on Terror is being eroded by his political opponents.

He said that a Justice Department investigation had been launched to discover who committed the “shameful act” of revealing the covert programme. “The fact that we’re discussing this programme is helping the enemy,” Mr Bush said.

He added that the programme was legal, because “as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country”. The President said that he would continue the programme “for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens”.

So, he thinks he can do as he pleases to 'protect our country'.....Strange how Republicans are usually first to cry about the 'freedom of the individual'(usually where guns are concerned)but seem strangely quiet when 'Monkey boy' erodes it.....but then, never did understand rednecks.
 
#9
Too bad people dont bother to get the facts about FISA.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html

i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.

Note that a US person must either be a US citizen or lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Green cards or a visa do not make the person a US person.

1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
 
#11
I've just been half listening to BBC News 24, and it had Bush on it. Is it me or did he just yell "You will Respect My Authoritiy!" or words to that effect?
 
#12
The whole point about autocratic leaders such as Blair and Bush is that their dominance is seriously challenged if they admit to any significant error. Public will say to new measures "You were wrong about such and such. How do you know you are right about this?" They have to obfuscate and bully their way through errors - blame someone else, remove them, cool things off and then bringthem back as some other Tsar. We see it more and more and, as both are now lame ducks who refuse to acceptthat, the arrogance will continue.
 
#13
Listy said:
I've just been half listening to BBC News 24, and it had Bush on it. Is it me or did he just yell "You will Respect My Authoritiy!" or words to that effect?
Nah! The other half of you was listening to a rebroadcast of an old Dr Who programme being aired at the same time. Clearly you've got in a tangle with the voice of the Dalek uberlord and Bush! :wink:

Clearly a problem with the part-time signals. :) :)
 
#14
Anyone actaualy surprised? I'm not. They used SF against Americans at Waco (which requires a presidential decree) a former Delta bloke said the fires weren't started by the Branch Davidian people but Delta's flash bangs and the big explosion that killed all the women and kids in the basement was a shaped charge also set off by Delta. They put the petrol down hoping it would stop an attack.
If an armed assault was launched against a building I was in with my kids, I'm prety sure I would have been shooting back too! Ex Davidians have said all the talk of incest etc was purley psyops to make it more acceptable to the public to go in guns balzing.
 
#15
tomahawk6 said:
Too bad people dont bother to get the facts about FISA.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html

i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.

Note that a US person must either be a US citizen or lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Green cards or a visa do not make the person a US person.

1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
What's your point? The allegation is that NSA was conducting surveillance upon American citizens.

I guess the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings that Arlen Spector has planned for the new year will bring some details to light.
 
#16
ctauch said:
crabtastic said:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush called the disclosure of a domestic surveillance program "shameful."

The New York Times reported last week that the National Security Agency was monitoring communications in the United States, conversations that Bush said were with known al-Qaida operatives. The NSA is not supposed to conduct domestic spying but a program authorized by Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, allowed it.

Bush, earlier in his news conference Monday, defended the program as important in being able to stop future attacks and suggested it was harmed by being publicly known.

"My personal opinion is, it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. That fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy," Bush said.

He said that in the 1990s the United States was monitoring a phone used by al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. When that information was leaked and reported, bin Laden changed phone systems.

"We're at war," Bush said. "And we must protect America's secrets. And so the Justice Department, I presume, will proceed forward with a full investigation. I haven't ordered one, but as I understand, there's kind of a natural progression that will take place when this kind of leak emerges."
Three things spring to mind:

1. He could have obtained warrants for phone taps from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

2. I think AQ figured out that their comms had been penetrated when a lieutenant of OBL had a JDAM fall on his head when he tried to use his boss's sat phone.

3. Cheney has said elsewhere that such action could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, conveniently overlooking the fact that the time NSA was already swamped with raw intel and couldn't process it fast enough.

What is really starting to grip my sh1t about this guy and his poodle in Downing Street is the contempt with which they treat everybody when their abuses and ineptitude is displayed for the world to see.
Sadly the Times report is cr@p...but what's new there. Warrants were obtained, Congress was in the know and there was nothing "hinter votzig" going on. The news broke the day of renewal vote on the Patriot Act and 10 days ahead of the NYT reporter's, JAMES RISEN who broke the story, book on the subject matter appearing in book stores.

I suggest you read the whole story, and you will note that the Congress and Judges with FISA were in the know.

from the NYT paragraphs down and buried said:
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html

An utter piece of cr@p reporting by a fish wrapper. :wink:
It doesn't matter whether Congress or the senior judge on the FISC were "in the know". If the Executive branch did not have a warrant before conducting electronic surveillance upon US citizens, then they were contravening FISA. At the very least, a criminal investigation should take place to establish what occurred. Can you say "Special Prosecutor"?

If the NYT isn't too palatable for your taste, why don't I quote you a little bit of Fox News?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179215,00.html

Bush acknowledged last weekend that he authorized NSA to intercept international calls and e-mails but only those linked to Al Qaeda, even if one end of the conversation is taking place in the United States and includes an American citizen...

Some argue that the president must get a warrant from what is known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, which operates in secret. The president suggested that going through the court to get a warrant would have taken too long.
 
#17
g w bush is a man who completely respects the constitution of course:

Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 07:53

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
 
#18
Quiller... nice. Although I am typically skeptical of blogs, that one made me grin nonetheless.

T6,
You mentioned:

Under 50 U.S.C. § 1802, the President, through the Attorney General, may
authorize electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information for up
to one year without a court order if two criteria are satisfied. First, to utilize this
authority, the Attorney General must certify in writing under oath that:
Here's what immediately follows the bit that you cherry picked:

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at —
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by
means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign
powers
, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken
communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open
and exclusive control of a foreign power
, as defined in section 1801(a)(1),
(2) or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the
contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party
; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance
meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801(h) of this
title;
All very disengenous of you to only copy half of the paragraph and then leave out the bit about why the law may have been broken.
 
#20
Its pretty clear that if the target is a US citizen then the government must go to a court to get a wiretap. Non-US citizens are not afforded protections under the US constitution at least in the realm of fighting terrorism.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts