Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't

[ProSense]

be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

[kentuck]

1. you're exactly right

retroactive absolution..

[welshTerrier2]

2. "checks and balances"

it's all so simple really ... no single branch of government should have unchecked and unmonitored power under any circumstances ...

the defense "we are spying on terrorists to make America safer" does NOT excuse the failure of the Executive Branch to notify and obtain the approval of the Judicial Branch as required by the FISA statutes ...

the essential justification for FISA is that, without this notification, the claims of the Executive Branch that they are only spying on terrorists cannot be verified ... it removes all oversight from their spying activities ...

suppose, as you stated, that they are not spying on terrorists at all ... not even a little ... suppose they are spying only on their political enemies ...

of course, there is ultimately no way to actually enforce compliance with FISA ... illegal spying on "US persons" could occur with no oversight ... but the administration's argument (after the spying was disclosed in the press) that they have the inherent power to spy and can ignore FISA at their sole discretion is nevertheless a breach of Constitutional authority and the system of checks and balances ...

[Supersedeas]

14. i see nothing that looks like balance

[PassingThrough]

3. The problem is that we do not know who he is spying on.

[ProSense]

4. Yes, posted several, here is one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2449493&mesg_id=2452369

[ProSense]

5. Judge orders information released

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2464585&mesg_id=2464585

[ProSense]

6. Repubs protecting Bush are stalling for time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2465309&mesg_id=2465741


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2462753&mesg_id=2462753

[John_H]

7. We lost this issue when we fell for roves bait by

engaging in a debate over the legality of the operation, and by the bullshit line that prefaces eevery dem criticism of the program, "Of course we should spy on terrorists...".

Rove was hoping for a he-said, she-said wash, knew the whores would be itching to write that kind of story, and got it. Now we're debating how much oversight the program should have.

We'd be watching a differnt battle entirely if the Dems would have maintained that the legality was beyond debate, that the admisistration arguments were not worth discussing except to point out that they're laughable and scary, and that the program must be stopped immediately.

[ProSense]

8. Why the NSA's Domestic Spying Program is Illegal

Adam Winkler
Bio

02.17.2006

Why the NSA's Domestic Spying Program is Illegal

The uproar on Capitol Hill over President Bush's secret program to use the National Security Administration to spy on American citizens without a warrant continues to grow. But the NSA program - and the President's defense of it - are much more worrisome than many in Washington realize.

Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the President is prohibited from domestic spying on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

To ease the President's ability to obtain such warrants, however, the FISA establishes a special court with streamlined procedures and relatively lenient standards. Yet the President chose simply to ignore the requirements of FISA.

The administration makes two arguments to support the spying program. The first is specious. The second is nothing less than a threat to the rule of law.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/why-the-nsas-domestic-sp_b_15872.html

[Doctor_J]

9. Get used to it

they will be getting away with more and more egregious transgressions. We are not quite at the point where public summary executions will be tolerated, but it's not far off. I predict that some protestors will be fired on in the near future, to judge public reaction and see if hate radio and cabal "news" can sell it. If they do, then watch out. If limbaughhannityoreillyingrahamgallagherliddybeckweinermedved had ruled the airwaves in 69, Kent State would have been sold as a brave act by a beleagered government responding mildly to an out-of-control treasonous mob.

The Dem reps are unable or unwilling to anything to stop it, and the GOP has the media under complete control. We are looking at the last days of the America of the Framers.

[ProSense]

10. Senator Wants Court to Oversee Spy Program

Senator Wants Court to Oversee Spy Program

Saturday February 18, 2006 10:48am

Washington (AP) - The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, breaking ranks with the president on domestic eavesdropping, says he wants a special court to oversee the program. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said he is concerned that the secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act could not issue warrants as quickly as the monitoring program requires. But he is optimistic that the problem could be worked out.

"You don't want to have a situation where you have capability that doesn't work well with the FISA court, in terms of speed and agility and hot pursuit," Roberts was quoted as saying in Saturday's New York Times.

Roberts said he does not believe much support exists among lawmakers for exempting the program from the control of the FISA court. That is the approach Bush has favored and one that would be established under a bill proposed by Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio.

Roberts has defended Bush's program, which was revealed by the Times in a story in December. Bush says the program to monitor electronic communication between the United States and international sites involving suspected al-Qaida (website - news) operatives is vital to anti-terrorism efforts.

more...

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0206/303966.html

[ProSense]

11. Senator explains his stance on wiretaps

Posted on Sun, Feb. 19, 2006

Senator explains his stance on wiretaps

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — A day after Sen. Pat Roberts said he wanted a special court to oversee the warrantless wiretapping program, a top aide sought to clarify his position.

Roberts, a Kansas Republican, heads the Senate Intelligence Committee. He told The New York Times he is concerned that the secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act could not issue warrants as quickly as the monitoring program requires. But he said he was optimistic that the problem could be worked out.

Roberts also said the much discussed National Security Agency program “should come before the FISA court.”

Roberts was not available Saturday, but the Senate Intelligence Committee’s majority staff director, Bill Duhnke, said the Times story did not reflect “the tenor and status” of the negotiations between Congress and the White House, as well as within Congress.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/13907489.htm?source=rss&channel=kansascity_politics

Ridiculous!

[ProSense]

12. Frist: No New Spy Legislation Needed

Republicans keep going back and forth to confuse. In reality there is no change that can be made to the law to cover what Bush is engaged in. So now Frist says that there are hearings being held.

Frist: No New Spy Legislation Needed

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 51 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, standing firmly with the White House on the administration's eavesdropping program, said Sunday he doesn't think new or updated legislation is needed to govern domestic surveillance to foil terrorists.

"I don't think that it does need to be rewritten, but we are holding hearings in the Judiciary Committee right now," Frist said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Frist also said he didn't think a court order is needed before eavesdropping, under the program, occurs. "Does it have to be thrown over to the courts? I don't think so. I personally don't think so," he said.

Critics argue the program, run by the National Security Agency, sidesteps the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which prohibits domestic eavesdropping without a warrant from a special intelligence court.

more...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060219/ap_on_go_co/eavesdropping

[ProSense]

13. NY Times baselessly reported Dems want to change FISA law

Sun, Feb 19, 2006 4:01pm EST

NY Times baselessly reported that Democrats "have called for the law to be revamped"

Snip...

In a February 17 article by reporters Eric Lichtblau and Sheryl Gay Stolberg about potential congressional hearings on the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program, The New York Times reported that "Democrats and a growing number of Republicans say the eavesdropping violates" the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) "have called for the law to be revamped." But the article did not cite any Democrats who have expressed this view, and the available evidence suggests otherwise.

As the Times article noted, Senate Democrats -- led by Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) -- have pushed for a "full-scale investigation" into the warrantless surveillance program, including whether the program complies with FISA. Rockefeller's approach stands in stark contrast to that of Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS), who has said he opposes an investigation, and has instead suggested he favors exploring a legislative approach to resolving any legal conflicts between FISA and the administration's program.

Moreover, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, has openly opposed amending the FISA law to accommodate the administration's warrantless surveillance, stating that the program "should fit under FISA as currently drafted." From the February 12 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:

HARMAN: Let's -- let's understand that our Constitution really is the issue here. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to listen and seize property of Americans. Every one of us wants to catch Al Qaeda and its affiliates. All of us want the president to have the tools. I just voted again for the Patriot Act. I believe we need modern tools. And, oh, by the way, FISA was modernized eight times in the Patriot Act after 2001. It is not a quaint, little, old thing that doesn't work here. It can work here, and I think the entire program should fit under FISA as currently drafted. We don't even need to amend FISA.


http://mediamatters.org/items/200602190001

[ProSense]

15. EDITORIAL: ROBERTS' CREDIBILITY ON LINE

It's amazing this is finally getting a lot of people to talk about the Iraq lies.

Posted on Sat, Feb. 18, 2006
Oversight

EDITORIAL: ROBERTS' CREDIBILITY ON LINE

Many Kansans, including members of The Eagle editorial board, have long admired Sen. Pat Roberts for his plainspokenness and reputation for fair brokering of issues.

So it's troubling that Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is fast gaining the reputation in Washington, D.C., as a reliable partisan apologist for the Bush administration on intelligence and security controversies.

We hope that's not true. But Roberts' credibility is on the line.

From Abu Ghraib abuses to secret CIA detainee prisons to the Valerie Plame affair, critics say, Roberts has become a dependable shill for the White House, ever ready to shield Bush policy from criticism and ever willing to compromise Congress' legitimate oversight role.

A prime example: He has dragged his feet on a promised but long-delayed Senate investigation into whether the White House cherry-picked and amplified prewar intelligence to fit its preconceived goal of invading Iraq.

more...

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/13900376.htm