2003 MEMO To Be Released Today-Suggests Bush Knew Wiretaps Illegal

[kpete]

Justice Department memo suggests Bush Administration knew wiretaps weren't authorized in 2003
RAW STORY
Published: January 31, 2006


A Justice Department memo written in 2003 may call into question the legal rationale the Bush administration has offered to justify electronic surveillance of Americans without court review, according to a report the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity is set to release this afternoon, RAW STORY has learned.

The group, while not formally advocating a position as to whether the Administration knew the taps weren't authorized by Congress, will offer the memo to public inspection today.

Some critics of the ongoing National Security Agency (NSA) wiretapping program believe the 2003 memo undermines the position President Bush is taking today. The memo describes legislation drafted by Justice Department staff to expand surveillance powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- suggesting that the Bush Administration knew they did not currently have the legal power to engage in the wiretaps.


"Critics say it is hard to understand why Justice Department attorneys felt this change was needed, if, as the administration now claims, it had even broader authority and could avoid judicial review," the Center will report. "In recent days, the administration has said the inherent constitutional powers of the president and the congressional authorization of military force against al Qaeda gave President Bush the authority he needed to circumvent the court."

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Justice_Department_memo_suggests_Bush_Administration_0131.html

edit to add: http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=779

The draft of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003
http://www.publicintegrity.org/docs/PatriotAct/story_01_020703_doc_1.pdf

[BuyingThyme]

1. !kciK

[helderheid]

2. You're either with the constitution or you're against it.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. Yes. Your're either with the constitution or you're against it That

would make a great cross-over bumper sticker.

[stop the bleeding]

30. you got that right it would be a good bumper sticker n/t

[CoinOperatedSquirrel]

31. You go to war with the constitution you have....

not the constitution you want, or wish to have at a later time....

[stop the bleeding]

32. Well said and Welcome to DU CoinOperatedSquirrel

:toast:

[CoinOperatedSquirrel]

33. Thanks!!

Great to be here!

[stop the bleeding]

34. Good to have you here and get ready for the ride of your life

These threads get pretty crazy

[Sydnie]

3. Well, that will be a nice headline --- right next to the analysis of

the SOTU! The man lies so much, it's a wonder that spontaneous combustion has not played a part in his life yet!

[dogday]

4. Recommended #5

well worth the read...

[mattclearing]

5. I thought he made a statement in public that clearly showed that.

He said something to the effect that, "The law still requires a warrant."

[helderheid]

6. here

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

President Bush -- April 20, 2004

You're either with the Constitution, or you're against it.

[Disturbed]

7. The Neo Fascists have once again...

duped the Amerikan people by framing these criminal acts as being vital to protect them from "terror". The Prez is above the law seems to be ok with most Amerikans.

[Vickers]

9. And that is STILL on the whitehouse.gov site

You can look at it here before it goes down the Memory Hole.

This is his "I did not have sex with that woman" moment.

[robertpaulsen]

17. K & R. Thanks, I was looking for that.

Not a lot of gray area there, BUSH LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

:kick:

[stop the bleeding]

19. K.O. just played it on countdown n/t

[kpete]

20. I heard it

Wooooo hooooo hoooo....Liar, Liar!!!

[stop the bleeding]

21. I am putting together some stuff right now n/t

[stop the bleeding]

23. Here you go

From your sources

Critics say it is hard to understand why Justice Department attorneys felt this change was needed, if, as the administration now claims, it had even broader authority and could avoid judicial review. In recent days, the administration has said the inherent constitutional powers of the president and the congressional authorization of military force against al Qaeda gave President Bush the authority he needed to circumvent the court.

~snip~
Once made public, the proposal raised a firestorm of criticism among civil liberties advocates. They were concerned about attempts to broaden the government's powers over domestic intelligence gathering, and to decrease judicial review and public access to information.

Following its disclosure, the executive branch dropped consideration of "Patriot II," and never presented it to Congress. However, pieces were later considered and passed.

One "Patriot II" provision, which never passed, would have sought expanded wartime powers for the Attorney General. Under the heading, "Section 103. Strengthening Wartime Authorities Under FISA," the memo explains that current law authorizes surveillance for 15 days without court approval, once Congress has declared war.

But as formally declared wars are rare, the most recent being World War II, the Justice Department memo concludes, "this wartime exception is unnecessarily narrow." The proposed law sought to broaden powers "by allowing the wartime exception to be invoked after Congress authorizes the use of military force, or after the United States has suffered an attack creating a national emergency."



~snip~

The powers the Bush administration now claims to have are far more sweeping than what was sought in "Patriot II" in 2003. That proposal would have maintained a requirement for court approval, even in wartime, with an exception for the first 15 days after military action is authorized.

In recent days, President Bush and members of his administration have told the public they do not need court approval, at any time, for the surveillance program as long as the war against al Qaeda continues.

"This has gone on for four years," says Jim Dempsey, policy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. The administration had decided, he says "if the law doesn't suit our needs, we won't follow it. The president was invoking the legislative process, but at the same time ignoring the legislative process."

http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=779

and now from posts# 5-9

So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means.

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

I think this from the first part says it all:

"This has gone on for four years," says Jim Dempsey, policy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. The administration had decided, he says "if the law doesn't suit our needs, we won't follow it. The president was invoking the legislative process, but at the same time ignoring the legislative process."


I will check back in a little bit, I have to entertain some company for a while, but I am not done with this.

[kpete]

24. So, he knew he was breaking the law

He just did not care....because, they thought they could get away with it...like so many other things they have done. I appreciate your words of wisdom. Lots to think about as usual. Big question...will this bring them down, or is it just another FU to the country?

Thanks stop the bleeding

I am off to Tikal for two weeks of serenity

Peace

[stop the bleeding]

25. So, he knew he was breaking the law? Yes - post# 9 says it all and

what we do at DU while you are on vacation for 2 weeks? We will be lost please try to check in if possible, and lastly ENJOY!

[kpete]

26. Yep

Bush Buffalo Speech

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

[BelgianMadCow]

8. also as a very good clip on Canofun, I'll go and have a look : found it

as said somewhere else today, this should be public knowledge.

on edit :

I hope this works :
http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/2006/BushWiretapFISAJuly1404.asx

otherwise, a search at Canofun using "wiretap" will do.

[Mugsy]

28. Your .asx file links to a local file on your PC...

...not a web URL. Please fix.

[kpete]

10. easier to read link

to: The draft of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003
http://www.publicintegrity.org/docs/PatriotAct/PatriotActII_FromOCR.doc

[stop the bleeding]

11. RRRRRR really?!?!?!? - why would the DOJ's lawyers need to expand

a law when the WH already said that it is legal based on the Congressional green light for the Iraq War.

So which is it? WH can not have it both ways

like to see how this one will get spun for the MSM


Some critics of the ongoing National Security Agency (NSA) wiretapping program believe the 2003 memo undermines the position President Bush is taking today. The memo describes legislation drafted by Justice Department staff to expand surveillance powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- suggesting that the Bush Administration knew they did not currently have the legal power to engage in the wiretaps

[kpete]

12. stop the bleeding

Glad you found me

PLEASE, this is over my head.
Give me one of your great synopsis.

Thanks, kp

[stop the bleeding]

13. I have to go and train for a few hours - when I get home later I will read

the link to the original and let you know what I think. From what I have seen so far this is a big big big find/release and it looks like what RS said that these kind of discussions which resulted in the memo would only undermine the WH's claim to have inherent powers to wiretap people based on the War resolution by Congress.

I mean why would the DOJ need to discuss something or expand the FISA law if * already had the authority and therefor did not need this expansion of powers.

Will comment more later.

Peace!

[BelgianMadCow]

15. not a synopsis but in a recent speech Bush

claimed something as follows :

Well it's not that we didn't consult with congress. You know, I went back to them (Congress) and asked if we could do this (wiretaps) under that law (FISA) and I was told, this will not work (sic). So (!) I went and installed this programme. And we keep ( :wtf: ) consulting with congress, I have briefed them and will keep doing so.

Have been looking around for the clip at Canofun but the archive doesn't go to early January...

[Sydnie]

14. Wasn't it Brownback that tried to bring a bill about expanding

the FISA law to change it from probable cause to reasonable suspision, or some such language? It would make sense that they would NOT want to draw attention to their actions by introducing a bill such as that. That is why the dems have hammered them about "Why not ask if you needed it changed?".

[seafan]

16. Seems like I read it was Sen. Mike DeWine R-OH n/t

[Sydnie]

18. It might have been DeWine

I might very well have been mistaken. Easy enough to do ... those two look alike to me. :blush:

[spanone]

22. A big 'ol kick!

[leveymg]

27. K&R, bookmarked.

Thanks