You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
President Acknowledges Approving NSA Intel Operation
2005-12-18
President Bush said yesterday that he secretly ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans with suspected ties to terrorists because it was "critical to saving American lives" and "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution."

Bush said the program has been reviewed regularly by the nation's top legal authorities and targets only those people with "a clear link to these terrorist networks." Noting the failures to detect hijackers already in the country before the strikes on New York and Washington, Bush said the NSA's domestic spying since then has helped thwart other attacks.
Kudos to GWB for getting out in front on this one, something he has to do.
In his statement, delivered during a live and unusually long radio address, the president assailed the news media for disclosing the eavesdropping program, and rebuked Senate Democrats for blocking renewal of the USA Patriot Act, which gave the FBI greater surveillance power after Sept. 11, 2001, and which expires Dec. 31. "The terrorist threat to our country will not expire in two weeks," said Bush, calling a filibuster by Democratic senators opposed to the Patriot Act "irresponsible."

The speech represented a turnaround for a White House that initially refused to discuss the highly classified NSA effort even after it was revealed in news accounts. Advisers said Bush decided to confirm the program's existence -- and combine that with a demand for reauthorization of the Patriot Act -- to put critics on the defensive by framing it as a matter of national security, not civil liberties. The NSA "authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists," Bush said. "It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the president of the United States."

Congressional Democrats and some Republicans have expressed outrage at the NSA program, saying it contradicts long-standing restrictions on domestic spying and subverts constitutional guarantees against unwarranted invasions of privacy. Some of them were further incensed by Bush's remarks yesterday. "The president believes that he has the power to override the laws that Congress has passed," Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.) said. "He is a president, not a king." Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) said the administration "seems to believe it is above the law."
Sure Russ, but it's not like it was a campaign contribution to a challenger or anything.
Rep. Dan Burton (Ind.) was among Republicans responding. "The liberal media and its liberal allies are attacking the president" for spying tactics that are legitimate and legal, he said on the House floor yesterday afternoon. "The fact is, the president is defending the United States of America."
Either it was legal or it wasn't. Critics seem to have the onus on them to prove it wasn't.
The order signed by Bush, first reported by the New York Times online on Thursday, empowered the NSA to monitor international telephone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens and residents without the warrant normally required by a secret foreign intelligence court. A cowardly high-ranking intelligence official who refused to be named but will stick his oar in anyway said yesterday that the presidential directive was first issued in October 2001, not in 2002, as other sources have told the Times and The Washington Post. And yesterday Bush said his directive came "weeks" after Sept. 11. The high-ranking official would not say whether the authority was changed or broadened significantly in 2002 or later during regular reviews.

Hundreds and perhaps thousands of people have been subjected to the surveillance, according to government officials. Officials have privately credited the eavesdropping with the apprehension of Iyman Faris, a truck driver who pleaded guilty in 2003 to planning to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. Bush said other plots have been disrupted as well. "The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time," he said.
So the program saved lives. That's something that ought to be repeated daily.
Bush said the program is reviewed every 45 days by the attorney general and White House counsel and that he must then reauthorize it to keep it active. He said he has reauthorized it more than 30 times "and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."

The president also said the administration has briefed key members of Congress on the program a dozen times. Classified programs are typically disclosed to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees.
As I noted in the other post, this factoid seems to have escaped the liberal fringe. It was reviewed by the overight committees. If the Democrats had concerns or thought that this was blatantly illegal, that was the time to say so.
Bush justified his order on his presidential powers as commander in chief as well as his interpretation of the congressional resolution authorizing him to use force in response to the Sept. 11 attacks, passed days after the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were hit. But Bush did not explain his constitutional thinking, nor how the 2001 resolution gave him the authority to order domestic spying. He took no questions, and aides would not discuss the legal issues surrounding the program.

The NSA surveillance is the latest chapter in a growing political struggle over the contours of the administration's tactics against terrorism. Two days ago, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) persuaded forced Bush to accept a new law explicitly outlawing the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners. Several senators are pressing the administration to provide information on secret CIA detention facilities overseas. And the debate over the Patriot Act centers on how far law enforcement can go in trying to find terrorist plots.

The president criticized the media for reporting on the NSA surveillance as well as the officials who "improperly" provided the information. "As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk," he said.
The libbies are glossing over this, questioning how revealing the program could put anyone at risk. They miss (deliberately) that by disclosing the existence of the program and the outline by which it works, it tells the terrorists where to look in their communications links for weaknesses. If the bad guys have been stoopid, the last thing you want is to let them know how they've been stoopid.
The White House decision to confirm the program was an extraordinary move by an administration that almost never publicly discusses such classified methods adopted in its battle against terrorism. The administration, for instance, has never publicly discussed the claimed existence of secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe even after they were reported in The Post.

But in this case, with the Patriot Act renewal on the line, the president's advisers calculated that they should go on the offensive. "This directly takes on the Democrats and puts them in a box -- support our efforts to protect Americans or defend positions that put our nation's security at greater risk," said a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss political strategy. "We are confident most Americans support the president's actions."

Bush's confirmation of the NSA order, on the other hand, could embolden congressional critics to explore the extent of the program.
That it will, and the additional light shone on the program will kill it. As the libbies know.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has already called such surveillance "inappropriate" and vowed to conduct hearings. It may prove harder for the administration to withhold information now that the president has publicly acknowledged its existence.
Posted by:Steve White

#17  SC1340---I have thought about that, and I think that it has played a part during the numerous conflicts with the Dems. The President needs to get "outside himself" and try to see the big picture when these conflicts are happening. He needs to understand that the MSM and Dems have teamed up to saturate the airwaves and other media and destroy him. One cannot sit by and wait it out. They have laid down the gauntlet and he needs to be on the offensive, and not just respond to the attacks. That is real leadership. In other words, he needs to be several steps ahead of them all the time. And that means communication to the people. By and large, that communication effort on the part of the Administration has been dismal, and has hurt the war effort. I know the MSM has been active in blocking his efforts, but that's still how I see it.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2005-12-18 16:41  

#16  Scorched eath. Crank up the Char-B-Q...the left is no longer a partner in this republic. They are an enemy in of themselves. Too bad that some good Dems will need to go down with that boat but ah well, such as it is. They can always come over and join the good fight. I've had it....enough with treason passing as politics as usual.
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2005-12-18 15:55  

#15  AP

I suspect the 'problem' is not Rove. I think it is who George is and that is a Christian with a capital "C". He turns the check when it comes to slimy assaults like this all the time. However, when he sees a threat to that which he has been given stewardship over, he'll fight tough. Where to problem arises is his ability to grasp where the line is crossed and it is less a personal/political attack and something that directly hinders the safty of the nation with which he has been entrusted.
Posted by: Spush Cromotch1340   2005-12-18 15:21  

#14  President Bush NEEDS to clearly communicate the reason for monitoring and the threat to our security by the NYT leak has on our citizens tonight.

He needs to be concise, clear, and to the point. He needs to verbally B****Slap down these dems and Rinos doing this stuff. They are killing him with a thousand cuts, and need to be stopped. If the so-called Great Karl Rove™ or his staff can't make a speech worthy of communicating the situation, then he better get the Rantburg Committee to whip one up, toot sweet!

I think that this Rove advice thing is way over rated. The President needed to go on the offensive YEARS ago, instead of being passive, when being attacked. Look how accommodation with the Dems has advanced the cause. Bush worked with Kennedy years ago on a bipartisan education bill. He reached out, and Kennedy thanked him by calling the President a liar in speeches in the Senate.

There is a time to ignore the pygmies and there is a time to fight. This is the time to fight.
**takes Zolof pill**
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2005-12-18 15:12  

#13  heh. I'd turn on the idiot box just to hear W say that. Hell, I'd pay to hear it!
Posted by: too true   2005-12-18 14:07  

#12  It would be particularly satisfying if Dubya was to insert into his speech some thing like:

"There is no 'news' nor 'crisis' here. If the Dhimmidonks would simply show up, sober, and stay awake through the critical National Security Briefings to which they are invited, then ask their respective staffs to explain it to them afterwards, in simplified terms they can understand, of course, well, I'm sure we could avoid little misunderstandings like this. On the other hand, we could just shoot them for being seditious traitors. I'm good to go either way."
Posted by: .com   2005-12-18 14:02  

#11  And the process is different from listening in on international drug trafficing that has been going on for well over a decade [re:Mr. Clinton's watch]?
Posted by: Spolunter Photle4471   2005-12-18 13:53  

#10  I could see Kyl leading it...
Posted by: Frank G   2005-12-18 13:45  

#9  he has a nationally televised speech tonite...
Posted by: Frank G   2005-12-18 13:43  

#8  And another thing: Anybody who leaked this to the media needs to go to jail. In fact, the laws need to be changed so that the death penalty is more obviously applicable. There are channels for legitimate reporting of abuses. The NY Times is not part of such a process.

If there is one Senator left with a pair (I nominate my guy Kyl), he will be the one to spearhead the necessary hunt for the leaker. Unfortunately, if the exec branch handles it it will appear politically motivated in this political climate. Though I suppose the Plame precedent should apply and we can appoint a "special" prosecutor.

I usually read Rantburg for the news, but today I find myself Ranting quite a bit. This incident shows the worst in our government in both the security community and congress. We need to purge people who do not take the nature of the enemy seriously.
Posted by: JAB   2005-12-18 12:35  

#7  Bush is in front of this one. He should refues any new hearings. Tell these guys to show up at the periodic briefings that have already been held. Then release to the extent possible details of terrorist ops that have been stopped due to this program. Also explain how, had it been in place, this program would have stopped the 9/11 plot.

What the libertarians do not understand is that US citizens are still protected from any abuse of such a data gathering effort as evidence would not be permissible in a prosecution if it was obtained without proper warrants. Nobody's constitutional rights are trampled. Instead, it's essentially foreign intelligence.

We have military people fighting and dying across the world as we try get an edge against our enemies and these jackasses are on their high horses to stand up for the right for terrorists to make overseas calls without surveillance. It absolutely disgusts me. If I were Bush I would welcome the debate. It's time he pushed around the senate (R's and D's) and showed them for the gutless, media whoring opportunists that they are. None of these SOBs lies awake at night worrying whether he/she had done enough that day to thwart al Queda operations. In contrast the President and his team certainly do lose sleep at night. I do not envy them their jobs and will cut them plenty of slack in how they do them.

This posturing and the obviously questionable timing of it all absolutely piss me off.
Posted by: JAB   2005-12-18 12:27  

#6  but somehow I don't think he will, and I'm not sure why.
Posted by: too true   2005-12-18 12:08  

#5  If W gets out and aggressively defends this (as he appears to be doing) - he will leave the NYTimes, The Donks and that dickhead Arlen Spector holding the bag. "I did this and will continue to authorize it to save American lives. It is NOT illegal, and I briefed members of the opposition party, many times"

he should then call for investigations and prosecutions of those disclosing these plans - harming our national security and aiding our enemies.
Posted by: Frank G   2005-12-18 12:05  

#4  Look for Democrats to interpret the actions as illegal and move for impeachment proceedings if they get control of Congress. This is a very dangerous politicization of national security issues.
Posted by: Glenmore   2005-12-18 11:51  

#3  lotp, thanks for the link.
While I feel that these issues need to be discussed and monitored by top security folks, for someone to leak this very important critical info should be charged with treason. The reporter as well.
I'm reminded of the cops paying off informants for tips to catch criminals. It seems to be turned around now, with the media paying off officials to get security news stories.
As much as I treasure my privacy, and I truly do, in these times, I feel we all need to accept the fact that monitoring is so very important. I wouldn't want this abused, and would like to see it continue to be monitored by the top officials, not blurted out all over the papers. I even worry about some of the items discussed here on the 'burg, that terrorists may be reading. I don't mean to get too paranoid here, but you can't be too careful.
Posted by: Jan   2005-12-18 10:50  

#2  Ed Morrisey has a well-written analysis of the legal issues involved.
Posted by: lotp   2005-12-18 10:04  

#1   "A cowardly high-ranking intelligence official who refused to be named"
of course he should be tried for treason
Posted by: Jan   2005-12-18 09:59  

00:00