Article

2005-12-16 Home Front: WoT

Administration lifted some limits on domestic spying post-9/11

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2005-12-16 00:24|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Lemme guess - this is one of those things that Dems are going to use in order to try to impeach GWB - the fact that he bent the rules in order to go after terrorists.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-12-16 06:37|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-12-16 06:37|| Front Page Top

#2 During wartime, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Are folks so dense that they don't realize we're at war?

Posted by doc 2005-12-16 09:12|| 2005-12-16 09:12|| Front Page Top

#3 The Constitution allows for the suspension of habeus corpus - the dispute at the time was whether the president could do it, when congress was not in session. And when, BTW, there were confederate troops a couple of weeks march from Washington.

Just cause we're at war doesnt mean all law can be tossed aside for the duration. Esp as this is a war, like the cold war, that can go on for decades. Look we passed the Patriot act cause we're at war. We've done some pretty grey area things abroad. Ive been willing to defend alot of that. But at some point there IS a limit. If NSA needed to do warrantless wiretaps domestically, why wasnt this put in the Patriot Act? No time? As someone points out in another post, the Patriot Act was passed years ago - there hasnt been time to propose an amendment? Cmon now.

Yes this is serious. And wont just be Sullivan seething. Im doubt its impeachable - but its yet more stupidity.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-12-16 10:29|| 2005-12-16 10:29|| Front Page Top

#4 " 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."

Id love to see the legal arguments on that. If so, why was the Patriot act necessary - didnt the resolutions on the WOT imply all those powers too?

"Seeking Congressional approval was also viewed as politically risky because the proposal would be certain to face intense opposition on civil liberties grounds."

So they knew theyd lose, and decided to change the law by executive fiat. Now THATs a good jusitification for doing things. I wonder what y'all would have thought if Bill Clinton had done the same?

"The administration also feared that by publicly disclosing the existence of the operation, its usefulness in tracking terrorists would end, officials said."

Makes no sense. Its legal, of course, to tap phones WITH a warrant. Presumably the terrorists know that, which is why the encrypt their communications, etc. How does knowing that the tapping is done WITHOUT a warrant change anything. Theyre gonna encrypt differently for a warrantless tap than for a tap with a warrant? Could someone explain this for me?

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-12-16 10:35|| 2005-12-16 10:35|| Front Page Top

#5 Mark me down as having a hard time figuring out how this harms me or any other American more than it helps. It's inadmissable in court but could help in the WOT. AFAIC they can monitor domestic calls with out a warrant too. They're just tainted evidence.

Posted by Glogum Angating5682 2005-12-16 10:39|| 2005-12-16 10:39|| Front Page Top

#6 "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."

This piece is so distorted it is funny. Here is the money paragraph. Bush didn't do this in secret, he briefed congressional leaders and notified the judge. If they had a problem with it then, they should have said so.

If they had said don't do it and the administration went ahead anyway, then there would be something to bitch about.

Sorry LH, I just can't get my panties in a bunch over this. This to me represents another example of people in Washington who should go to jail for revealing state secrets as well as a media organ that has no regard whatsoever for the security of this country.

We are at war. The enemy is within our borders. We have to use everything at our disposal to find them before they kill our citizens. Sorry that the NYT either doesn't care or doesn't want us to prevent our citizens being killed, but I do care, and I would be PISSED if our government were NOT doing this.

Posted by remoteman 2005-12-16 13:37|| 2005-12-16 13:37|| Front Page Top

#7 I would hope the government is monitoring suspect muslims. Doing otherwise is an absolute abdication of the oath to protect this country. When Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu Zubayah were caught, they had a treasure trove of phone and contact info in their laptops. One of those was Lyman Faris. Just think the absolute howls of outrage from those now morally bitching if Lyman Farris did complete his mission to blow up the Brooklyn bridge.

Posted by ed 2005-12-16 18:47|| 2005-12-16 18:47|| Front Page Top

23:46 Red Dog
23:45 jules 2
23:43 Silentbrick
23:37 CrazyFool
23:20 SR-71
23:06 jules 2
23:05 jules 2
22:50 jules 2
22:44 AzCat
22:34 Oldspook
22:33 AzCat
22:26 Oldspook
22:21 DMFD
22:11 Penguin
22:11 Ebbinetle Sholumble1110
22:00 Captain America
21:54 Captain America
21:53 twobyfour
21:52 RG
21:47 Bomb-a-rama
21:44 Barbara Skolaut
21:03 trailing wife
20:56 Santa
20:53 Red Dog