Bush’s Illegal Spying

5:12 pm EST December 16th, 2005 | Politics | 10 Comments

Some analysis

This is against the law. I have put references to the relevant statute below the fold; the brief version is: the law forbids warrantless surveillance of US citizens, and it provides procedures to be followed in emergencies that do not leave enough time for federal agents to get a warrant. If the NY Times report is correct, the government did not follow these procedures. It therefore acted illegally.

Bush’s order is arguably unconstitutional as well: it seems to violate the fourth amendment, and it certainly violates the requirement (Article II, sec. 3) that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

… and how the media sat on the story to help Bush in the 2004 election.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

10 Responses to “Bush’s Illegal Spying”

  1. buma says:
    December 16, 2005 at 6:12 pm

    Throw that one on the impeachment pile. Is anyone actually surprised about illegal spying on Amaericans though, with the Cheney Administration in the White House?? The public is already so jaded with the high crimes and misdemeanors by this group that this news hardly even registers. IOKIYAR, as long as the GOP controls the legislative branch.

  2. Semanticleo says:
    December 16, 2005 at 6:12 pm

    Really. If republicans can semanticize words like ‘torture’ and ‘lies,’ do you think they have any problem with the word, ‘law’?

    Bush is the Law.

  3. buma says:
    December 16, 2005 at 7:12 pm

    McCafferty said it better than I did:

    Who cares about whether the Patriot Act gets renewed? Want to abuse our civil liberties? Just do it.

    Who cares about the Geneva Conventions. Want to torture prisoners? Just do it.

    Who cares about rules concerning the identity of CIA agents. Want to reveal the name of a covert operative? Just do it.

    Who cares about whether the intelligence concerning WMDS is accurate. Want to invade Iraq? Just do it.

    Who cares about qualifications to serve on the nation’s highest court. Want to nominate a personal friend with no qualifications? Just do it.

    And the latest outrage, which I read about in “The New York Times” this morning, who cares about needing a court order to eavesdrop on American citizens. Want to wiretap their phone conversations? Just do it.

  4. Semanticleo says:
    December 16, 2005 at 8:12 pm

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/16/183033/05

    Interesting concept. Would you contribute $ to prevent illegal spying on US citizens?

  5. sooperedd says:
    December 16, 2005 at 11:12 pm

    It all boils down to:
    Bush “Hates our Freedom”

  6. teflon_tim says:
    December 17, 2005 at 12:12 am

    *Delurks and posts here for the first time*

    Gee, notice how all the usual right-wing trolls are awfully silent on this one? It’s almost as if they know they don’t have a leg to stand on. After all the spin and all the bluster, there’s simply no getting around the fact that Dubya broke the law here.

    But I’d love to see them try…

  7. Brandon says:
    December 18, 2005 at 1:12 am

    Or how the media illegally leaked the existence of this program thereby jeopardizing more than a few investigations.

    Or do you lefties only worry about leaks when it only involves Valerie Plame?

  8. muscleheadblog says:
    December 18, 2005 at 1:12 pm

    Yeah Brandon, how dare the left be outraged that the media reported something illegal that your Flyboy Bushie did and not be outraged that the MSM didn’t behave Faux like and suck Bushie’s tailpipe?

  9. Joe Schmoe says:
    December 19, 2005 at 4:12 pm

    Silly Liberals…believing the Bill of Rights is still the law of the land. Gee whiz, most conservatives know that only the right to own guns is actually supported by the Bill of RIghts. The BIll of RIghts is dead…absolutely positively dead because it is an inconvenience to democratic government. Now get out there and vote.

  10. buma says:
    December 20, 2005 at 8:12 am

    from Atrios:

    Bush speech, April 20, 2004:

    “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.”

    Except when we don’t. Whatta LIAR.