The scuttlebut now is that Sen. Jay Rockefeller himself leaked the story to the NYT. (“He who protests the loudest…”)

In light of the fact that Rockefeller himself confessed a few weeks ago to personally visiting Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and Syria (a recognized state sponsor of terror since 1979) in 2002 and discussing US war plans with their leaders, it certainly seems reasonable that he or some of his staff might have been legitimate targets for NSA eavesdropping.

See, if you go to the enemy on the pretext of discussing war plans with him, people might think that you committed treason. Anyone remember Rudolf Hess?

Maybe you are thinking of Watergate? Or are you thinking of the FBI wiretaps that LBJ ordered on RNC headquarters during the 1964 presidential campaign? Again, two wrongs do not make a right, but I find it curious that no one on the Left thinks of LBJ as a power-hungry despot out to shred the Constitution and destroy civil liberties.

The real sticking point to all of this is that when we demand that the government “prevent” terrorism, we are demanding a nearly impossible task. They have few known suspects, scant knowledge of terrorist operations, and no knowledge of where attacks will take place. The only way to fill this blank slate is to gather a tremendous amount of leads and evidence, sift through them, and try to put pieces together. Sort of like the Iranians in 1979 sifting through bags of shredded documents from the US embassy and trying to tape them back together again.

Criminal investigations that lead to traditional search warrants always occur after a crime has been committed, or involve known criminals who are suspected of additional illegal activity. Traditional law enforcement approaches do not involve the prevention of crime, or the prediction of when unspecified persons may commit unspecified acts. As I said earlier, we are asking those involved with terrorism prevention to do what is nearly impossible. And in order to accomplish that task, they need a different set of tools than police officers and criminal courts use.

One of the biggest mistakes we made during the 1990′s was to assign terrorism prevention to traditional law enforcement agencies. We ended up with a bunch of useless nonsense like an indictment against Osama Bin Laden that did absolutely nothing to prevent him from striking US interests again and again, and we ended up with the tangle of red tape that kept Zacharias Moussaoui’s laptop computer locked up until after 9/11.

The American people demanded something different, and President Bush delivered. His approach admittedly had flaws, but it seems to be working. Maybe the Democrats would be wise to heed Bill Clinton’s famous advice: “Mend it, don’t end it.”

According to you, it seems that the resolution allows Bush to do any damn thing he pleases. Note when that resolution was passed, Bush could have asked specifically for the power to implement his program but didn’t because they knew it would be denied.

And Quaker nails it right on the head, there is no safeguard to ensure the program is applied only to preventing terrorism. ABU Gonzales and Condi Rice are simply not reasonable choices. You earlier asserted that the leaker was motivated by politics to leak it before the election, a better guess is the leaker was disgusted because the program was used to monitor democratic political candidates and their employees. Prove it wrong.

Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.

They did not act in “secrecy.”. The Attorney General was involved. The NSA legal counsel was involved. Select members of Congress were involved. Again, if this was illegal, why didn’t those informed object at the time?

Oh and here’s a former Clinton Assc. Attorney General arguing that Bush had the legal authority to do what he did (Again, if it was so cut and dry that what he did was illegal, the views of people with different legal expertise wouldn’t differ so much on the issue):

FISA contains a provision making it illegal to “engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.” The term “electronic surveillance” is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication “sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person” (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by “intentionally targeting that United States person.” The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act’s prohibition on electronic surveillance.

The administration has offered the further defense that FISA’s reference to surveillance “authorized by statute” is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to “use all necessary and appropriate force” to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.

But even if the NSA activity is “electronic surveillance” and the Sept. 11 resolution is not “statutory authorization” within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, “encroach upon the president’s constitutional power.”

Emphasis mine. Another damned Pro-Bin Laden flunky I suppose….

Oh that’s right Oh Keeper of Truth & Justice. I suppose you stand up and cheer whenever a judge dismisses a case against a rapist or murderer because even though the police were acting in good faith, something they did overstepped constitutional bounds.

I think what he s doing is right.

Regardless of whether it was legal?

Yes, I have raised a vigorous defense. I think what he’s doing is right. However, I am not an attorney and therefore, whether or not I think the program is legal is nothing more than my opinion. As such, I said “We don’t know” if what he did was illegal.

My example about the cops is that they will often do something in good faith to catch a criminal. Unfortunately, we later learn that what they did was legally wrong, even though their intentions were good and not outside any legal bounds.

This isn’t difficult to understand.

Sorry. That should read:

…what they did was legally wrong, even though their intentions were good and they thought they were not acting outside any legal bounds.

I suppose you stand up and cheer whenever a judge dismisses a case against a rapist or murderer because even though the police were acting in good faith, something they did overstepped constitutional bounds.

Whuh?

We were talking about your statement, “I never said he didn’t,” referring to whether the President violated the FISA statute.

However, you’ve been raising a vigorous defense of his order and campaigning very hard to counter the arguments of those who think he did violate the law.

If your purpose is not to assert that the law wasn’t violated, what is it?

If it’s premature to “jump up and down and shout BUSH BROKE THE LAW!!”, isn’t it also a bit premature to lean on the caps lock key and insist he didn’t? The President has confirmed that he ordered surveillance without warrants, and as you correctly point out, there are legal experts with differing opinions about the legality of these actions.

However, you seem willing to listen only to those who provide cover for your one-sided rants.

I never said he didn’t. I said we don’t know yet. Understand the difference?

If what Bush did was illegal, then let the chips fall where they may. However, if it is found that what he did was legal and constitutional, I sincerely doubt you people will be offering up any apologies.

I never said he didn t.

Then apparently I’ve misapprehended the reason for your spirited defense of the President’s order. Your deep concern for truth and justice is somewhat obscured by a cloud of invective.

My bad.

(And for the record, “the stooge who revealed this information” should be the “stooges.” The New York Times claims “nearly a dozen” sources. They haven’t said how near.)

Once again, JayC you read the words, but don’t understand them. They say that unreasonable searches are banned. Period. What makes searches “reasonable” is that a warrant can be obtained for them. It says NO warrants shall be issued unless supported by oath… etc…..

If you’re on parole or on probation, your house or car can be searched at any time for any reason without a warrant.

There is also an ‘emergency exception’ that allows police to enter and search a residence without a warrant.

There’s the ‘plain view’ exception to obtaining a warrant.

Searches at borders are also an exception.

It’s for this reason, jumping up and down and shouting, “BUSH BROKE THE LAW!! BUSH BROKE THE LAW!!” is premature.

Once again, you’ve reached a conclusion and based on what? The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Again, it is not established fact that Bush broke any laws or violated anybody’s constitutional rights. But of course, rather than trying to look at it rationally, you’d rather break out the tar and feathers.

There is no checks there are no balances and there is no one assuring the protection of citizen s rights therefore it does not fit in with the basis of our government and thus is UNAMERICAN.

These intercepts weren’t being used in order to gather evidence to present at some trial. It was being used to gather intelligence. The law allows the search and surveillance of those working for or on behalf of a foreign agent without a warrant. As far as I am concerned, any person in this country that conspires with terrorist organizations and is involved with plots to commit terrorist acts automatically cedes the priviledge they have of being an American citizen. It’s as simple as that.

Remember, BEFORE this program was put in place and BEFORE 9-11, Bush had no interest in fighting or preventing terrorism. This program would have been useless because information dredged would have fallen on deaf ears.

Oh please. Spare me the Clinton administration “we need to cover our asses for our failures” accusations that the Bush administration had no interest in terrorism.

It seems disappointing but not surprising to me that a lot of conservatives take the view that the government, and in particular the Bush administration, can do any illegal or unconstitutional thing it wants, as long as word of it never reaches the public.  See No Evil republicans. Disgusting.

Once again (and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again) we do not know what he did was illegal. We DO know however the following:

Whether the President acted under proper executive authority will undoubtedly be determined during hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But he did follow requirements for legal review of his orders by consulting with the NSA Legal Counsel and the U.S. Attorney General. He also followed congressional oversight requirements by notifying the appropriate congressional committees in a timely manner. And it is customary for more sensitive activities to be briefed only to a limited number of senior oversight committee members to avoid leaks of classified national security information.

If you people want to argue about this, do so with the FACTS. Stop pretending Bush got together with 2-3 other people and decided to order the NSA to start listening in on American’s phone calls.

They both involved leaking classified information. All similarities end there.

You’re right. Because the Plame case is a JOKE compared to what has happened here.

Whoever leaked this information, did so, prior to the Presidential election in 2004. It doesn’t take a fucking rocket scientist to figure out that political motivations were at the heart of the leak. This program has been going on since 2002. If the so-called ‘whistleblowers’ were so concerned that Bush was engaging in illegal activities, they would have gone to the press THEN. Not in the months leading up to the Presidential election. Again, the Attorney General was involved, NSA legal counsel and members of Congress. They ALL KNEW about this from the start. Any objections to the legality, especially on the part of the NSA would have and should have come forward at that time.

Whoever leaked this information did serious damage to our intelligence gathering operations and should spend some time in prison.

Remember, BEFORE this program was put in place and BEFORE 9-11, Bush had no interest in fighting or preventing terrorism. This program would have been useless because information dredged would have fallen on deaf ears.

It seems disappointing but not surprising to me that a lot of conservatives take the view that the government, and in particular the Bush administration, can do any illegal or unconstitutional thing it wants, as long as word of it never reaches the public. “See No Evil” republicans. Disgusting.

What are the actual parallels with the Plame case? They both involved leaking classified information. All similarities end there. Plame involved the Bush Administration leaking information to attempt to punish and discredit a vocal policy critic, and then try to stall and misdirect the investigation, political from start to finish in motive. Snoopgate involves someone informing the public of Bush engaging in probable illegal and unconstitutional circumventing of the law, misconduct etc. That is whistleblowing, and the politics come in as fallout of misconduct rather than motive in revelation.

Oh, I guess both cases involve misconduct by the Bush Administration, I guess there was more than one similarity. However, using one to defend the other still leaves us with misdeeds by the Bush Administration and really isn’t a good defense.