White House Told NSA Briefings Broke Law By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press WriterWed Jan 4, 9:59 PM ET The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee told President Bush Wednesday that the White House broke the law by withholding information from the full congressional oversight committees about a new domestic surveillance program. In a letter to Bush, Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said the National Security Act requires the heads of the various intelligence agencies to keep the entire House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States." Only in the case of a highly classified covert action can the president choose to inform a narrower group of Congress members about his decision, Harman said. That action is defined in the law as an operation to influence political, economic or military conditions of another country. "The NSA program does not qualify as a 'covert action,'" Harman wrote. Bush and his senior national security aides have said that appropriate members of Congress were briefed more than a dozen times about the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance operations, which Bush first approved the month after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The highly classified sessions are known to include the "Gang of Eight," which is made up of the top Republican and Democrat in the House and Senate and on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. "We believe that Congress was briefed appropriately," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Wednesday in response to Harman's letter. Responding in writing to Harman, House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., said Harman had never previously raised concerns about the number of people briefed on the program. "In the past, you have been fully supportive of this program and the practice by which we have overseen it," he wrote. "I find your position now completely incongruent." Many details about the scope of electronic surveillance program remain unknown. However, Bush and his aides have asserted the monitoring â without court warrants â is narrowly targeted to eavesdrop on calls and e-mails of people who are inside the United States and suspected of communicating with al-Qaida or its affiliates. Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday that the program helped to prevent possible terrorist attacks against the American people: "This program is critical to the national security of United States." Democrats who have been briefed on the program have raised serious concerns about its legality, but not called for its immediate halt. Republicans and Democrats alike have called for hearings this year.
"Only in the case of a highly classified covert action can the president choose to inform a narrower group of Congress members about his decision, Harman said. That action is defined in the law as an operation to influence political, economic or military conditions of another country." So in other words, theyve been screwing around the entire planet since who knows when, and no one has any right whatsoever to either question, much less find out about these policies, including us citizens, certainly not the effected nations people, nor anyone else. Theres nothing new here.
NSA whistleblower asks to testify By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published January 5, 2006 A former National Security Agency official wants to tell Congress about electronic intelligence programs that he asserts were carried out illegally by the NSA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Russ Tice, a whistleblower who was dismissed from the NSA last year, stated in letters to the House and Senate intelligence committees that he is prepared to testify about highly classified Special Access Programs, or SAPs, that were improperly carried out by both the NSA and the DIA. "I intend to report to Congress probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts conducted while I was an intelligence officer with the National Security Agency and with the Defense Intelligence Agency," Mr. Tice stated in the Dec. 16 letters, copies of which were obtained by The Washington Times. The letters were sent the same day that the New York Times revealed that the NSA was engaged in a clandestine eavesdropping program that bypassed the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. The FISA court issues orders for targeted electronic and other surveillance by the government. President Bush said Sunday that the NSA spying is "a necessary program" aimed at finding international terrorists by tracking phone numbers linked to al Qaeda. Mr. Bush said during a visit to Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio that al Qaeda is "making phone calls, [and] it makes sense to find out why." Critics of the eavesdropping program, which gathered and sifted through large amounts of telephone and e-mail to search for clues to terrorists' communications, say the activities might have been illegal because they were carried out without obtaining a FISA court order. The Justice Department has said the program is legal under presidential powers authorized by Congress in 2001. Mr. Tice said yesterday that he was not part of the intercept program. In his Dec. 16 letter, Mr. Tice wrote that his testimony would be given under the provisions of the 1998 Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which makes it legal for intelligence officials to disclose wrongdoing without being punished. The activities involved the NSA director, the NSA deputies chief of staff for air and space operations and the secretary of defense, he stated. "These ... acts were conducted via very highly sensitive intelligence programs and operations known as Special Access Programs," Mr. Tice said. The letters were sent to Sen. Pat Roberts, Kansas Republican, and Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Republican. Mr. Roberts is chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Mr. Hoekstra is chairman of the House counterpart. Spokesmen for the NSA and the Senate intelligence committee declined to comment. Spokesmen for the House intelligence committee and the DIA said they were aware of Mr. Tice's letters, but had not seen formal copies of them.
Poll: Most Say U.S. Needs Warrant to Snoop By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 43 minutes ago A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows. Over the past three weeks, President Bush and top aides have defended the electronic monitoring program they secretly launched shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, as a vital tool to protect the nation from al-Qaida and its affiliates. Yet 56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism. Agreeing with the White House, some 42 percent of those surveyed do not believe the court approval is necessary. "We're at war," Bush said during a New Year's Day visit to San Antonio. "And as commander in chief, I've got to use the resources at my disposal, within the law, to protect the American people. ... It's a vital, necessary program." According to the poll, age matters in how people view the monitoring. Nearly two-thirds of those between age 18 to 29 believe warrants should be required, while people 65 and older are evenly divided. Party affiliation is a factor, too. Almost three-fourths of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to require court warrants. Cynthia Ice-Bones, 32, a Republican from Sacramento, Calif., said knowing about the program made her feel a bit safer. "I think our security is so important that we don't need warrants. If you're doing something we shouldn't be doing, then you ought to be caught," she said. But Peter Ahr of Caldwell, N.J., a religious studies professor at Seton Hall University, said he could not find a justification for skipping judicial approvals. Nor did he believe the administration's argument that such a step would impair terrorism investigations. "We're a nation of laws. ... That means that everybody has to live by the law, including the administration," said Ahr, 64, a Democrat who argues for checks and balances. "For the administration to simply go after wiretaps on their own without anyone else's say-so is a violation of that principle." The eavesdropping is run by the secretive National Security Agency, the government's code-makers and code-breakers. Charles Franklin, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said most people think that the eavesdropping is aimed at foreign terrorists, even when the surveillance is conducted inside the country. "They are willing to give the president quite a lot of leeway on this when it comes to the war on terror," said Franklin, who closely follows public opinion. Some members of Congress have raised concerns about the president's actions, but none of those lawmakers who have been briefed on the program has called for its immediate halt. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, GOP Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, has promised hearings this year. Five members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, have called for immediate inquiries. On top of that, a memorandum circulated Friday from two legal analysts at the Congressional Research Service concluded that the justification for the monitoring may not be as strong as the administration has argued. The NSA's activity "may present an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb," the 44-page memo said. Bush based his eavesdropping orders on his presidential powers under the Constitution and a September 2001 congressional resolution authorizing him to use military force in the fight against terrorism. The administration says the program is reviewed every 45 days and that Bush personally reauthorizes it. His top legal advisers argue its justification is sound. The issue is full of grays for some people interviewed for the poll, including homebuilder Harlon Bennett, 21, a political independent from Wellston, Okla. He does not think the government should need warrants for suspected terrorists. "Of course," he added, "we all could be suspected terrorists."
ZZZ That is the part that everyone tends to forget. -Who decides who is a terrorist? -What constitute a terrorist.? Whatever happened to Innocent until proven Guilty? Verry dangerous grounds are been tested here....... Whats next... we can not at this time have elections because we are at war....extreme case but........
The word terrorist is, in my opinion a very empowering word for those who engage in acts of killing to generate political terror. It empowers those who would harm others, and generates the fear in others they have a goal of in the first place. I would have preferred to call them criminals, international criminals if you will, so that the capture and process of bringing them to justice becomes a police matter. We made a mountain out of a molehill, and this was done for political gain and as a means to grab power and exert more control over the electorate. 20 or so people got lucky and caught our security system asleep at the wheel, that is really the extent of what happened. There is great political advantage in keeping the electorate in a state of fear for their lives, and a dependency on government. Yes, there are people who want to kill Americans, is that new? Does terrorism genuinely compare with the threat of the Soviet Union at their peak? Does terrorism genuinely compare with the potential threat of Red China as they build their army and arsenal with the sponsorship of our US dollars? Not even close. 911 was a bee sting on an elephants behind, hardly the threat it has been made out to be. I firmly believe the truth is found in observation of where the power and money flows.... Power has run to the government, especially the executive branch, and we can easily see who has benefited the most financially from this....
Not even close. Terrorism is as much a threat or graver than the USSR was or China is. With the USSR, as with China today, there was a guarantee of Mutual Assured Destruction should they ever attack us with nukes. That is arguably the reason why the countries never went to war - each knew that nuking the other would result in the destruction of its own cities and millions of its citizens. With terrorists, we have no sovereign entity to target. A nuclear device detonated in one of our cities by terrorists will not leave an ICBM imprint we can track via satellite and know its point of origin, as we can with sovereign states equipped with nukes. Who then would we retaliate against? That nuclear material is missing from the former Soviet republics should be of grave concern to all Americans regardless of party affiliation. A terrorist organization armed with nuclear devices smuggled into this country would hold our government and our society by the balls. If Al Qaeda becomes a nuclear power, we are in very deep shit. Does anyone here doubt for a second that bin Laden would use a nuke on us if he had one? Or chem/bio weapons?
You know, this is why the whole Iraq war and "danger" of Saddam is so bloody bogus. I have heard the argument that the reason the Soviets or the Chinese would never attack the US is because it would mean their destruction. Okay, so following along those lines, for Saddam to use a single dirty bomb, or some scuddy nuke would also mean his destruction. Hello? Was Saddam hiding in an unknown country? Or was he visible, did we know essentially where he was, where his country was, yada, yada, yada. Saddam was not suicidal. He did not kill himself after the US attacked and his country was captured. He did not kill himself when he was captured, and he has not killed himself sitting in jail going to trial. So, Saddam did and does not want to die, but we expect that he was going to launch a single nuclear strike against the US for which he would have been killed by a counter strike of nukes by the US? It makes zero sense. Terrorism is not the type of danger, real danger to the US that the Soviets represented (and still represent...they have a ton of nukes, capable of delivery) and China...do we really know how many nukes they have? What if some wacko like Bin Laden ever becomes the leader of China or the Russia, and decides to go crazy and strike first, not really caring about if we strike second? Nope, these rogue terrorists are not anywhere near the threat that a soverign nation with thousands of nukes with a delivery mechanism is. Yes, terrorists can have these single events where the US could be damaged, but they do not, and likely never will have the type of capability to destroy the US the way the Soviets or China can. America has such a big fucking ego that when they found out they were vulnerable to these events, they went ape-shit. It is so ridiculous. In 25 to 30 years, people will look back on the Bush administration and see that it was nothing but a "Chinese" fire drill, with the Keystone Cops running the show....