Spying on Americans
“The president does not get to pick and choose which laws he wants to follow.”
– Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat [“Bush stands by right to order spying inside US (FT.com)]
Traditionally, US law forbids the NSA and the CIA from spying inside the US. That sort of thing usually falls into the FBI’s realm of operations and then only with a court order for setting up wire taps and the like.
Yet shortly after 9/11, President Bush ordered the NSA to tap telephone conversations inside the US, supposedly targeting persons (yes, including American citizens — especially American citizens) suspected of “connections with terrorists”. Mind you, among those targeted were the ACLU, a vegan group, and Americans involved in anti-war protests — Americans exercising their freedom to disagree with the government.
Sounds a little like Nixon to me.
We all remember Nixon, right? Well, those of us who are too young to have followed it closely at the time got a full helping of it in American History classes anyway. One of the things Nixon got in trouble for was abusing his Presidential power by authorizing the illegal wiretapping of Americans. He used wiretaps on all sorts of groups, people, politicians…anyone who didn’t agree with him…
Since 1979, 19,000 requests for eavesdropping the Federal Intelligence Security Court has received from the Executive Branch since 1979, only five have ever been refused.[“A TIME TO IMPEACH”] While President Bush claimed that his authorization of wiretaps without warants was necessary because action has to be taken quickly against the “terrorists”, reportedly, the secret FISA court can grant approval for wiretaps “within hours”.
If that’s the case, then why wouldn’t our President want to do everything by the book? If FISA’s court has a tradition of handing out warants at the drop of the hat, why wouldn’t he want those wiretap on some sort of official and legal record? Why wouldn’t our President want anyone backing him up officially?
Obviously, if he’s trying to circumvent the law, he must have something to hide, right? I mean, it just seems so suspicious…and he seems awfully defensive of the whole thing. Why did he choose the NSA for this task rather than the FBI if it was all legal and proper? Who didn’t he want to know and why? If it were all on the up-and-up, why is he worried?
tags: politics, George W. Bush, warrantless wiretapping, NSA, spying on Americans, FBI, Russ Feingold, FISA, ACLU, CIA, Conspiracy Theories
You may also enjoy...
3 comments
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
on December 21, 2005 at 9:38 am
Andy said:
Well - everyone loves a good conspiracy theory but don’t you think in this case that it’s mainly good, old-fashioned arrogance. Cheney, Rummy and Bush have passed the last 5 years cocooned in a world where they see themselves as godlike - where nothing can harm them - where votes no longer matter because congress is Republican so - we can do what the hell we want and y’all can’t stop us! At least - that is what it looks like from this side of the Atlantic.
The reality is of course, as Nixon found out to his cost - there is a line. It might move depending which party has power but it is there all the same. And when you cross it, even your friends and hangers-on start to disappear into the night to protect their own backsides. Seems to me the cracks are starting to appear but the arrogance is still in place!
Good to see you back by the way.
on December 26, 2005 at 7:46 pm
Big Dog said:
I have yet to see where anyone was spied on illegally. I think all the surveillance took place within the law as spelled out in 50 USC.
The surveillance was on calls to foreign countries and from people who were already suspects. While the NSA will not comment, indications are that if they determined that both ends of the communication were in the US then a warrant was obtained or they stopped the surveillance.
I am amazed that people find this to be a big deal when every President since Carter has been doing this very thing.
I would have more respect for people if they were as upset that there was a leak of classified information. You know, like the supposed leak about Plame’s supposed covert status. The legality of the issue can be argued in court without it being made public. When the person or persons revealed the program, they broke the law, regardless of what people feel about the legality (two different issues). If the leakers had a problem they know the proper channels. Suppose this all gets investigated and is deemed legal, too late, the enemy now knows….
on December 26, 2005 at 7:48 pm
Big Dog said:
“The president does not get to pick and choose which laws he wants to follow.”
– Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat [1]
Unless he is a Democratis President. Of course, all Congresspersons get to pick and choose. Schumer and the illegal credit reports, Kennedy and the false police reports, Kerry and the protests while a memeber of the armed forces, Kerry while meeting with the enemy.
It all usually depends upon whose ox is being gored…