Bush reportedly OK'd NSA spying on Americans

  1. NEW YORK - A key Republican committee chairman put the Bush administration on notice Friday that his panel would hold hearings into a report that the National Security Agency eavesdropped without warrants on people inside the United States.

    Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he would make oversight hearings by his panel next year "a very, very high priority."

    "There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

    Other key bipartisan members of Congress also called on the administration to explain and said a congressional investigation may be necessary.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/
    •  
  2. 119 Comments

  3. by   Turd.Ferguson
    And this concerns you that "President Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds-perhaps thousands-of people inside the United States"?

    How are we supposed to catch the terrorists if we can't listen in? Or is it, once again, suspected terrorists have rights, too?

    This anti-americanism really needs to stop. Besides, we conservatives have the better-looking females.

    http://sixmeatbuffet.com/images/theirsoursbig.jpg
  4. by   VeryPlainJane
    Quote from Turd.Ferguson
    And this concerns you that "President Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds-perhaps thousands-of people inside the United States"?

    How are we supposed to catch the terrorists if we can't listen in? Or is it, once again, suspected terrorists have rights, too?

    This anti-americanism really needs to stop. Besides, we conservatives have the better-looking females.

    http://sixmeatbuffet.com/images/theirsoursbig.jpg
    What kind of comment is that...your "females" look better? So conservatives only value a woman by how she looks? What about getting a warrant? Is that anti American?
  5. by   SmilingBluEyes
    ANYthing in the name of safety eh.
  6. by   Katnip
    Nothing justifies breaking the law. This is a man who took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Just because he's president does not make him above the laws of this land.

    If they had probable cause, then by all means, get the warrents and spy to their hearts content. But to do so "just because I said so" is wrong. Ever hear of the slippery slope?

    If this proves to be true, how can you trust that it was only suspected terrorists that they were listening in on? Ever hear of Watergate?

    How can we possibly trust someone who so freely breaks the laws of this nation?
  7. by   SmilingBluEyes
    Yea we have been on that slope a LONG time now.
  8. by   Katnip
    It seems to me someone slept through American Government 101 and missed the part of checks and balances and the fact that the president is not the sole holder of power in this country.
  9. by   Turd.Ferguson
    Nothing justifies breaking the law. This is a man who took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Just because he's president does not make him above the laws of this land.

    If they had probable cause, then by all means, get the warrents and spy to their hearts content. But to do so "just because I said so" is wrong. Ever hear of the slippery slope?

    If this proves to be true, how can you trust that it was only suspected terrorists that they were listening in on? Ever hear of Watergate?

    How can we possibly trust someone who so freely breaks the laws of this nation?
    If you took the time to study, you would find that the President did nothing wrong. An excellent internet post on this comes from: http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_...ive.asp#084896

    Or, if you want to read it yourself, check http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html


    It seems to me someone slept through American Government 101...
    Apology accepted.
  10. by   Katnip
    And you know for a fact that the communications were all overseas? You don't think it's possible or even likely that those communications that were monitored took place between parties solely within the U.S.?

    Granted, there's nothing to say that they weren't but I'd say that the odds are pretty slim that ALL of the communication took place with a party outside the U.S.

    Sorry, but I have a hard time trusting someone who states the Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper and that things have to be done his way because he's Commander in Chief.

    And that was not an apology.
  11. by   VeryPlainJane
    Quote from Turd.Ferguson
    If you took the time to study, you would find that the President did nothing wrong. An excellent internet post on this comes from: http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_...ive.asp#084896

    Or, if you want to read it yourself, check http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html




    Apology accepted.
    1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

    thats why the congress is upset the attorney general or bush DID NOT report to any congressional committee.

    Thanks for pointing out the law that bush broke.
  12. by   Turd.Ferguson
    Quote from VeryPlainJane
    ... thats why the congress is upset the attorney general or bush DID NOT report to any congressional committee.

    Thanks for pointing out the law that bush broke.
    Dang, you folks appear to be angry.

    From the beloved New York Times article: "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."

    Also, in the same article, After the special program started, Congressional leaders from both political parties were brought to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in the White House. The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency's director and is now the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said.
  13. by   VeryPlainJane
    Quote from Turd.Ferguson
    Dang, you folks appear to be angry.

    From the beloved New York Times article: "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."

    Also, in the same article, After the special program started, Congressional leaders from both political parties were brought to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in the White House. The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency's director and is now the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said.
    do you have a link to that article?
  14. by   Kelly_the_Great
    So who's considered to be a "suspected" terrorist? From what I've seen in the patriot act, the definition is pretty broad and very inclusive in relation to what they consider an enemy combatant to be and what criteria one must meet prior to be so designated.

    Just out of curiosity, Turd, would you have trusted Clinton with these powers?

    Also, I don't see the need in expanding surveillance abilities, etc. for our safety when we could have deported at least 15 of the 19 hijackers for immigration violations alone. If we can not enforce already existing laws why create more?

    And b4 I get labeled "just another bleeding heart liberal," I am very much a conservative independent (prior voted sr8 rep many x, bush for gov. & pres 1st x - NOT ANYMORE). I just don't understand how republicans can continue to say "Bush is my hero b/c he's upholding my conservative values." Creating more laws? C'mon . We all know what that's about - creating more jobs for ppl to be on the govt. dole!

    Not to mention the lack of immigration enforcement w/ our southern border and the out of control spending. :angryfire

close