NYT: Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say

New York Times ^ | December 15, 2005 | JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAUD

[Salvation]

All's fair in ?? and war!

[Prost1]

"seems to me that the only thing they are doing is eavesdropping on email and phones that originate from the US to an overseas location or vice versa - it is like a virtual wiretap on the overseas number without tipping off the locals"

I agree. And note, a certain Congressman broadcast taped private recordings of another Congressman, but was not imprisoned. That was OK to the demoncrats.

This is directed at enemies, domestic and foreign. Sounds a lot like the Oath of Office to me!

[Mo1]

"Another freaking leak.."


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1541408/posts?page=39#39

A Rockefeller staffer??

The Dems have been trying to kill the Patriot Act Bill all week
39 posted on 12/15/2005 6:46:29 PM PST by Mo1

[handy]

Goota counter the good news in Iraq don't ya know.

[Jeff Chandler]

Oh, no. Wait until John McCain hears about this!!!!!!

[jimbo123]

Thank you President Bush for keeping our country safe from the bloodsthirsty muzzies and their democrat allies.

[conservative in nyc]

Well, the NYT claims they have been sitting on the story for over a year.

In their zeal to blame the CIA, most FReepers seem to forget that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee get a lot of information about intelligence matters in closed-door briefings, and that the New York Times has conveniently been reporting "bombshell" news about intelligence matters the day after these closed-door meetings. The Democrats opposed to renewal of the Patriot Act have a huge ax to grind right now.

Oh - also buried in the article was this gem:

Under the agency's longstanding rules, the N.S.A. can target for interception phone calls or e-mail messages on foreign soil, even if the recipients of those communications are in the United States. Usually, though, the government can only target phones and e-mail messages in this country by first obtaining a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which holds its closed sessions at the Justice Department.

Sounds like much ado about nothing.

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

"According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters."

So, it wasn't the secret courts that were the problem, it was that the Bush administration wasn't appearing in front of the secret judges to discuss the legality of their secret operations.

This is supposed to be a government of the people and for the people?

[Blzbba]

Yeah,who cares about 'constitutional limits', anyways? That damn piece of paper just gets in the way of fightin' terror!

[Mo1]

The Dems are trying to make it sound like they can just do it without a court order ..

IMO .. These leaks are from the Senate Intel Committee

Don't forget .. Rockefeller is under an investigation


Report: Justice Department Probing Durbin, Rockefeller CIA Leak

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1449050/posts

[billbears]

These fifth columnists need to be hung for their "concerns" that out weigh national security.

You'd just trash the whole Constitution if a Republican hack told you to wouldn't you? I have grave concerns about such a power. Oh, but Republicans are in control and those idiots know best for us right? Much better than the idiots in the other facet of the one party system.

When will the party faithful get it through their thick skulls that no politician has our best interests in mind? Their only concern is to centralize as much power under their control and then stay in power to use it

[af_vet_rr]

Yeah,who cares about 'constitutional limits', anyways? That damn piece of paper just gets in the way of fightin' terror!

Amen, don't know why we even bother with the thing anymore - democrats never cared about it, why should we (we just need to be careful and not mention it to our troops - some of them are touchy and really do believe in the Constitution).

Our joint sarcasm aside (although I wouldn't be surprised if some here really don't care about the Constitution), people would be freaking out if this was happening under Clinton's term.

[goresalooza]

The Slimes obviously wants its brave, heroic terrorist patriots to stay hidden so they can kill as many of us as they can.

I don't buy a word of anything the Slimes prints, anyway. This is just another useless propaganda piece from the hate-America crowd.

[goresalooza]

Clinton covered up Able Danger and the Pentagon is STILL hoping to keep it covered up! Good grief...who's side are the rats on?

President Bush has the cojones to fight these thugs, any way we can....Bush deserves a huge HUG from me on this one!

[ballplayer]

Funny I dont see the NYT article about the blocking of the Barrett report release by Clinton cronies for 5 years to prevent the American people from seeing the corrupt use of the IRS and the Justice dept .Do you think the American people would like to know their president went after private citizens with intimidation tactics using these agencies? I guess the NYT times does not think so

[gaspar]

This is crazytalk. The NSA has intercepted untold thousands of international telephone calls from the USA throughout its long history. It was not possible, however, to read transcripts unless approved by a committee designed to protect the caller; likewise, if the call was considered essential to the maintenance of security of the United States it could be viewed by intelligence analysts in agencies outside the NSA.

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

Has Bush done anything to expose the Able Danger cover up?

If not, then he's a co-conspirator in my mind.

[Fawn]

Condi says he didn't break the law. Period.

[jpl]

These Islamist sleepers in our country are "Americans" like my dog is.

Keep up the surveillance, Mr. President. Believe me, most of us are thankful we haven't been attacked again.

[nwrep]

Good for Bush!! I think the Dems will say this is an impeachable offense.