PDA

View Full Version : President Bush Denies the U.S. Government Listens to Domestic Phone Calls.


greg63
05-16-2006, 12:02 PM
Sorry if this is a repost.

President Bush Denies the U.S. Government Listens to Domestic Phone Calls Without Warrants http://southeastkansas.cox.net/cci/portal/images/enlarge.gif (javascript:photoPopup('D8HL0BBO3'))http://southeastkansas.cox.net/cci/apimages/ap-image-9e9715f1-554b-4f94-9f39-0467d8539225.jpg (javascript:photoPopup('D8HL0BBO3'))President Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard take part in a joint press availability Tuesday, May 16, 2006, in the East Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)05-16-2006 12:01 PM
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON -- President Bush insisted Tuesday that the United States does not listen in on domestic telephone conversations among ordinary Americans. But he declined to specifically discuss the government's alleged compiling of phone records, or whether it would amount to an invasion of privacy.
"We do not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval," Bush said in an East Room news conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard.
"What I've told the American people is we'll protect them against an al-Qaida attack. And we'll do that within the law," Bush said.
The president's new press secretary, Tony Snow, later insisted that Bush's comments did not amount to a confirmation of published reports that the NSA's surveillance was broader than initially acknowledged and that it included secretly collecting millions of phone-call records.
Bush said, "This government will continue to guard the privacy of the American people. But if al-Qaida is calling into the United States, we want to know, and we want to know why."
However, he did not respond directly when asked whether it was a violation of privacy for the National Security Agency to seek phone records from telephone companies.
A Senate confirmation hearing is scheduled for Thursday on Bush's nomination of Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to head the Central Intelligence Agency. As the NSA director from 1999-2005, Hayden oversaw the government's warrantless surveillance program.
Questions about that program, and new revelations about the NSA's phone data bank, may be obstacles to Hayden's confirmation.
Bush did appear to acknowledge the NSA sweep of phone records indirectly, saying that the program referred to by a reporter in a question "is one that has been fully briefed to members of the United States Congress in both political parties."
"They're very aware of what is taking place. The American people expect their government to protect them within the laws of this country and I'm going to continue to do just that," he said.
However, Snow, in his first on-camera briefing as press secretary, later denied that Bush was confirming a story about collecting domestic phone records that was first reported last week in USA Today.
"He was talking about foreign-to-domestic calls," Snow said. "The allegations in the USA Today piece were of a different nature."
"There seems to be a notion that because the president has talked a little bit about one surveillance program, and one matter of intelligence gathering, that somehow we have to tell the entire world _ we have to make intelligence-gathering transparent," Snow said. "Let me remind you, it's a war on terror. ... Al Qaida does not believe in transparency. What al Qaida believes in is mayhem."
To coincide with Hayden's hearings, Americans United For Change is running an ad denouncing the administration's condemnation of leaks.
Democrats have said the White House has a double standard, criticizing leaks on its national security programs while approving leaks on political adversaries to defend the case for the Iraq war. The disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's name has cited as the epitome of that policy.
The ad will quote the first President Bush expressing "contempt and anger" in 1999 for those who expose the names of U.S. sources. Spokesman Brad Woodhouse said his organization is spending just over $100,000 on CNN, Fox and the Fox affiliate in Waco, Texas.
On another subject, Bush defended his day-old initiative that aims to place up to 6,000 National Guard troops along the country's southern border to help enforce immigration laws.
The deployment "really is not going to put a strain on our capacity to fight and win the war on terror," Bush said. Critics have suggested that National Guard troops, who would carry out this mission, already are stretched thin with assignments in Iraq and Afghanistan and in coping with natural disasters at home, including Hurricane Katrina.
He thanked visiting Australian Prime Minister John Howard for standing firm on keeping Australian troops in Iraq.
For his part, Howard said that the "war on terror will go on for some time. I think we have to accept that."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

sedated
05-16-2006, 12:08 PM
mm-hmm

and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction...

jAZ
05-16-2006, 12:56 PM
No one is affirmatively asserting the thing he is denying. The heart of the issue is the subject he refused to comment on.

Translation: nothing to see here.

patteeu
05-16-2006, 01:27 PM
No one is affirmatively asserting the thing he is denying. The heart of the issue is the subject he refused to comment on.

Translation: nothing to see here.

Yes they are. They have no basis for doing so, but people have been conflating the NSA eavesdropping program involving only international calls with the recent claims that the NSA is collecting data on domestic calls and jumped to the conclusion, denied by the President, that the NSA is eavesdropping on domestic calls.

Taco John
05-16-2006, 01:38 PM
It's too bad that this administration lacks the credibility to say anthing that the American public can be confident in... They've really done a number on themselves.

Baby Lee
05-16-2006, 01:49 PM
I've heard numerous detractors say they have no problem with the intellgience gathering. Their beef is the lack of oversight. But where the rubber meets the road in the thwarting of acts and plots impinging on national security, where do people want the final word to lie? An appointed judge, or the elected commander in chief?
Oversight, it seems to me, envisions the executive branch, through intel, having information on a bomb, or cache of weapons, or nuke, in a major metropolitan area. Who gets final say on the effort to counterdict? Are we sufficiently secure in our judiciary to have a judge say 'your intel is too sketchy, do not enter those premises?'

BucEyedPea
05-16-2006, 02:01 PM
I've heard numerous detractors say they have no problem with the intellgience gathering. Their beef is the lack of oversight. But where the rubber meets the road in the thwarting of acts and plots impinging on national security, where do people want the final word to lie? An appointed judge, or the elected commander in chief?
Oversight, it seems to me, envisions the executive branch, through intel, having information on a bomb, or cache of weapons, or nuke, in a major metropolitan area. Who gets final say on the effort to counterdict? Are we sufficiently secure in our judiciary to have a judge say 'your intel is too sketchy, do not enter those premises?'

Good point. Never thought of that.
Perhaps it's because I prefer being legally at war...in which case it would be better for a Chief Exec to conduct...but fixed it.

EDIT: Oops! I said the opposite of what I meant.

unlurking
05-16-2006, 02:42 PM
I've heard numerous detractors say they have no problem with the intellgience gathering. Their beef is the lack of oversight. But where the rubber meets the road in the thwarting of acts and plots impinging on national security, where do people want the final word to lie? An appointed judge, or the elected commander in chief?
Oversight, it seems to me, envisions the executive branch, through intel, having information on a bomb, or cache of weapons, or nuke, in a major metropolitan area. Who gets final say on the effort to counterdict? Are we sufficiently secure in our judiciary to have a judge say 'your intel is too sketchy, do not enter those premises?'
There is already a process for perform the wiretaps, and belatedly filing the request within 72 hours. With that provision, I don't think you can logically argue that judicial oversight is a bad thing, as the executive branch gets what it wants (72+ hours of immediate monitoring as needed), and the oversight gets what it should have (documentation of all uses of technology that invades an individuals right to privacy).

Baby Lee
05-16-2006, 03:10 PM
There is already a process for perform the wiretaps, and belatedly filing the request within 72 hours. With that provision, I don't think you can logically argue that judicial oversight is a bad thing, as the executive branch gets what it wants (72+ hours of immediate monitoring as needed), and the oversight gets what it should have (documentation of all uses of technology that invades an individuals right to privacy).
We've went over this.
When the NSA taps a conversation with a domestic and international component, all identifying information about the domestic component is redacted [the domestic side of the conversation AND the domestic telephone number] unless a warrant for the domestic side is already in place. But since so many of the domestic origins are payphones and burners cells, that information is unobtainable beforehand, and useless after the fact.
And it still doesn't answer the question of who has final say.
What you seem to be envisioning for the FISA court is a repository of documentation. That's different than oversight. If you want a repository, lobby for one.

PunkinDrublic
05-16-2006, 03:34 PM
I hope I never piss off anyone at the NSA. God only knows how many hours of phone sex conversation they've got of me to blackmail me with.

Ugly Duck
05-16-2006, 04:36 PM
President Bush Denies the U.S. Government Listens to Domestic Phone Calls Without Warrants What ever the neocon cabal tells him to read, believe just the opposite.

PunkinDrublic
05-16-2006, 04:52 PM
What ever the neocon cabal tells him to read, believe just the opposite.

Notice the neocons can't play the 9/11 card as effectively as they used to. A couple of years ago they could get people to people duct tape plastic over their windows, today almost everybody is second guessing their decisions. Talk about having no credability.

banyon
05-16-2006, 05:16 PM
I've heard numerous detractors say they have no problem with the intellgience gathering. Their beef is the lack of oversight. But where the rubber meets the road in the thwarting of acts and plots impinging on national security, where do people want the final word to lie? An appointed judge, or the elected commander in chief?
Oversight, it seems to me, envisions the executive branch, through intel, having information on a bomb, or cache of weapons, or nuke, in a major metropolitan area. Who gets final say on the effort to counterdict? Are we sufficiently secure in our judiciary to have a judge say 'your intel is too sketchy, do not enter those premises?'

I know we've been over this before. I think you had to remind me of this argument at least once.

Do you have any links for where an Administration official has made this argument? IIRC last time you referred me to a relatively obscure Pentagon memo, which indeed stated what you are saying.

But, I can't figure why this argument wouldn't have been made more vociferously by the Administration. It makes at least an iota of sense, which their "time limit" argument that got all of the coverage did not (since the warrants can be acquired retroactively).

the Talking Can
05-16-2006, 06:45 PM
is this threat level orange?

I forget...

Ugly Duck
05-16-2006, 10:58 PM
Notice the neocons can't play the 9/11 card as effectively as they used to. A couple of years ago they could get people to people duct tape plastic over their windows, today almost everybody is second guessing their decisions. Talk about having no credability.The neocons are finished. Kaput. Barring a few on this BB and a couple of stragglers, people just don't believe them any more. The most the neocons can hope for now is another war. Otherwise, their best hope is to get Pat Robertson to pray that the Dems don't get a majority in the congressionals so they can stay out of jail.