Decision ‘08

The President On The Patriot Act and NSA Eavesdropping

I’m quoting President Bush’s weekly radio address in its entirety, because I think it’s a subject of vital importance. I understand the concerns of civil libertarians, and I share them, but it is a cartoonish picture being painted by some administration opponents of a cowboy president running wild over our nation’s liberties. For that reason, I call your attention especially to the part of the President’s address where he says our national security has been threatened by the Times‘ revelation of the program, as well as the section where he lays out the review process with both Congress and legal authorities:

Good morning.

As President, I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and I have no greater responsibility than to protect our people, our freedom, and our way of life. On September the 11th, 2001, our freedom and way of life came under attack by brutal enemies who killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. We’re fighting these enemies across the world. Yet in this first war of the 21st century, one of the most critical battlefronts is the home front. And since September the 11th, we’ve been on the offensive against the terrorists plotting within our borders.

One of the first actions we took to protect America after our nation was attacked was to ask Congress to pass the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act tore down the legal and bureaucratic wall that kept law enforcement and intelligence authorities from sharing vital information about terrorist threats. And the Patriot Act allowed federal investigators to pursue terrorists with tools they already used against other criminals. Congress passed this law with a large, bipartisan majority, including a vote of 98-1 in the United States Senate.

Since then, America’s law enforcement personnel have used this critical law to prosecute terrorist operatives and supporters, and to break up terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia, California, Texas and Ohio. The Patriot Act has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do: it has protected American liberty and saved American lives.

Yet key provisions of this law are set to expire in two weeks. The terrorist threat to our country will not expire in two weeks. The terrorists want to attack America again, and inflict even greater damage than they did on September the 11th. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that law enforcement and intelligence officials have the tools they need to protect the American people.

The House of Representatives passed reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Yet a minority of senators filibustered to block the renewal of the Patriot Act when it came up for a vote yesterday. That decision is irresponsible, and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics, and the Senate must vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act. In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment.

To fight the war on terror, I am using authority vested in me by Congress, including the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force, which passed overwhelmingly in the first week after September the 11th. I’m also using constitutional authority vested in me as Commander-in-Chief.

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation’s inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn’t know they were here, until it was too late.

The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation’s top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.

The NSA’s activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA’s top legal officials, including NSA’s general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.

This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I’m the President of the United States.

Thank you.

14 Responses to “The President On The Patriot Act and NSA Eavesdropping”

1 AcademicElephant Says:
December 17th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
And did you see what my favorite jackass had to say about this?

Senator Arlen Specter said the Judiciary Committee he chairs will investigate a report that President George W. Bush authorized spying on American citizens and foreign nationals in the U.S. following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

“That’s wrong, clearly and categorically wrong,” Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said today on the Senate floor. “This will be a matter for oversight by the Judiciary committee as soon as we can get to it in the new year — a very, very high priority item.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aJFRC0JDD0lY

Is that before or after the TO case?
2 Joe Says:
December 17th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
..but it is a cartoonish picture being painted by some administration opponents of a cowboy president running wild over our nation’s liberties.

Well, personally authorizing the NSA to spy on Americans is pretty bad. Especially when it would not have been difficult, if there was reasonable indication that this was a potential terrorist, to get proper authorization.

It’s just another case of the Bush Administration believing the war on terror trumps everything else, including our constitution. Now we need to know who Bush informed in Congress, who were the targets of the surveillance, and why Bush felt he couldn’t obtain a proper court order for the spying. That Bush personally went on the attack is a good sign that this could get very embarrassing, very fast.

By the way, this topics fits in nicely with your previous post on the Patriot Act. It seems that Rudy shouldn’t be so worried. If history is a guide, the Bush Administration will just do what it wants, anyway.
3 dmac Says:
December 17th, 2005 at 6:48 pm
For the last time, Joe, the President acted within the constitution, and was well within the parameters of THE LAW.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601716.html?nav=rss_politics

Try to do some basic research before you bloviate again about the evil Bushie and the imminent threats to our well - being.
4 The Right Nation Says:
December 17th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
The Real Scandal

President Bush delivered a very tough radio address responding to the controversy over the New York Times report on National Security Agency surveillance. The gist, according to Byron York at National Review’s The Corner: the surveillance program is …
5 Ryan Bonneville Says:
December 18th, 2005 at 2:25 am
dmac: You seem awfully sure about what is essentially still an open question. No one is exactly certain whether what Bush has done is constitutional. HE claims it is, but then again of course he does. I tend to think it probably isn’t, but I’m not the one who is supposed to decide that. Either way, it’s pretty terrifying and completely unsurprising from this administration.
6 Joe Says:
December 18th, 2005 at 4:10 am
Hello dmac. You wrote: Try to do some basic research before you bloviate again about the evil Bushie and the imminent threats to our well - being.

What are you talking about? I read your link, and nowhere in the article does Bush or his Administration try to defend this based on the constitution. They just do what all governments the world over do when caught acting illegally: claim it was for our own good.

It is incredible how Bush believes the law no longer applies to him as he prosecutes the war on terror. It’s as if 9/11 rendered out constitution meaningless. Laws and international treaties are just “recommendations.” In the end, Bush knows best. We’ll just have to trust him! Just like you, dmac, would trust a president Dean or Clinton. Right?

We need to know asap who knew about this in Congress, who were the targets of this illegal spying, and why the Bush Administration decided not to obtain proper warrants. And by the way, they have 72 hours to obtain the warrant, and they don’t need to wait until the warrant is issued before beginning their surveillance. And few are ever refused. So what is going on here??? Very, very strange.
7 Clint Says:
December 18th, 2005 at 7:58 am
AE-

Gak. I thought the Judiciary Committee was busy for all of January with another issue — one that actually relates to the Judiciary.
8 Clint Says:
December 18th, 2005 at 7:59 am
Joe-

Give us a hint. Cite a law, any law, that you believe was violated here.
9 Joe Says:
December 18th, 2005 at 10:06 am
Clint: There are federal statutes that require a warrant before any federal authority can spy on an American citizen inside the US. Bush is arguing that these statutes do not apply to him in a time of war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=3
Some officials familiar with it say they consider warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States to be unlawful and possibly unconstitutional, amounting to an improper search. One government official involved in the operation said he privately complained to a Congressional official about his doubts about the program’s legality. But nothing came of his inquiry. “People just looked the other way because they didn’t want to know what was going on,” he said.
10 Ryan Bonneville Says:
December 18th, 2005 at 11:12 am
It’s absolutely amazing to me to watch conservatives try to defend this. These are the same people who refuse to believe that people have a right to privacy because it isn’t EXPLICITLY stated in the Constitution, but they’re more than comfortable with the idea that the executive branch can initiate a program to spy on U.S. citizens, subjecting that program to approval only from the AG and the White House Counsel - both of whom are in the executive branch! Exactly where does my Constitution authorize THAT?

Of course, there is that clause that says Republican presidents can do whatever they want as long as they make a point of periodically giving national addresses about the imminent danger posed by homosexuals to the fabric of society. Joe’s right, though: if Clinton were doing this, you guys would be through the roof.
11 D L Ennis Says:
December 18th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
I believe it to be justified. It’s not a matter of whether or not a warrant could be obtained it is a matter of the lag time between seeking the warrant and receiving it that makes the difference. What are you people who oppose this approach talking about on the phone or emailing that is so secretive. If nothing and you have a SS# they already know all they need to know about you…that is if you are so important that they care about what you are doing.

I worry about the erosion of our freedoms too but we live in a world where most others in the world would dance at our funerals and the powers that be have the responsibility to protect our country…and I think that should be done by any means necessary. We owe it to our children!

D L
12 Mark Says:
December 18th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
Ryan, I’m certainly not trying to get out front saying this is the greatest thing since sliced bread - oh, boy, the government’s spying on me! Of course, it’s not spying on me, and it’s not spying on you, it’s spying on people with ties to terrorists.

Still, I understand the concerns, on both sides…
13 Clint Says:
December 18th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Joe-

The article you cite explains the legalities quite nicely:

The agency, for example, can target phone calls from someone in New York to someone in Afghanistan.

Warrants are still required for eavesdropping on entirely domestic-to-domestic communications, those officials say, meaning that calls from that New Yorker to someone in California could not be monitored without first going to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court.

There’s no law that says when you’re (legally) tapping a phone in Pakistan, you have to stop listening if it’s used to talk to someone in the U.S. if you don’t like the law — work to get it changed.

For historical reasons, the legality of the tap goes with the location of the phones — and if the Feds could legally tap one of the phones (say, because it’s in Pakistan) that’s enough to make the call fair game. Or at least that’s how I understand it.

The law is built of such technicalities.

Some anonymous sources with concerns, and one (with unspecified legal credentials) who passed his concerns on to the appropraite legislative leadership are evidence of the system working exactly as it is supposed to, not of some nefarious plot. That legislators (in consultation with their legal advisors) found no problem is a good sign.

Of course, some of this could be wrong — legal experts will be discussing this at length over the next week or two, thanks to the NYT. We’ll all know more soon.
14 Joe Says:
December 18th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
I believe it to be justified. It’s not a matter of whether or not a warrant could be obtained it is a matter of the lag time between seeking the warrant and receiving it that makes the difference.

I don’t think this is a factor. I read that the government has 72 hours to obtain the warrant through a secret court, and during that time they can continue monitoring. So what’s the problem?

And that’s what I don’t understand. The Bush Administration already has wide powers to spy on Americans when justified. They just need approval from a secret court, which apparently almost always approves. So why the need to go around that minimal oversight?

If Republicans cannot agree on the right to privacy - keeping the government off our backs without basic constitutional protection - what does it mean to be a Republican, anymore? Intrusive government is now OK, so long as a Republican president is doing the intruding?

I realize that some rights have to be restricted to provide better safety. But allowing the Executive Branch to spy on Americans with no judicial oversight??? That’s a recipe for disaster.