Bush allowed spying on Americans in US after 9/11
Presidential order authorized NSA to eavesdrop without court warrants.
A few months after 9/11, President Bush authorized the
National Security Agency (NSA) to
eavesdrop on Americans and others in the US without having to obtain the court warrants normally required in these situations, according to government officials.
The New York Times reports that as a result, the NSA has monitored the international phone calls and e-mails of "hundreds, perhaps thousands" of people living in the United States.
Before Sept. 11, 2001, the NSA limited its spying in the US to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations. Officials say the government still seeks warrants for entirely domestic surveillance.
The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.
"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches."
The Times also reported the White House asked it
not to publish the article, "arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny." As a result, the paper delayed publishing the article for a year, and omitted some information that the administration said would be useful for terrorists.
The
Washington Post reports that the aim of the program was to
quickly monitor the phone calls and e-mails of people in the United States believed to have contacts with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups overseas.
Authorities, including a former NSA director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, were worried that vital information could be lost in the time it took to secure a warrant from a special surveillance court, sources said.
The
Associated Press reports that government officials credit the program with
several successes inside the US.
Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.
But some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.
The
Post also reports that the White House had no comment about the program. Congressional sources told the paper that it was clear that there were serious questions about the legality of the NSA actions, but that the actual work of the agency is so closely guarded, it's hard to tell if it is acting within the law. But Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies at George Washington University, said the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity.
"This is as shocking a revelation as we have ever seen from the Bush administration," said Martin, who has been sharply critical of the administration's surveillance and detention policies. "It is, I believe, the first time a president has authorized government agencies to violate a specific criminal prohibition and eavesdrop on Americans." But supporters of the president, such as the
RedState.org blog, argue that the
president's actions make sense, regardless of their legality.
"Damned if you do, and damned if you don't" seems to fit this situation well. Intelligence agencies, the CIA in particular, have come under fire post 9/11 for not being able to prevent the most devastating attack on US soil. But at the same time, an intelligence agency takes action, which as far as I can tell adheres to US law, albeit very closely, to protect US citizens from terrorism and it is painted as a violator of civil liberties. Does this make any sense?
Much like the debate over coercive interrogation, this report is sure to raise the fundamental question of how far the US government is allowed to go to protect our way of life. And should the Bush administration really be demonized for doing what it deemed necessary after 9/11 to protect the American people?
Meanwhile, the
Los Angeles Times reports that opponents of the Patriot Act in the US Senate
gained momentum Thursday, and may have enough votes to block Republican leadership attempts to prevent a filibuster. The opponents gained momentum when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California, a defender of the original Patriot Act, said she would support a filibuster. The group of Democrat and Republican senators want some of the act's provision's changed to better protect civil liberties.
Sixty votes would be needed in the 100-member chamber to end debate and move to passage of the legislation. The arithmetic could pose a problem: Republicans hold 55 seats, but four are committed to opposing the legislation; even absent further defections, supporters would have to win over nine Democrats.
Senate Republicans were developing a backup plan in case the filibuster threat succeeded, such as a short-term extension of the law in its original form. Others speculated that the leadership might pull the bill at the last minute to avoid an embarrassing denouement.
Conservative Republicans opposed to the bill say the White House miscalculated by not taking their concerns more seriously. "I think the president has not been especially well-served by those who took on the responsibility of crafting this extension," said New Hampshire Sen. John E. Sununu. He said the administration's judgment that the bill would pass easily is another example of its "lack of engagement."
Bloomberg News reports that Arizona Senate Jon Kyl (R) said the Patriot Act "
will prevent future acts of terrorism unless we allow it to expire." Those who support a filibuster "will have to answer for" future attacks.
Patriot Act Update
Reuters reports that the group of senators opposed to the extension of the Patriot Act defied President Bush on Friday by
blocking renewal of the USA Patriot Act, a centerpiece of his war on terrorism. A move to block a filibuster by Democrats fell eight votes short, with several Republicans joining Democrats to stop the act's renewal.
CNN reports that the Senate also
rejected a provision that would have extended the act by 90 days, in order to discuss more protections for civil liberties. The move lays the groundwork for "a high-stakes showdown."
Bush has said he would veto a three-month extension, arguing it would be inadequate. But without an extension, 16 provisions could expire at the end of the year. There's also the possibility the Senate could still manage to bring the Patriot Act to a vote before the December 31 deadline.
CNN also reports that
The New York Times story about the President's decision to authorize the NSA to spy on some Americans, in possible violation of US law, played a major role in blocking the renewal effort. The report was "very, very (problematic), if not devastating" to the renewal effort, according to Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, who helped negotiate a compromise with House leaders on extending the provisions.
Also...
•
Trial of Turkish author Pamuk adjourned, EU watches (
Reuters)
•
Iran leader's remarks may mar nuclear talks (
Chicago Tribune)
•
Dramatic split in Fatah blamed on Arafat's 'follied' PA leadership (
Independent)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Tom Regan
.
|
RSS feed